Content area
A structural/cross-sectional micro-analytic perspective prevails in the Socio-constructivist research of peer knowledge construction. This paper proposes an alternative micro-sequential approach that focuses on the transitions between events during the activity. From this micro-sequential perspective, the study aimed to (a) explore the socio-cognitive interaction of symmetrical dyads of sixth and seventh graders solving a table comprehension task; (b) compare this interaction between symmetrical dyads of basic and advanced levels of competence. Participants were 148 sixth and seventh graders (74 dyads) from public schools in Rosario and nearby areas (Argentina). The dyads were symmetrical because their integrants had similar specific levels of competence (comprehension of a frequencies table) but differed in basic and advanced compositions. The interaction was coded using a system of mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. An analysis of transition probabilities was performed among all codes, to identify activated/inhibited and inter-subjective/intra-subjective sequences. Transitions between statements aimed at solving the task formed the core of interactivity, as they comprise the codes that play a greater role in the elaboration of the task (shared by both symmetrical conditions). However, only the basic symmetry dyads showed an activating effect of the social feedback units. Transitions between cognitive questions and statements were also registered. Opinion questions were the most activated (inter-subjective) compared to demonstration and evaluation questions. Although these transitions were inter-subjective, they also differed according to the condition of symmetry. The work allows drawing conclusions about the relevance of a micro-sequential approach to interaction, since these results could not have been constructed from a classical structural perspective.
Introduction
The experimental investigation of the relationship between social interaction and knowledge construction has lasted for several decades. An important starting point was the integration of both Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives proposed by the Geneva School of Social Psychology (Doise & Mugny, 1991). In the early years, research focused exclusively on the cognitive outcomes of the interaction (Doise & Mugny, 1984). Over time, the analysis of the characteristics of interaction as a central aspect of understanding cognitive development and learning construction became necessary (Psaltis et al., 2009). This legitimized the theoretical interest in the analysis of socio-cognitive interaction, which has been considered in numerous contexts (Castellaro & Peralta, 2020).
Besides the various scenarios in which socio-cognitive interaction has been analyzed, a recurrent micro-analytic pattern can be identified. This perspective, which can be termed structural or transversal, focuses on assessing the predominance of each cognitive unit type in relation to the overall activity (Castellaro et al., 2020a). For example, it is common to consider the number of observations of a particular category in the activity (absolute frequency) or the proportion of the total units or the time invested in the task. This structural perspective has enabled important advances in knowledge about socio-cognitive interaction; however, it implies a fundamentally "photostatic" view that neglects the diachronic and sequential nature of the process. Therefore, it is necessary to include an alternative approach that considers the sequence of events in interaction and that are interdependent. This would provide a more comprehensive and ecological approach to the process.
In this paper, a micro-sequential perspective is proposed, since the focus is on the trajectory of transformations and changes that occur event by event, or moment by moment during the activity (Anguera et al., 2018; Bakeman & Quera, 2011; Belza et al., 2020; Quera, 2018). In this case, as shown below, the interaction refers to dyads (two subjects) of sixth and seventh graders solving a collaborative task (collaborative comprehension of a double-entry table). The dyads are integrated by subjects with similar levels of specific competence (competence symmetry). In this sense, the short-term microchanges are analyzed and regular sequential transitions are identified. Regular sequential transition refers to the association of temporal continuity between two -or more- behaviors or events, one of which precedes (activator) and the other follows (activated), and which occurs in a manner that is significantly more habitual (or less habitual) than expected by simple chance (Quera, 2018). All interaction constitutes a process of reciprocal influence between interacting subjects (Castorina, 2018; Staerklé & Butera, 2017; Tartas et al., 2016), that occurs moment to moment and is the emergent way in which these processes of social and cognitive influence are connected.
Competence symmetry and socio-cognitive interaction
Based on a Socio-constructivist approach, there is a theoretical relationship between peer (socio-cognitive) interaction and the activity context (construction of a specific knowledge or cognitive domain). Thus, a widely studied mediation variable refers to the individual competence level of the partners (i.e. related to the task) or, more specifically, the symmetry or asymmetry between them (Castellaro et al., 2020a). In this study, the term competence symmetry (or asymmetry) is used to refer to the similarity (or dissimilarity) between partner´s individual competence levels. The central hypothesis is that symmetry/asymmetry of competence affects interactive dynamics (Asterhan et al., 2014; Castellaro et al., 2020b), particularly those aspects linked to cognitive task resolution (Castellaro & Roselli, 2018a, 2019, 2020; Denessen et al., 2008; Gabriele, 2007; Garton & Pratt, 2001; Schmitz & Winskel, 2008). Therefore, symmetry is associated with higher equality and reciprocity of socio-cognitive interaction; and asymmetry is associated with a gap between partners’ contributions (Castellaro & Roselli, 2018b).
Before proceeding, it is necessary to propose a conceptual clarification. The third generation of studies (Psaltis et al., 2009) revealed that relational symmetry/asymmetry extends beyond the subjects' cognitive aspects. Then, various psychosocial elements such as gender, friendship, social prestige, popularity, etc. represent sources of relational symmetry/asymmetry that have a similar status to objective competence. They also include the subject's representation of his or her own competence (Buchs et al., 2021). Coordination with others involves situated collective thinking, mediated by assigned roles and reciprocal representational attributions of interacting subjects. This process is closely linked to the social influence mechanisms (Psaltis & Zapiti, 2014; Quiamzade et al., 2014). The current work does not ignore these postulates; however, it should be clear that its focus is on the symmetry/asymmetry that emerges selectively from the objective task-related competencies. This does not mean the influence of the other psychosocial factors mentioned is denied, only that they are not part of the central interest of the study. Methodologically, the design aimed to control for these variables by distributing them equally between the conditions considered. Therefore, the concept of symmetry/asymmetry, in the context of this paper, specifically refers to the equality/inequality between levels of specific competence in relation to a given task.
The current work focuses specifically on the analysis of competence symmetry. Both the neo-Piagetian and neo-Vygotskian approaches have emphasized the importance of inter-subjective differentiation as a facilitator of knowledge construction. However, the Piagetian perspective exclusively emphasizes the importance of competence symmetry as a source of equality, reciprocity, and development. This theme relates to the classical contrast (Piaget, 1932/1984) between symmetry/cooperation (linked mostly to peer interaction) and asymmetry/constraint (primarily related to child–adult interaction). From this perspective, symmetry is the starting point that captures the qualitatively different positions between subjects on a problem as potential conditions for subsequent socio-cognitive conflict. Symmetry must be accompanied by argumentative dialogue, that is, an authentic exchange of ideas, based on confronting and overcoming individual ideas in a founded and rational way (Perret Clermont et al., 2015).
In contrast, a socio-cultural perspective emphasizes the role of asymmetry as a necessary basis for the construction of knowledge. For example, Asterhan et al. (2014) question the benefits of symmetrical interaction between subjects with basic competence, as they propose that such interaction may limit the opportunity to solve problems and receive feedback from a partner with advanced competence. However, it is also known that is not always the case and that asymmetry without tutoring or guided participation (Rogoff, 2012) can lead to imposition and/or cognitive dominance-submission (Castellaro & Roselli, 2018b, 2019), which goes back to arguments proposed from the classical Piagetian perspective (Piaget, 1932/1984). Therefore, it could be argued that the evidence for the advantages and disadvantages of symmetry and asymmetry of competence is inconclusive.
As previously mentioned, this paper is concerned with the competence symmetry. Moreover, this issue might be related to the specific individual competence level of the partners. In other words, apart from considering competence symmetry as a general condition of the study, do differences emerge based on the competence level of the partners? Does the specific level of competence influence the interactive dynamics of symmetrical dyads? From a genetic perspective (Piaget, 1926/2002, 1947/2001, 1964/1968), a link between individual cognitive development and social interaction could be proposed. Therefore, if this approach is transferred to peer interaction, it could be assumed that even in a framework of competence symmetry, there would be different socio-cognitive dynamics depending on the cognitive level or stage of development. In this article, symmetries are analyzed in the context of different levels of competence in a specific activity context: (a) the collaborative comprehension of a double-entry table, considered as a particular type of external representation system; (b) by dyads of sixth and seventh graders, which will be interpreted in terms of the transition from concrete intellectual operations to abstract intellectual operations (Piaget, 1947/2001, 1964/1968). The following sections will address these topics (a) and (b).
Competence symmetry in the collaborative comprehension of a double-entry table
Research on competence symmetry or asymmetry has focused on the construction of primary logical concepts, e.g., conservation, spatial rotation, and classification (Doise & Mugny, 1984; Fawcett & Garton, 2005; Psaltis & Duveen, 2006; Zapiti & Psaltis, 2012, 2019). Other work addressed problem-solving tasks and scientific reasoning (Asterhan et al., 2014; Castellaro & Roselli, 2018a; Castellaro et al., 2020b; Rojas-Drummond et al., 2006; Schmitz & Winskel, 2008; Wegerif et al., 2016; Yang, 2016). There are also studies on expressive collaborative tasks such as free drawing (Castellaro & Roselli, 2015), music composition (Miell & McDonald, 2000), or text composition (Rojas Drummond et al., 2008).
