Dialogical PISA: correct answers are all alike, every incorrect answer is incorrect in its own way

  • Aleksandar Baucal
  • Dragica Pavlović Babić
  • Smiljana Jošić
Article
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Why do students give incorrect answers in PISA? What are the reasons for giving incorrect answers? Do all incorrect answers reflect only the lack of competence or might even a competent child make a mistake? The aim of this article is to contribute to a better understanding of these issues. In the current investigation, we selected six students who responded incorrectly to one PISA question in mathematics or science when they solved it individually. Then, we analyzed their understanding of the PISA task and their reasoning about it through a dialogical problem solving in triads to identify why they made an incorrect answer. Moreover, we tried to determine how the shared peer interaction might change the understanding and reasoning of the child and enable her/him to solve the task. The results of this study illustrate the differences between incorrect answers reflecting lack of competence and those incorrect answers, which appear for some other reasons. Based on the dialogical problem solving approach, we analyzed these two types of incorrect answers and the reasoning trajectories behind them.

Keywords

PISA International large-scale assessment Collaborative learning Peer interaction Dialogical problem solving 

Notes

References

  1. Aarnoutse, C., & van Leeuwe, J. (2000). Development of poor and better readers during the elementary school. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(3), 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anić, I., & Pavlović Babić, D. (2011). Rešavanje matematičkih problema u realnom kontekstu: kvalitativna i kvantitativna analiza postignuća. Nastava i vaspitanje, LX(2), 193–205.Google Scholar
  3. Anić, I., & Pavlović Babić, D. (2015). How we can support success in solving mathematical problems? Inovacije u nastavi-časopis za savremenu nastavu, 28(3), 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arcidiacono, F., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (2009). Revisiting the Piagetian test of conservation of quantities of liquid: argumentation within the adult-child interaction. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 3, 25–33.Google Scholar
  5. Arcidiacono, F., Baucal, A., & Buđevac, N. (2011). Doing qualitative research: the analysis of talk-in-interaction. In A. Baucal, F. Arcidiacono, & N. Budjevac (Eds.), Studying interaction in different contexts: a qualitative view (pp. 17–45). Belgrade: Institute of Psychology.Google Scholar
  6. Baucal, A. (2002) Is there place for the individual construction within sociocultural thinking? Labyrinth metaphor. Invited lecture at the roundtable “Exploring Psychological Development as a Social and Cultural Process” held at the Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, UK, 3–5 September 2002.Google Scholar
  7. Baucal, A. (2012). Ključne kompetencije mladih u Srbiji u PISA 2009 ogledalu. Institut za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet u Beogradu i Tim za socijalno uključivanje i smanjenje siromaštva Vlade Republike Srbije, Beograd.Google Scholar
  8. Baucal, A. (2013). Two instead of one ZPD: individual and joint construction in the ZPD. In S. Phillipson, K. Ku, & S. Phillipson (Eds.), Constructing educational achievement: a sociocultural perspective (pp. 161–173). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Baucal, A., Arcidiacono, F., & Buđevac, N. (Eds.). (2011). Studying interaction in different contexts: a qualitative view. Belgrade: Institute for Psychology.Google Scholar
  10. Baucal, A. & Jovanović, V. (2007). Critical role of the Rasch measurement in studying construction and co-construction of new cognitive competencies. Paper presented at the EARLI conference “Developing Potential for Learning”, Budapest, August 28 – September, 01, 2007.Google Scholar
  11. Baucal, A., & Jovanović, V. (2008). Dialogical PISA: development of competence through social interaction in different contexts. Psihologija, 41(4), 523–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baucal, A., & Stepanović, I. (2006). Conservation or conversation: a test of the repeated question hypothesis. Psihologija, 39(3), 257–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bruner, J., & Haste, H. (1987). Making sense: the child’s construction of the world. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  14. Buđevac, N., Arcidiacono, F., & Baucal, A. (2017). Reading together: the interplay between social and cognitive aspects in argumentative and non-argumentative dialogues. In F. Arcidiacono & A. Bova (Eds.), Interpersonal argumentation in educational and professional contexts (pp. 47–73). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark, K. F., & Graves, M. F. (2005). Scaffolding students’ comprehension of text. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 570–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elliott, J. G. (2003). Dynamic assessment in educational settings: realising potential. Educational Review, 55(1), 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ennis, R. (1987). Teaching thinking skills: theory and practice. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  18. Fernández, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2001). Re-conceptualizing “scaffolding” and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40–54.Google Scholar
  19. Foshay, A., Thorndike, R. L., Hotyat, F., Pidgeon, D. A., & Walker, D. A. (1962). Educational achievements of thirteen-year-olds in twelve countries. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  20. Gooding, D. (1990). Experiment and the making of meaning: human agency in scientific observation and experiment. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: the PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grek, S. (2012). What PISA knows and can do. European Educational Research Journal, 11(2), 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grossen, M., & Bachmann, K. (2000). Learning to collaborate in a peer-tutoring situation: who learns? What is learned? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(4), 491–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gustafsson, J. E. (2008). Effects of international comparative studies on educational quality on the quality of educational research. European Educational Research Journal, 7(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: clinical and educational applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Heymann, F. & Wals, A. E. J. (2002). Cultivating conflict and pluralism through dialogical deconstruction. Wheelbarrows full of frogs: social learning in resource management, 233–240.Google Scholar
  27. Hjorne, E., & Saljo, R. (2004). “There is something about Julia”: Symptoms, categories, and the process of invoking attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in the Swedish school: a case study. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jakobsson, A., Mäkitalo, Å., & Säljö, R. (2009). Conceptions of knowledge in research on students’ understanding of the greenhouse effect: methodological positions and their consequences for representations of knowing. Science Education, 93(4), 978–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcripts symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jovanović, V., & Baucal, A. (2007). Construction and co-construction in cognitive development. Psihologija, 40(2), 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context, 15–38.Google Scholar
  32. Krstić, K., & Baucal, A. D. (2003). Symmetrical social relation as a factor in conservation tasks. Psihologija, 36(4), 471–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ludvigsen, S. R., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Säljö, R. (Eds.). (2010). Learning across sites: new tools, infrastructures, and practices. Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: a sociocultural approach. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: how we use