Despite this diversity of processes and tasks addressed, there are other processes/tasks that have not been examined within the scope of this approach. This is true, for example, of the acquisition –i.e., understanding, constructing, and using- of external representation systems. Although there is an extensive literature, research mainly examines it in contexts of individual resolution (García-Milá et al., 2014; Pérez-Echeverría et al., 2010) or child–adult interaction (Gariboldi & Salsa, 2018, 2019; Peralta et al., 2013), but there is limited research in the context of peer interaction.
The notion of external representation system is based on an interactive perspective of knowledge, which assumes that it is necessarily generated through objective and material representational mediations (Andersen et al., 2017; Pozo, 2017). Then, these mediations correspond to those cultural devices that support and extend mental functions, and that constitute an essential element of these processes. These systems are both written language and other permanent external systems, with particular characteristics and degrees of complexity. Examples are works that studied numerical notation (Martí et al., 2011, 2016; Rodríguez & Salsa, 2020; Rodríguez et al., 2018), graphics (Pérez et al., 2018; Postigo & López, 2015; Salsa & Gariboldi, 2017; Salsa & Vivaldi, 2017), location maps (Maita et al., 2014; Salsa et al., 2019), or conceptual maps (Roselli & Cardoni, 2020).
This work is part of a general research program whose aim is to transfer the study of peer interaction to the context of appropriation of different external representations. The first step was to study a specific system/process: the comprehension or reading of a double-entry table. A double-entry table represents a specific external representation system for a data set, using a two-dimensional spatial format with rows, columns, and resulting cells containing numerical quantities (e.g., counts). The double graphical axis allows the intersection of information related to two variables, creating interconnected and mutually organized data (Martí, 2009). Tables and graphs are understood as specific modalities for recording and organizing information. Although there are a variety of tables and graphs, they all share basic principles of operation and learning (Gabucio et al., 2010). The literature emphasizes the study of graphs (e.g., Pérez-Echeverría et al., 2010) over that of tables, providing an initial argument for their study. Moreover, tables have a high value in daily use, e.g., calendars, schedules, frequency records, timetables, and others (Estrella & Estrella, 2020). Finally, the cognitive acquisition of tables is part of compulsory schooling in several countries, starting around the sixth and seventh grade.
Gabucio et al. (2010) studied individual comprehension of a double-entry table in fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth Catalan graders. Following Friel et al. (2001), they proposed four sub-levels of complexity. The first, direct reading of the data refers to recognizing, locating, and extracting explicit data from the table (descriptive). The second refers to the understanding the table structure as a system (e.g., the function or meaning of rows, columns, and cells). The third, particular inference from the data refers to identifying implicit relationships among the data in the table that are not directly observable, based on their integration and interpretation. Finally, the global inference from the contents of the table refers to a general interpolation process that allows generating new ideas and predictions from the data in the table. Then, sub-levels 1 and 2 refer to "reading the data" (describing) while sub-levels 3 and 4 refer to "reading between or beyond the data" (inferring). In other words, this distinction could refer to a basic (descriptive) or advanced (descriptive + inferential) level of comprehension of the table.
From the Piagetian perspective mentioned above, a correlation could be proposed between basic comprehension of the table and concrete operations, and between advanced comprehension of the table and abstract operations. This proposition is supported by the following reasons. First, the study focuses on students aged 12–13, the moment of transition between the two operational logics (Piaget, 1947/2001, 1964/1968). It is reasonable to postulate that some of the subjects would still retain a concrete level of operationality, while others would have achieved some level of appropriation of the formal domain that would accompany comprehension of the table. Secondly, both levels of comprehension of the table would reflect a transition between the two modes of thinking. The table, as a complex representation, requires the use of sophisticated socio-cognitive processes, yet it represents concrete information, such as the course and height ranges of a group of subjects. Thus, cognitive manipulation involves elements that have both an abstract representation and materiality. Hence, interpreting the table directly involves staying close to the specific dimensions represented (e.g., interpreting the mean of an observed frequency in a cell). Conversely, the ability to draw inferences necessitates cognitive distancing from the specific data being presented (e.g., inferring trends in results from the values presented in the table). Both levels of operational reasoning could be related to different ways of constructing the socio-cognitive interaction. For dyads with competence symmetry, it would be useful to examine the characteristics of socio-cognitive dynamics as a function of subjects´ competencies (basic symmetry and advanced symmetry).
A micro-sequential perspective of socio-cognitive interaction
As is common in the general literature, the analysis of interaction involves a transversal or structural analysis. It is characterized by considering the interaction based on the "weight" or predominance of each type of cognitive unit concerning the whole activity. Thus, researchers often consider the frequency of observations for a given category in the activity (absolute frequency) or its proportion in the total number of units or the time spent on the task. Although this structural perspective has enabled important advances in knowledge of socio-cognitive interaction, it implies a fundamentally "photo-static" view that neglects the diachronic and sequential nature of the process.
For example, Castellaro and Roselli (2018b) compared the interaction of symmetrical dyads with basic and advanced competence levels in collaborative logic problem solving. Participants were dyads of fifth and sixth graders. In particular, the authors looked at the number of justified contributions to solve the task and the balance between partners over these. They found that advanced symmetrical dyads registered significantly more balanced justifications (between partners) than basic symmetrical dyads. However, both conditions showed no differences in terms of the amount of this category. Subsequently, Castellaro and Roselli (2023) repeated this comparison but with a table comprehension task. The study involved sixth and seventh graders. The task distinguished two global levels of specific competence, descriptive (basic) and inferential (advanced), according to the criteria mentioned above. The comparison between basic and advanced symmetrical dyads showed no significant differences in the inter-subjective distribution of justified and non-justified interventions. However, the number of questions oriented to request a partner´s opinion was higher in the basic symmetrical dyads. Given the previous antecedents, it could be concluded that this issue is far from being solved.
A transversal perspective allows for significant progress in understanding socio-cognitive interaction. However, it tends to ignore an inherent aspect of the process: its sequentiality, i.e., the temporal inter-dependence between temporally sequence units. Therefore, it is possible to propose a sequential micro-analytic approach to socio-cognitive interaction. This perspective aims to consider the sequential micro-transitions between contribution types during the activity. The term regular sequential transition refers to the association of temporal continuity between two -or more- behaviors or events, one of which precedes (activator) and the other follows (activated), and which occurs in a way that is significantly more habitual (or less habitual) than expected by simple chance (Quera, 2018). In other words, this approach aims to determine whether certain categories tend to activate or inhibit specific consequential codes, whether these activations or inhibitions occur within the same subject (intra-subjective) or between participants (inter-subjective), and whether these aspects vary based on the symmetry condition (basic or advanced). In summary, the focus is on the trajectory of transformations and changes that occurr event by event during the activity (Anguera et al., 2018; Belza et al., 2020; Guevara et al., 2016; Isohätälä et al., 2017; Malmberg et al., 2017; Quera, 2018; Sartori et al., 2021).
Micro-sequential studies at different levels and stages have been reported in the literature. They had allowed to illustrate visualize how peer interactions develop. However, the current study addresses a new and relevant aspect within this line of research: the socio-cognitive dynamics that may occur in symmetrical dyads, with different socio-cognitive composition, basic competence, or advanced competence. Before focusing on the aim of this study, let us review these antecedents of micro-sequential analysis of interaction.
Batista and Rodrigo (2002) studied interaction in scientific reasoning tasks (isolation and recognition of variables). Participants were ten- and eleven-year-old students working in triads. The focus of the analysis was on speech acts typical of argumentative discourse: asking, proposing, and counter-arguing, among others. Thus, each message was categorized according to this system, and the study identified the following most frequently recurring transitions between codes: solution proposals without arguing, argumentation processes without proposing solutions, and solution proposals with argumentation. Each pattern was composed of specific categories that specifically activated or inhibited others later in the interactive sequence.
Duran (2010) and Duran and Monereo (2005) studied the interactions of 14-year-old adolescents with different levels of specific competence, in a collaborative text composition task. During the activity, different verbal contributions were categorized: initiation, response, feedback, collaborative question, supplementing partner-provided information (collaborative splicing), and two strictly tutorial categories (tutorial hinting and tutorial guiding), evaluation and message outside of the activity. The authors identified three main sequential patterns: (a) collaborative (initiation of the tutor, collaborative question of the tutored, cooperative exchange between both, which ends with the evaluation of the tutor); (b) unilateral tutoring (initiation of the tutor, the response of the tutor, and subsequent guidance process by the tutor of a leading nature; (c) participatory tutoring (initiation of the tutor, response of the tutor, feedback from the tutor and exchange with the tutor about the correct solution). The authors analyzed the relationship between these sequences and fixed and reciprocal tutoring. The findings suggest that a tutoring pattern (b) is associated with fixed tutoring, while reciprocal tutoring is related to a collaborative pattern (a).
Guevara et al. (2016) studied scientific reasoning tasks (horizontal balance scale) in dyads of younger children (four- and six-year-olds). In this case, they formed two category systems, whose coding unit was the activity performed by each subject at regular intervals during the task. On the one hand, the level of inter-subjective coordination of each child was considered (does not work, passive work, imitative work, parallel work, collaborative work), and on the other hand, the level of scientific reasoning about the task (non-response, non-specific verbalization, description, prediction, explanation). The results show different transition paths between the interactive codes. On one hand, the study identified more integrated and coordinated interactive sequences with the partner, such as parallel-parallel, parallel-collaborative, and collaborative-collaborative transitions. On the other hand, less integrated and coordinated sequences were also observed, including passive-passive, passive-parallel, and parallel-passive transitions.
Sequential interaction analysis has also been used to study regulatory processes in collaborative learning. For example, Malmberg et al. (2017) distinguished the regulation processes (task understanding, planning, goal setting, monitoring/evaluation, use strategy, task execution) and types of activity regulation (self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation) in college students. They proposed seven supra-categories by combining the two previous groups.
Sartori et al. (2021) analyzed the sequential tutoring patterns between teacher and children, based on the scheme question (introduction)—answer—follow-up (feedback). The study involved play situations and story reading in kindergarten classrooms (beginning level). The results show that the type (open or closed) and complexity (literal or inferential) of the teacher's question (introduction) directly influence the complexity of the child's subsequent response. For example, a literal closed question by the teacher was accompanied by a corresponding literal answer by the child. As for the types of follow-up by the teacher, these were generally of low level and not particularly activated by antecedent codes. The same was true for the teacher's question and the types of follow-up on her part.
Castellaro et al. (2020a) conducted a micro-sequential analysis of symmetrical dyads, but with some differences compared to the current work. They studied symmetrical dyads of basic competence, compared to asymmetrical dyads. Participants were fifth and sixth graders that had solved a problem-solving task (progressive matrices). Each of the verbal units uttered by the partners was categorized. The code system was based on previous works (Castellaro & Roselli, 2018b; Chiu, 2000; Duran, 2010; Kumpulainen & Mutanen, 1999; Roselli, 2011). Apart from the specific differences between them, they recognize three dimensions of the socio-cognitive interaction: contributions aimed at solving the task, organizational contributions that prepare the solution of the task, and non-specific contributions. The first group is the most relevant in socio-cognitive terms, as it focuses on the keys to elaborating and solving the activity. In this sense, statements that offer possible solutions to the task were distinguished and classified into two types: justified and non-justified. In addition, the questions with the highest socio-cognitive value, such as opinion request, questioning and demonstration (all addressed to the partner), and the responses to them were recorded, also marking the difference between justified and unjustified. The results showed that most significant transition probabilities were inter-subjective (from one subject to another), implying high communicative alternation. For example, a statement oriented to solve the task (justified or non-justified) activates a partner´s non-justified affirmation; the opinion questions activate a partner´s justified or non-justified utterance. Some intra-subjective transitions were also found (between codes of the same subject). For example, the demonstration questions activate a justified cognitive affirmation; and also the reverse transition too (from a justified statement to a demonstration question as an addition to the originally proposed idea).
In the present work, the categories proposed by Castellaro et al. (2020a) are adopted. The identification and distinction among groups of categories (e.g., those with the highest socio-cognitive weight, organizational, and non-task specific) have a conceptual relevance, as they allow identifying different interactive dynamics that are more or less favorable from a constructive point of view. In other words, to interact with others is not synonymous with quality work. A productive dialogue between peers is not just any dialogue, but one in which students have the opportunity to discuss different ideas (even false ones), to argue, to formulate explanations (and not just passively receive them), and to ask questions (Grau et al., 2018; Larrain et al., 2020; Mercer, 2019). Therefore, it is relevant to analyze which interventions activate or inhibit the emergence of ideas and arguments as central aspects of the task. This is the focus of the sequential analysis.
The current study
The present study compares the interaction of basic and advanced symmetrical dyads that performed a collaborative table comprehension task. The dyads consist of sixth- and seventh- grade children. There are no previous studies that have conducted a sequential analysis in this particular age group (12- and 13-year-olds). However, some papers have analyzed the interaction of dyads at similar ages (Castellaro et al., 2020a; Batista & Rodrigo, 2002; Durán & Monereo, 2005; Durán, 2010). These findings were previously reported. As hypothesized earlier (Gabucio et al., 2010), two global levels of comprehension of a frequency table were identified: describing (the data and the structure of the table) and inferring (extracting partial and general aspects from the data). Both levels of competence are associated with two stages of operational thinking: concrete and formal. The paper proposes a micro-sequential approach to socio-cognitive interaction, with the aim of identifying various regular micro-transitions (or transition probabilities) between the types of cognitive units contributed by partners during the activity (Quera, 2018). In disaggregated form, the aims are to determine: (a) whether certain categories tend to specifically activate or inhibit the subsequent occurrence of other code(s); (b) whether they are intra-subjective transitions (between codes of the same subject) or inter-subjective transitions (between codes of different subjects); (c) whether they are activated ( +) or inhibited (-) transitions. These questions were addressed by considering both forms of symmetry based on the subjects´ levels of competence: basic-descriptive-concrete, or advanced-inferential-abstract.
From a psychogenetic perspective that emphasizes the relationship between intellectual development and social dynamics, two assumptions could be proposed. Firstly, it could be assumed that the 12- and 13-year-old subjects had already achieved operational reasoning and the ability to establish basic reciprocity during the interaction. Specifically, a distinction could now be made between two levels of operational thinking: concrete and formal thinking. These levels would be associated, in the current activity context, with two levels of comprehension of the table: descriptive and inferential. Secondly, this distinction would have implications for more complex aspects of the interaction, such as justifications in support of viewpoints and inter-subjective questions directed toward resolution of the task (opinion, evaluation, and demonstration).
Therefore, two general hypotheses are proposed. First, considering the age of the subjects (12- and 13-year-olds) and assuming the construction of operational reasoning, it is hypothesized that there are sequential transitions enabling basic reciprocity, which are common to both forms of symmetry. Second, taking into account the specific differentiation between two forms of operational thinking (concrete and formal) and their connection to the levels of comprehension of the table (descriptive and inferential, respectively), it is hypothesized differential sequential transitions between the two forms of symmetry. This differentiation refers to transitions involving justification of the point of view and questions directed towards the solution of the task (opinion, evaluation, and demonstration).
Method
Participants
The corpus of information comprised the socio-cognitive interaction of 74 dyads (148 participants). These dyads were categorized as symmetrical since the partners had similar specific levels of competence in table comprehension. Forty-eight dyads were composed of two subjects with a basic level of table comprehension (basic symmetry), while twenty-six dyads consisted of two partners with an advanced level of table comprehension (advanced symmetry). The quantitative difference between the two sub-samples resulted from the initial predominance of cases with basic competence. The data analyzed belonged to a more general project that considered other dyad conditions (e.g., asymmetrical dyads) not considered here.
The participants were sixth and seventh graders attending public schools in Rosario and nearby areas (Santa Fe, Argentina). The mean age was 12.24 years (SD = 0.64). The dyads were equally distributed by gender composition (two girls, 33.1%; two boys, 35.5%; mixed, 31.4%). The gender variable was not included in the posterior analysis because it did not initially demonstrate significant differences. The sample was selected in a non-probabilistic way.
Materials
A table comprehension task was proposed (Gabucio et al., 2010). Subjects had to interpret a double-entry table. This table showed the characteristics of a fictitious group of students based on two categorical variables: weight (kilograms), distributed in four ranges (< 25, 25 to 34, 35 to 44, > 44), and gender (girls and boys). In addition, column totals (vertical axis), but not row totals, were recorded. Participants, either individually or collaboratively (depending on the phase of the study), were tasked with visualizing the table and answering 12 multiple-choice items. Each item had four options for them to choose from. Also, it related to one of four correlative sub-levels of understanding the representational system: (1) direct reading of table data; (2) understanding table structure; (3) specific inference from table data; (4) global inference from table data (Friel et al., 2001; Gabucio et al., 2010). Sub-levels (1) and (2) were considered globally as a descriptive level (basic), while sub-levels (3) and (4) belonged to inferential level (advanced). For example, a descriptive item was: “How many girls weigh from 25 to 34 kg?” Options: (a) 13, (b) 6; (c) 10; (d) 16. The correct option (b) can be observed directly in the corresponding cell combining the category girls (row gender) and the weight range 25–34 kg (column weight). Another example inference item was: “How many boys weigh more than 50 kg?” Options: (a) Between 0 and 2; (b) Between 2 and 8; (c) 2; (d) 0. It was an inference item because “50 kg” is not a directly observable date (the table presented four ranges < 25, 25 to 34, 35 to 44, > 44).
Procedure
All participants gave informed consent and that of a responsible adult. This work considered the ethical guidelines for social research established by the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), and the National University of Rosario (UNR), Argentina.
Individual phase. Each child participated in the table comprehension task independently. This approach aimed to identify participants with either basic or advanced competence. Specifically, children who correctly solved the majority of items in the lower difficulty sub-levels (1) or (2), but not those in higher difficulty sub-levels (3) or (4), were classified as having basic competence. On the other hand, children who correctly solved most of the items in sub-levels (1), (2), and (3/4) were classified as having advanced competence. Based on this criterion, symmetrical dyads were formed, consisting of pairs where both participants had either basic or advanced competence in table comprehension.
Collaborative phase. Two or three weeks after the pretest, each dyad performed the same table comprehension task, but collaboratively. The instructions asked the children to solve each item as a team, considering different solutions and achieving a shared decision collaboratively. There was no time limit for completing the task. This second phase occurred during the usual course hours, in a room designated ad hoc by the institution, different from the classroom. The interactive phase was recorded for later transcribing and analysis.
Analysis of interaction
The unit of codification was each cognitive utterance of each participant during the interaction (molecular unit). The notion of cognitive unit (Castellaro & Roselli, 2019; Roselli, 2016) refers to the simplest element contributed by a subject, generally coinciding with a conversational turn that ends with the posterior partner´s intervention or spontaneously (Azmitia & Montgomery, 1993; Trognon et al., 2008). It could also be that the same communicative segment was integrated by some cognitive units (Psaltis & Duveen, 2006), e.g., the subject utterances a solution to the problem (cognitive unit 1) and immediately requires the other partner an opinion about it (cognitive unit 2).
A total of 5214 cognitive units were coded: 3475 belonged to basic symmetrical dyads and 1739 to advanced symmetrical dyads. All units were coded according to a system of nine mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories, adapted from previous works (Castellaro & Roselli, 2018a, 2019; Castellaro et al., 2020a). The categories belonged to three dimensions of socio-cognitive interaction and are described below.
Units oriented to the resolution of the task: knowledge contributions (correct or incorrect, new or already issued during the interaction) aimed directly at solving the item. This dimension included the following categories:
(JS) Justified statement. Utterance aimed at solving the task, accompanied by an explicit supporting justification. Example: “The answer is 6 because it says “girls” (instructions of task) and here (child points to the cell) there are 6; 16 is the sum of the boys plus the girls” (item 5).
(NJS) Non-justified statement. Utterance aimed at solving the task without an intention to justify or explicitly support it. Example: “For me, it is boys and girls” (option “a” of the item).
(SF) Social feedback. A brief and unjustified utterance that gives positive social feedback (social agreement only) regarding a previous contribution to the resolution of the task, one´s own or a colleague´s, but without explicitly proposing a new solution or enhancing on a previous one. Example: after the partner´s contribution ("The correct answer is b"), the other subject answers "I agree".
(OQ) Opinion question. Asking for the partner´s level of agreement with an idea or proposed solution about the task. Example: "What do you think about choosing option 2 (answer choice)?".
(EQ) Evaluation question. Question directed to the partner aimed at evaluating and/or reviewing a solution proposed by him/her. Example: after saying "I think that the correct answer is 5 (answer option)", the child asks: "Are you sure that is 5?".
(DQ) Demonstration question. Questioning the partner to help explain of an idea or problem solution. Example: “Do you see that it forms like this here? (sequence of frequencies in the table). Do you see that?" (while presenting an idea to the partner).
Units oriented to the organization of the task and linked to its resolution: interventions that are not a specific contribution to knowledge, but are prelude or preparation to it. This dimension encompasses the following categories:
(RI) Verbal reading of the instructions and/or response options of the item.
(RT) Exploratory verbal reading of the table. Exploration and superficial observation of certain aspects of the table (cells, totals, categories, etc.). This code differs from the cognitive units aimed at supporting a justified solution to the problem (the last case applied to JS). Example: (looking at the data in table cells) “… it would be 25 … 25 plus 16 … a 0 and a 1, it would be … uh … 45, 40, 40, 48 …".
Units oriented to the organization of the task and are not linked to its resolution. Interventions that relate to secondary organizational aspects of the task and are not specific knowledge contributions. This dimension formed a separate category, whose only code was (NO). Example: “(at the beginning of an item) This (item) is more difficult… (than the previous one)”.
In the sequential analysis, each code was numbered 1 or 2 to distinguish the subject that issued it. Considering that the dyads were symmetrical (similar competence levels of the partners), the numerical assignment to each member was done according to a random criterion.
The first author coded all transcripts. Then, the third author coded 15% of random transcripts to assess inter-rater agreement which was found in 87.9% of units. Cohen’s Kappa was 0.85 (p < 0.001).
Sequential data analysis
An analysis of the transition probabilities between the codes that formed the socio-cognitive trajectory of the dyads was performed (Bakeman & Gottman, 1989; Quera, 2018). The aim was to identify persistent and recurrent temporal associations between events that occurred during the interaction. To carry out this analysis, the software GSEQ 5.1 (Bakeman & Quera, 1996, 2011) was used. The underlying logic of this analytic approach is to detect whether a given event (e.g., a specific type of cognitive unit) has a significant temporal association with another event that occurs immediately in the time considered as the target.
A contingency table is then created to analyze the association between different codes in the socio-cognitive trajectory. The rows contain codes that are considered as given (antecedents), while the columns contain codes that are considered as targets (immediately after in time). Therefore, each cell indicates the frequency with which one type of event (row) was followed in time by another (column, target). To assess the significance of these associations, the observed frequency is compared to the expected frequency by chance. This comparison allows to calculate a Z value (residual adjust), associated with a probability value (p). The positive or negative sign of a residual value suggests an activated or inhibited transition, respectively. In other words, it shows whether a particular sequence between two codes occurs more frequently or less frequently than would be expected by chance (Anguera, 1997; Anguera et al., 2018; Belza et al., 2020).
Associations between two codes with Z values greater than 2.38 (either positive or negative) and corresponding to p < 0.01 were considered statistically significant. Although a p < 0.05 (Z = 1.96) value is considered habitually as a valid cut-off point, it was adjusted due to some limitations of the original distribution of values (for example, cells with low frequencies). In this way, it was aimed to reduce the probability of type 1 error. At the same time, only transitions between pairs of adjacent codes in time (lag + 1) were considered. Thus, the analysis of longer lags was omitted (for example, + 2, + 3, + 4, etc.), which refers to associations between pairs of codes more distant from each other, with intermediate events.
Initially, all possible + 1 transitions between the codes of both subjects were calculated, which included the transitions between codes contributed by the same subject and transitions between codes from one subject to another. In a second moment, to increase the intelligibility of the data, the results were organized around four paradigmatic types of micro-sequential transitions: (a) transitions between statements oriented to the resolution of the task (JS, NJS, SF); (b) transitions from questions (OQ, DQ, EQ) to statements oriented to the resolution of the task (JS, NJS, SF), and vice versa; (c) transitions from organizational codes (RI, RT, NO) to statements oriented to the resolution of the task (JS, NJS, SF), and vice versa; (d) transitions between organizational codes (RI, RT, NO). Within each of these four groups, two complementary differentiating criteria were proposed. First, whether it was an intra-subjective transition (between codes of the same subject) or an inter-subjective transition (between codes of different subjects). Second, whether it was an activated ( +) or inhibited (-) transition.
Results
The first exploratory analysis considered frequencies and unconditional probabilities of codes issued by each participant, differentiating between basic and advanced symmetrical dyads (see Table 1).
Table 1. Frequencies and unconditional frequencies of codes issued by each participant of basic and advanced symmetrical dyads
Subject 1 | f | P uncond. (rf) | Subject 2 | f | P uncond. (rf) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Basic symmetry (48 dyads) | JS1 | 146 | 0.04 | JS2 | 144 | 0.04 |
NJS1 | 518 | 0.15 | NJS2 | 584 | 0.17 | |
SF1 | 260 | 0.07 | SF2 | 216 | 0.06 | |
OQ1 | 47 | 0.01 | OQ2 | 38 | 0.01 | |
DQ1 | 1 | 0.00 | DQ2 | 6 | 0.00 | |
EQ1 | 20 | 0.01 | EQ2 | 22 | 0.01 | |
RI1 | 453 | 0.13 | RI2 | 454 | 0.13 | |
RT1 | 188 | 0.05 | RT2 | 209 | 0.06 | |
NO1 | 88 | 0.03 | NO2 | 81 | 0.02 | |
Total: 3475 (1.00) | ||||||
Advanced symmetry (26 dyads) | JS1 | 85 | 0.05 | JS2 | 109 | 0.06 |
NJS1 | 276 | 0.16 | NJS2 | 268 | 0.15 | |
SF1 | 130 | 0.07 | SF2 | 116 | 0.07 | |
OQ1 | 9 | 0.01 | OQ2 | 19 | 0.01 | |
DQ1 | 2 | 0.00 | DQ2 | 7 | 0.00 | |
EQ1 | 8 | 0.00 | EQ2 | 9 | 0.01 | |
RI1 | 225 | 0.13 | RI2 | 213 | 0.12 | |
RT1 | 76 | 0.04 | RT2 | 97 | 0.06 | |
NO1 | 56 | 0.03 | NO2 | 34 | 0.02 | |
Total: 1739 (1.00) | ||||||
The distribution of categories is similar between both symmetrical conditions. The statements oriented to solve the task (JS, NJS, SF) represent the more frequent type of unit; this is more accentuated in advanced symmetry (56%) compared to basic symmetry (53%). Also, organizational interventions (RI, RT, NO) show a strong presence, although less than the previous ones. Inversely, questions related to the resolution of the task (OQ, DQ y EQ) register low frequencies. Finally, the table shows the balance between the partners’ contributions (subjects 1 and 2) across the categories.
Next, the significant probability transitions between codes of both basic and advanced symmetrical dyads were analyzed. Considering the dyads were composed of subjects with a similar level of competence (symmetry), and thus the assignment as subject 1 or 2 was random, only those significant residual adjustments (Z values) "doubly confirmed" were considered as valid. It means that: (a) the inter-subjective transitions were considered as significant if the respective Z value was observed from subject 1 to subject 2 and vice versa; (b) the intra-subjective transitions were considered significant if the corresponding Z value was observed in both subjects (1 and 2). To facilitate the visualization of results, the presentation of a global table that simultaneously reports all transitions between codes will be omitted. Instead, smaller tables are presented (Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). Each one reports the transitions between specific groups of codes mentioned above: (a) transitions between statements oriented to the resolution of the task (JS, NJS, SF); (b) transitions from questions (OQ, DQ, EQ) to statements oriented to the resolution of the task (JS, NJS, SF), and vice versa; (c) transitions from organizational codes (RI, RT, NO) to statements oriented to the resolution of the task (JS, NJS, SF), and vice versa; (d) transitions between organizational codes (RI, RT, NO).
Table 2. Symmetrical dyads with BASIC competence. Transitions between statements oriented to the resolution of the task (significant adjust residuals, lag + 1)
Target (next) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Given (before) | JS 1 | NJS 1 | SF 1 | JS 2 | NJS 2 | SF 2 |
JS1 | -4.21 | -3.33 | 11.85 | 9.05 | ||
NJS1 | -3.85 | -7.36 | -6.45 | 7.65 | 20.04 | |
SF1 | -3.61 | 5.70 | 8.30 | |||
JS2 | 8.96 | 11.62 | -5.30 | -3.27 | ||
NJS2 | 6.46 | 18.42 | -4.54 | -9.31 | -5.45 | |
SF2 | 5.09 | 10.78 | -4.56 | |||
JS: Justified statement. NJS: Non-justified statement. SF: Social feedback
Note 1. Significant and “double confirmed” residual values (Z > 2.36; p < 0.01) are shown in the table; i.e., in the inter-subjective transitions, when the significant values occurred from subject 1 to subject 2 and vice versa; in intra-subjective transitions, when significant values are observed in both subjects.
Note 2. Bold: activated transitions ( +); Normal: inhibited transitions (-).
Notes 1 and 2 also apply to next tables.
Table 3. Symmetrical dyads with ADVANCED competence. Transitions between statements oriented to the resolution of the task (significant adjust residuals, lag + 1)
Target (next) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Given (before) | JS 1 | NJS 1 | SF 1 | JS 2 | NJS 2 | SF 2 |
JS1 | -3.77 | -2.83 | 6.33 | 8.58 | ||
NJS1 | -2.96 | -5.56 | -4.50 | 7.97 | 12.69 | |
SF1 | 4.79 | |||||
JS2 | 7.70 | 11.09 | -4.30 | -3.02 | ||
NJS2 | 6.02 | 10.86 | -2.64 | -6.08 | -4.74 | |
SF2 | 4.73 | |||||
JS: Justified statement. NJS: Non-justified statement. SF: Social feedback
Table 4. Symmetrical dyads with BASIC competence. Transitions from questions to statements oriented to the resolution of the task, and vice versa (significant adjust residuals, lag + 1)
JS: Justified statement. NJS: Non-justified statement. SF: Social feedback. OQ: Opinion question. EQ: Evaluation question. DQ: Demonstration question.
The gray cells refer to transitions that do not correspond to the present analysis. This note also applies to the next tables
Table 5. Symmetrical dyads with ADVANCED competence. Transitions from questions to statements oriented to the resolution of the task, and vice versa (significant adjust residuals, lag + 1)
JS: Justified statement. NJS: Non-justified statement. SF: Social feedback. OQ: Opinion question. EQ: Evaluation question. DQ: Demonstration question
Table 6. Symmetrical dyads of BASIC competence. Transitions from organizational codes to statements oriented to the resolution of the task, and vice versa (significant adjust residuals, lag + 1)
JS: Justified statement. NJS: Non-justified statement. SF: Social feedback. RI: Verbal reading of the instructions and/or the response options of the item. RT: Exploratory verbal reading of the table. NO: Units oriented to the organization of the task and not linked to its resolution
Table 7. Symmetrical dyads of ADVANCED competence. Transitions from organizational codes to statements oriented to the resolution of the task, and vice versa (significant adjust residuals, lag + 1)
JS: Justified statement. NJS: Non-justified statement. SF: Social feedback. RI: Verbal reading of the instructions and/or the response options of the item. RT: Exploratory verbal reading of the table. NO: Units oriented to the organization of the task and not linked to its resolution
In both symmetrical conditions, all activated transitions ( +) between statements aimed at solving the task (JS, NJS, SF) are inter-subjective (from one subject to another), and all inhibited (-) transitions are intra-subjective (between codes of the same subject). This indicates a high level of communicational and interactive alternation since the activations are inter-subjective. Moreover, the subjects produce sequences of an affirmative nature (not consultative) to solve the task. That is independent of the level of competence of the dyad. It is even noted that most of the activations occur between codes of the same type (JS-JS, NJS-NJS, SF-SF). On the other hand, basic symmetry registers two specific transitions: NJS-JS (activated and inter-subjective) and SF-NJS (inhibited and intra-subjective).
Each condition shows specific significant transitions from questions (OQ, DQ, EQ) to statements aimed at the resolution of the item (JS, NJS, SF); in this case, there are no common transitions between both groups. Two activated inter-subjective transitions are observed in basic symmetry: (a) the subject´s opinion question activates the partner´s not justified answer; (b) a subject's questioning question activates the partner´s justified response. On the other hand, in advanced symmetry, a single activated inter-subjective transition is observed: the subject´s opinion question activates the partner´s justified response.
Regarding the inverse transitions (statements oriented to the resolution of the task continued by questions), two activated sequences are present in the two symmetrical conditions. The first is intra-subjective and refers to the activation of a demonstration question to support a previously justified affirmation of the own subject. The second is inter-subjective and refers to the activation of evaluation questions after the partner utterances a non-justified statement. On the other hand, within this group of sequences, there are not specific transitions in each symmetrical condition.
Almost all significant transitions from organizational codes (RI, RT, NO) to statements oriented to the resolution of the task (JS, NJS, SF) are inhibited intra-subjective; this occurs in both forms of symmetry. The result suggests that it is very unlikely that a subject will issue statements aimed at solving the task when they have previously issued a code aimed at organizing it, especially if it involves reading instructions (RI) or an exploratory reading table (RT). As observed above, the activation of resolution utterance is mainly related to the previous occurrence of the same type of cognitive unit and/or by questions directed to the resolution of the activity. On the other hand, in the inverse transitions to the previous ones (from statements of resolution of the task to organizational codes), all significant values are negative and correspond to intra-subjective transitions.
Finally, all transitions from an organization code to another one (group d) were inter-subjective and between identical categories (RI-RI; RT-RT; NO–NO).
Discussion
The current work aimed to compare the socio-cognitive interaction between symmetrical dyads of basic and advanced levels of specific competence using a micro-analytical sequential approach. Specifically, the objective was to determine: (a) whether certain categories tend to specifically activate or inhibit the subsequent occurrence of other code(s); (b) whether this transitions occur within the same subject (intra-subjective) or between different subjects (inter-subjective); (c) whether these transitions are characterized by activation ( +) or inhibition (-). These questions were analyzed considering the two forms of symmetry according to the level or stage of the subjects: basic-descriptive-concrete, or advanced-inferential-abstract. The study involved dyads of sixth and seventh graders solving a table comprehension task. The analysis focused on micro-transitions (transition probabilities) between cognitive units contributed by partners during the activity (Quera, 2018). The results were organized around four main transitions: (a) between statements aimed at solving the task; (b) from questions to statements aimed at solving the task, and vice versa; (c) from task organizational interventions to statements aimed at solving the task, and vice versa; (d) between organizational statements.
The transitions of group (a) represent the central aspect of the socio-cognitive interactivity of the dyads as they played a greater role in the task's elaboration and resolution. All activations in this group are inter-subjective, i.e., the code emitted by a subject predisposes particularly to the emission of the same type by the partner. Moreover, inhibited transitions between categories emitted by the same subject are intra-subjective. Therefore, most of the activations and inhibitions were independent of the level of competence (basic or advanced). It can be concluded that the contribution of affirmations aimed at elaboration and solution of the task activates the emission of the same code by the partner, more than other categories. This would indicate the presence of a basic inter-subjectivity and reciprocity of the dyad (Castellaro & Roselli, 2020), which is achieved regardless of the specific level of competence or the differences between the types of statement (justified, non-justified, and social feedback). Thus, it constitutes the basis of dialogue and collaborative solving of the task.
However, group (a) also shows specific transitions only in basic symmetry: social feedback activates the justified utterance category (inter-subjective) and inhibits the non-justified utterance (intra-subjective). Social feedback refers to brief and unjustified utterances that positively and relationally support a previous contribution to the resolution of the task, one’s own or a peer, but without explicitly providing a new solution proposal or extending it. However, it seems that dyads of the basic competence level achieve elaborative processes (for example, justifying or arguing) from simpler interactions.
The transitions of group (b) were also theoretically relevant due to the interactive component of questions directed to the partner and their potential to activate new cognitive keys for task elaboration. The main conclusion is that the opinion questions are the most activated responses of the cognitive elaboration of the task (inter-subjective), compared to the demonstration and evaluation questions. Although all significant transitions of group (b) are inter-subjective, they differ according to the condition of symmetry. After an opinion question, subjects in advanced dyads tend to emit justified statements, supporting their position on the task performance. These findings suggest that participants with higher competence have already internalized the importance of justifying their answers when asked for an opinion. In contrast, participants with lower competence tend to require questioning or disengagement from their initial position to propose a justification. From the Piagetian perspective, they still need to be des-centered in order to consider their own position and that of the others together (Muller Mirza et al., 2009). Additionally, it is crucial to take into account that the participants in this study were pre-adolescents. According to Migdalek et al. (2014), discursive competence is not fully acquired until adolescence. Prior to this stage, children are capable of making justified evaluations in interactions with peers or adults and defending their viewpoints in the presence of an interlocutor.
On the other hand, both evaluation and demonstration questions showed activations from the issue of previous statements aimed at solving the task. These transitions are characteristic of symmetry as a general condition, regardless of level of competence. Thus, the demonstration questions showed an intra-subjective function aimed at self-regulating a previously justified intervention by the subject, including toward the partner (Hadwin et al., 2017).
The transitions between organizational codes and statements oriented to solving the task (group c) are opposite compared to group (a). Although both have in common that most of the inhibited transitions are intra-subjective, group (c) does not show the inter-subjective component that characterizes group (a). These results reinforce the idea of the relevance of contributions aimed at solving the task, which includes questions targeted at solving the task, as the main activators of new cognitive units in the co-construction of shared meanings. Moreover, while organizational contributions are important during the activity, they serve a secondary function from the perspective of the socio-cognitive aspects. Castellaro et al. (2020a) further support these findings, and the transitions in group (d) complement the overall analysis by demonstrating that each organizational code activates itself in an inter-subjective manner.
The results corroborate the first general hypothesis which postulates sequential transitions common to both forms of symmetry. From a psychogenetic perspective, it can be expected that 12- and 13-year-old children have developed operational thinking correlated with interactional reciprocity. On the other hand, it can be proposed that hypothesis 2 has been partially corroborated. Although transitions characteristic of each form of symmetry were identified, they occurred only in some of the postulated indicators (justifications and opinion questions, evaluation questions and demonstration questions), as reported in previous paragraphs (Castellaro et al., 2020a).
Thus, at this stage of development (12- and 13-year-olds), arises the next question. It might be possible that symmetrical dyads “scaffold” the interaction in a reciprocal and productive way, effectively overcoming certain conversational limitations associated with the lower development of intellectual operations? In the case of asymmetrical dyads, the scaffolding function of the more competent subject over the less competent one is evident, as long as a tutoring relationship is established instead of imposing perspectives. However, this function is unidirectional (from the more competent to the less competent subject). In symmetrical dyads, on the other hand, such “scaffolding” might be thought to be bidirectional and reciprocal (Duran & Monereo, 2005), generating a plus that enables subjects with basic competence to achieve high-quality interactive sequences (e.g., exchange of viewpoints supported by justifications).
The educational implications of the study are significant because they suggest that effective communication and problem-solving skills can be developed by encouraging students to use certain types of utterances and interventions in their conversations. First, it is important to encourage communication exchanges between students when working in groups. It can be accomplished by promoting affirmative statements to solve the task and by encouraging students to interact with each other and express their knowledge in ways that contribute to task completion and shared understanding. In addition, students need to learn how to ask questions to obtain relevant information and justify their answers. On the other hand, it was observed that significant transitions from organizational codes to task-oriented statements are inhibited and intra-subjective. This may suggest that students need to learn how to organize information effectively in order to focus on task solving. Finally, to promote true collaborative learning, teachers need to ask questions that encourage reflection and argumentation, as which can lead to a more justified and informed response. It is also important to foster an environment of trust and respect so that students feel comfortable expressing their opinions and questions, even if they do not have a justified answer at the moment. Overall, the results suggest that encouraging students to work collaboratively in symmetrical environments can help improve their communication and teamwork skills.
Two major methodological limitations should be noted. First, the current study focused on micro-analysis of interaction without considering its influence on individual cognitive progress (e.g. post-test). In this sense, the work was intended to be a first approach to a micro-sequential perspective of socio-cognitive peer interaction in the context of the acquisition of external representation systems (here, the comprehension of a double-entry table). However, it should be noted that the understanding of the social construction of knowledge would become even stronger if there were any findings linking learning or cognitive progress. Therefore, future research will address this question.
A second limitation concerns the original distribution of the frequencies corresponding to the different interactive codes and its influence on the interpretation of each transition probability (residual adjustment). Nevertheless, it was decided to focus on the process-ecological nature of the activity, which in many cases does not fully coincide with the original formal requirements. In this sense, this critical element was included in the analysis, although with some cautions regarding the interpretation of the results. New studies could consist of conducting micro-sequential studies of socio-cognitive interaction in tasks and processes other than those addressed here (comprehension of a frequency table) and optimizing these analysis strategies based on transition probabilities.
Conclusion
The current work suggests the relevance of a micro-sequential approach to interaction, as the results reported here could not have been obtained from a classical structural perspective (Brizuela & Scheuer, 2016). This is evident, for example, in the coincidence of certain specific findings, such as the distinction between justified and non-justified ways of solving the task, and their correspondence with specific levels of competence or socio-cognitive compositions of the dyads (Castellaro & Roselli, 2018b). At the same time, however, each approach allows to appreciate specific aspects. For example, a structural approach reveals the distribution of the partner´s participation or the interpretation of the lower number of some question categories. A sequential approach, on the other hand, recognizes the activating potential of the opinion questions on the statements of elaboration of the task. In summary, a comprehensive approach to socio-cognitive interaction requires both cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of the process.
Acknowledgements
Jerónimo Arce, Nicolás Morguen, Romina Leguizamón and Macarena Rondini for their collaboration with collecting data. Students, mothers, fathers, tutors, teachers for their involvement and kindness with the research.
Author´s contributions
All authors collected data and wrote the article. The first and third authors transcribed and analyzed data.
Funding
This research was supported by the National Council of Scientific and Technological Research (CONICET), Argentina.
Data availability
For data requests please email the corresponding author.
Declarations
Ethics approval
This work considered the ethical guidelines for social research established by the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET, Argentina) and the National University of Rosario (Argentina).
Consent to participate
Each participant (and an adult tutor) gave full informed consent to participate.
Consent for publication
Each participant (and an adult tutor) gave full informed consent for data to be used in publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicting or competing interests to declare.
Abbreviations
Units oriented to the resolution of the task:
Justified statement
Non-justified statement
Social feedback
Opinion question
Evaluation question
Demonstration question
Units oriented to the organization of the task and linked to its resolution:
Verbal reading of the instructions and/or the response options of the item
Exploratory verbal reading of the table
Units oriented to the organization of the task and not linked to its resolution:
Units oriented to the organization of the task and not linked to its resolution
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Castellaro Mariano Andrés.
Current themes of research:
Collaborative learning. Peer collaboration. External representation systems.
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
Castellaro, M. A., & Roselli, N. D. (2015). Peer collaboration in childhood according to age, socioeconomic context and task. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30, 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0228-3.
Roselli, N., Castellaro, M., & Peralta, N. (2022). La teoría del conflicto sociocognitivo del desarrollo: Una mirada retrospectiva a partir de investigaciones propias (The theory of socio-cognitive conflict of development: A retrospective approach from our own research). Revista Interdisciplinaria, 39(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2022.39.3.16.
Sartori M., Castellaro, M., & Peralta, O. (2022). Niños y adultos armando un rompecabezas digital e interactivo en el hogar (Children and adults assembling a digital and interactive puzzle at home). Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 40(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/apl/a.10896.
Castellaro, M., & Peralta, N. (2020). Pensar el conocimiento escolar desde el socioconstructivismo: Interacción, construcción y contexto (Thinking the scholar knowledge from the Socio-constructivism: Interaction, construction and context). Perfiles educativos, 42(168), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2020.168.59439.
Castellaro, M., Peralta, N., & Curcio, J. M. (2020). Estudio secuencial de la interacción sociocognitiva durante la resolución de problemas lógicos (Sequential study of the socio-cognitive interaction in logical problem solving). Revista CES Psicología, 13(1), 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.21615/cesp.13.1.1.
Peralta Nadia Soledad.
Current themes of research:
Socio-cognitive interaction. Socio-cognitive conflict. Argumentation in construction of knowledge situations. Especially in University students.
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
Roselli, N., Castellaro, M., & Peralta, N. (2022). La teoría del conflicto sociocognitivo del desarrollo: Una mirada retrospectiva a partir de investigaciones propias (The theory of socio-cognitive conflict of development: A retrospective approach from our own research). Revista Interdisciplinaria, 39(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2022.39.3.16.
Peralta, N. y Roselli, N. (2021). Efectos de la regulación de la interacción diádica en tareas argumentativas (Effects of the regulation of the dyadic interaction in argumentative tasks). Revista de Psicología, 39(1), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.18800/psico.202101.009.
Peralta, N., Castellaro, M., & Santibáñez, C. (2020). El análisis de datos textuales como metodología para el abordaje de la argumentación: una investigación con estudiantes de pregrado en universidades chilenas (Analysing textual data as a methodology to approach argumentation: A research work among undergraduate students from Chilean universities). Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 25(1), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v25n01a02.
Castellaro, M., Peralta, N., & Curcio, J. M. (2020). Estudio secuencial de la interacción sociocognitiva durante la resolución de problemas lógicos (Sequential study of the socio-cognitive interaction in logical problem solving). Revista CES Psicología, 13(1), 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.21615/cesp.13.1.1.
Curcio Juan Manuel.
Current themes of research:
Socio-cognitive interaction. Socio-cognitive conflict. Argumentation. Collaborative learning.
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
Castellaro, M., Peralta, N., & Curcio, J. M. (2020). Estudio secuencial de la interacción sociocognitiva durante la resolución de problemas lógicos (Sequential study of the socio-cognitive interaction in logical problem solving). Revista CES Psicología, 13(1), 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.21615/cesp.13.1.1.
Curcio, J. M., Peralta, N., & Castellaro, M. (2022). Argumentación escrita en estudiantes universitarios ingresantes (Written argumentation in Psychology first year college students). Psicología, Conocimiento y Sociedad, 12(3), 4–17.
References
Andersen, C; Scheuer, N; Pérez, M; Teubal, E. Representational Systems and Practices as Learning Tools; 2017; Sense Publishers : [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789087905286]
Anguera, MT. Metodología de la Observación en Ciencias Humanas; 1997; Cátedra:
Anguera, MT; Blanco, A; Losada, JL; Portell, M. Pautas para elaborar trabajos que utilizan la metodología observacional. Anuario De Psicología; 2018; 48, pp. 9-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anpsic.2018.02.001]
Asterhan, C; Schwarz, B; Cohen-Eliyahu, N. Outcome feedback during collaborative learning: Contingencies between feedback and dyad composition. Learning and Instruction; 2014; 34, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.003]
Azmitia, M; Montgomery, R. Friendship, transactive dialogue, and the development of scientific reasoning. Social Development; 1993; 2,
Bakeman, R; Gottman, JM. Observación de la interacción: Introducción al análisis secuencial; 1989; Morata:
Bakeman, R; Quera, V. Análisis de la interacción. Análisis secuencial con SDIS-GSEQ; 1996; Rama:
Bakeman, R; Quera, V. Sequential Analysis and Observational Methods for the Behavioral Sciences; 2011; Cambridge University Press: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139017343]
Batista, LM; Rodrigo, MJ. ¿Es el conflicto cognitivo el único beneficio de la interacción entre iguales?. Infancia y Aprendizaje; 2002; 25,
Belza, H; Herrán, E; Anguera, MT. Early childhood, breakfast, and related tools: Analysis of adults’ function as mediators. European Journal of Psychology of Education; 2020; 35, pp. 495-527. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00438-4]
Brizuela, BM; Scheuer, N. Investigating cognitive change as a dynamic process. Infancia y Aprendizaje; 2016; 39,
Buchs, C; Dumesnil, A; Chanal, J; Butera, F. Dual effects of partner’s competence: Resource interdependence in cooperative learning at elementary school. Education Sciences; 2021; 11,
Castellaro, M; Peralta, N. Pensar el conocimiento escolar desde el socioconstructivismo: interacción, construcción y contexto. Perfiles educativos; 2020; 42,
Castellaro, M; Roselli, N. Peer collaboration in childhood according to age, socioeconomic context and task. European Journal of Psychology of Education; 2015; 30,
Castellaro, M; Roselli, N. Resolución colaborativa de problemas lógicos en condiciones de simetría y asimetría cognitiva. Revista Propósitos y Representaciones; 2018; 6,
Castellaro, M; Roselli, N. Interacción sociocognitiva entre pares en situaciones simétricas y asimétricas de competencia epistémica. Revista de Psicología; 2018; 36,
Castellaro, M; Roselli, N. Simetría-asimetría cognitiva y afinidad socioafectiva en la comprensión colaborativa de tablas de frecuencias. Liberabit; 2019; 25,
Castellaro, M; Roselli, N. Comprensión individual y diádica de tablas de frecuencias en alumnos de escolaridad primaria. Pensamiento Psicológico; 2020; 18,
Castellaro, M; Roselli, N. Comprensión colaborativa de tablas de frecuencias según simetría/asimetría de competencia y de género. Zona Próxima; 2023; 38, pp. 154-181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14482/zp.38.324.528]
Castellaro, M; Peralta, N; Curcio, JM. Estudio secuencial de la interacción sociocognitiva durante la resolución de problemas lógicos. Revista CES Psicología; 2020; 13,
Castellaro, M; Peralta, N; Tuzinkievicz, MA; Curcio, JM. La argumentación dialógica durante la resolución colaborativa de problemas lógicos, en díadas de quinto y sexto grado. Traslaciones; 2020; 7,
Castorina, J. A. (2018). Psicología genética y psicología social: ¿Dos caras de una misma disciplina o dos programas de investigaciones compatibles? En A. Barreiro (Comp.), Representaciones Sociales, Prejuicio y Relaciones con los Otros. La Construcción del Conocimiento Social y Moral (pp. 33-53). UNIPE Editorial Universitaria.
Chiu, M. Group problem-solving processes: Social interactions and individual actions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior; 2000; 30,
Denessen, E; Veenman, S; Dobbelsteen, J; Van Schilt, J. Dyad composition effects on cognitive elaboration and student achievement. The Journal of Experimental Education; 2008; 76,
Doise, W; Mugny, G. The Social Development of the Intellect; 1984; Pergamon:
Doise, W; Mugny, G. Psicología social experimental: Percepción intelectual de un proceso histórico: Veinte años de Psicología en Ginebra. Revista De Documentación Científica De La Cultura; 1991; 124, pp. 2-23.
Duran, D. Cooperative interactions in peer tutoring. Patterns and sequences in paired writing. Middle Grades Research Journal; 2010; 5,
Duran, D; Monereo, C. Styles and sequences of cooperative interaction in fixed and reciprocal peer tutoring. Learning and Instruction; 2005; 15,
Estrella, S; Estrella, P. Representaciones de datos en estadística: De listas a tablas. Revista Chilena de Educación Matemática; 2020; 12,
Fawcett, L; Garton, A. The effect of peer collaboration on children's problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology; 2005; 75,
Friel, S; Curcio, F; Bright, G. Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education; 2001; 32,
Gabriele, AJ. The influence of achievement goals on the constructive activity of low achievers during collaborative problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology; 2007; 77,
Gabucio, F; Martí, E; Enfedaque, J; Gilabert, S; Konstantinidou, A. Niveles de comprensión de las tablas en alumnos de primaria y secundaria. Infancia y Aprendizaje; 2010; 22,
García-Mila, M; Marti, E; Gilabert, S; Castells, M. Fifth through Eighth grade students’ difficulties in constructing bar graphs: Data organization, data aggregation, and integration of a second variable. Mathematical Thinking and Learning; 2014; 16,
Gariboldi, MB; Salsa, A. Conocimientos sobre los aspectos formales y referenciales del dibujo, la escritura y los numerales en la lectura compartida entre madres y niños pequeños. Interdisciplinaria; 2018; 35,
Gariboldi, MB; Salsa, A. Conocimientos sobre dibujo, escritura y numerales en la producción gráfica materno-infantil, Argentina. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud; 2019; 17,
Garton, A; Pratt, C. Peer assistance in children`s problem solving. British Journal of Developmental Psychology; 2001; 19, pp. 307-318. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151001166092]
Grau, V; Lorca, A; Araya, C; Urrutia, S; Ríos, D; Montagna, P; Ibaceta, M. Socially shared regulation of learning and quality of talk: Age differences in collaborative group work in classroom contexts. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development; 2018; 162, pp. 11-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cad.20261]
Guevara, M; van Dijk, M; van Geert, P. Microdevelopment of peer interactions and scientific reasoning in young children. Infancia y Aprendizaje; 2016; 39,
Hadwin, A; Järvelä, S; Miller, M. Schunk, DH; Greene, JA. Self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. Educational Psychology Handbook Series. Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance; 2017; Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group: pp. 83-106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-6]
Isohätälä, J; Järvenoja, H; Järvelä, S. Socially shared regulation of learning and participation in social interaction in collaborative learning. International Journal of Educational Research; 2017; 81, pp. 11-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.10.006]
Kumpulainen, K; Mutanen, M. The situated dynamics of peer group interaction: An introduction to an analytic framework. Learning and Instruction; 1999; 9, pp. 449-473. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00038-3]
Larrain, A; Freire, P; Strasser, K; Grau, V. The development of a coding scheme to analyse argumentative utterances during group-work. Thinking Skills and Creativity; 2020; 36, 100657. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100657]
Malmberg, J; Järvela, S; Järvenoja, H. Capturing temporal and sequential patterns of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation in the context of collaborative learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology; 2017; 49, pp. 160-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.009]
Maita, M; Mareovich, F; Peralta, O. Intentional teaching facilitates young children’s comprehension and use of a symbolic object. Journal of Genetic Psychology; 2014; 175,
Martí, E. (2009). Tables as cognitive tools in primary education. En C. Andersen, N. Scheuer, M. Pérez y E. Teubal (Eds.), Representational Systems and Practices as Learning Tools (pp. 133-148). Sense Publishers.
Martí, E; García-Milá, M; Gabucio, F; Konstantinidou, K. The construction of a double-entry table: A study of primary and secondary school`s students difficulties. European Journal of Psychology of Education; 2011; 26, pp. 215-234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0046-1]
Martí, E; Scheuer, N; Cavalcante, S; Trench, M; Brizuela, BM. Symbolic representation of the number three: A study with three-year-old children from contrasting socioeconomic environments. Journal of Cognitive Psychology; 2016; 28,
Mercer, N. Language and the Joint Creation of Knowledge; 2019; Routledge: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429400759]
Miell, D; McDonald, R. Children`s creative collaborations: The importance of friendship when working together on a musical composition. Social Development; 2000; 9,
Migdalek, M; Santibáñez Yáñez, C; Rosemberg, C. Estrategias argumentativas en niños pequeños: Un estudio a partir de las disputas durante el juego en contextos escolares. Revista Signos. Estudios De Lingüística; 2014; 47,
Muller-Mirza, N; Perret-Clermont, A; Tartas, V; Lannaccone, A. Clermont, Perret; Muller-Mirza y, A. Psychosocial processes in argumentation. Argumentation and education; 2009; Springer: pp. 67-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_3]
Peralta, O; Salsa, A; Maita, MR; Mareovich, F. Scaffolding Young Children's Understanding of Symbolic Objects. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development; 2013; 33,
Pérez, M; Postigo, Y; Marín, C. Understanding of graphs in social science undergraduate students: Selection and interpretation of graphs. Irish Educational Studies; 2018; 37,
Pérez-Echeverría, MP; Postigo, Y; Marín, C. Las habilidades gráficas de los estudiantes universitarios: ¿cómo comprenden las gráficas los estudiantes de psicología?. Cultura y Educación; 2010; 22,
Perret-Clermont, AN; Arcidiacono, F; Breux, S; Greco, S; Miserez-Caperos, C. van Eemeren, FH; Garssen, B. Knowledge-oriented argumentation in children. Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice; 2015; John Benjamins: pp. 135-150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/aic.9.08per]
Piaget, J. (1926/2002). The Language and Thought of the Child. Routledge.
Piaget, J. (1932/1984). El Criterio Moral en el Niño. Martínez Roca.
Piaget, J. (1947/2001). The Psychology of Intelligence. Routledge.
Piaget, J. (1964/1968). Six Pscyhological Studies. Vintage Books.
Postigo, Y; López, A. Alfabetización gráfica en libros de texto de biología: Análisis de las actividades con imágenes. Infancia y Aprendizaje; 2015; 38,
Pozo, JI. Aprender más allá del cuerpo: De las representaciones encarnadas a la explicitación mediada por representaciones externas. Infancia y Aprendizaje; 2017; 40,
Psaltis, C; Duveen, G. Social relations and cognitive development: The influence of conversation type and representations of gender. European Journal of Social Psychology; 2006; 36, pp. 407-430. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.308]
Psaltis, C; Zapiti, C. Interaction, communication and development: Psychological development as a social process; 2014; Routledge: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203079843]
Psaltis, C; Duveen, G; Perret Clermont, A. The Social and the Psychological: Structure and context in intellectual development. Human Development; 2009; 52,
Quera, V. Brauner, E; Boos y, M; Kolbe, M. Analysis of Interaction Sequences. The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis; 2018; London, Cambridge University Press: pp. 295-322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781316286302.016]
Quiamzade, A; Mugny, G; Butera, F. Psychologie Sociale de la Connaissance; 2014; Grenoble:
Rodríguez, J., Martí, E., & Salsa, A. (2018). Symbolic representations and cardinal knowledge in 3- and 4-year-old children. Cognitive Development, 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.09.004.
Rodríguez, J; Salsa, A. Representación bimodal de valores cardinales en la comprensión de los primeros números. Psykhe; 2020; 29,
Rogoff, B. Learning without lessons: Opportunities to expand knowledge. Infancia y Aprendizaje, Journal for the Study of Education and Development; 2012; 35,
Rojas Drummond, S; Albarrán, C; Littleton, K. Collaboration, creativity and the co-construction of oral and written texts. Thinking Skills and Creativity; 2008; 3, pp. 177-191. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151005X91415]
Rojas-Drummond, S; Mazón, N; Fernández, M; Wegerif, R. Explicit reasoning, creativity and co-construction in primary school children's collaborative activities. Journal of Thinking Skills and Creativity; 2006; 1,
Roselli, N. Proceso de construcción colaborativa a través del chat según el tipo de tarea. Revista de Psicología; 2011; 29,
Roselli, N. Modalities to collaborate in the social construction of conceptual maps: A comparison between individual and collective productions. American Journal of Educational Research; 2016; 5,
Roselli, N; Cardoni, J. Mapas conceptuales vs. resúmenes: Diferencias en las modalidades de construcción colaborativa. Propósitos y Representaciones; 2020; 8,
Salsa, A; Gariboldi, MB. Experiencia con símbolos y comprensión de dibujos en niños pequeños de distintos contextos socioeconómicos. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana; 2017; 36,
Salsa, A; Vivaldi, R. Developmental changes in early comprehension and production of drawings: Evidence from two socioeconomic backgrounds. Journal of Genetic Psychology; 2017; 178,
Salsa, A; Gariboldi, MB; Vivaldi, R; Rodríguez, J. Geometric maps as tools for different purposes in early childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology; 2019; 186, pp. 33-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.05.004]
Sartori, M; Ortiz, C; Pizarro, P; Jauck, D; Stein, A; Alam, F; Rosemberg, C; Peralta, O; Strasser, K. Secuencias de pregunta, respuesta y seguimiento en situaciones de juego y cuentos en el nível inicial. Psykhe; 2021; 30,
Schmitz, M; Winskel, H. Towards effective partnerships in a collaborative problem-solving task. British Journal of Educational Psychology; 2008; 78, pp. 581-596. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709908X281619]
Staerklé, C; Butera, F. Conflits Constructifs, Conflicts Destructifs Regards Psychosociaux; 2017; Antípodes:
Tartas, V; Perret-Clermont, AN; Baucal, A. Experimental micro-histories, private speech and a study of children’s learning and cognitive development / Microhistorias experimentales, habla privada y un estudio del aprendizaje y el desarrollo cognitivo en los niños. Infancia y Aprendizaje; 2016; 39,
Trognon, A; Sorsana, C; Batt, M; Longin, D. Peer interaction and problem solving: One example of a logical-discursive analysis of a process of joint decision making. European Journal of Developmental Psychology; 2008; 5,
Wegerif, R; Fujita, T; Doney, J; Pérez Linares, J; Andrews, R; Rhyn, C. Developing and trialing a measure of group thinking. Learning and Instruction; 2016; 48, pp. 40-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.001]
Yang, Y. Lessons learnt from contextualizing a UK teaching thinking program in a conventional Chinese classroom. Thinking Skills and Creativity; 2016; 19, pp. 198-209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.07.002]
Zapiti, A; Psaltis, C. Asymmetries in peer interaction: The effect of social representations of gender and knowledge asymmetry on children´s cognitive development. European Journal of Social Psychology; 2012; 42, pp. 578-588. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1885]
Zapiti, A; Psaltis, C. Too good to be true? Towards an understanding of the Zone of Proximal development (ZPD) dynamics from a Piagetian perspective: Gender composition and its changing role from early to middle childhood. Psihologija; 2019; 52,
© Instituto Universitário de Ciências Psicológicas, Sociais e da Vida 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.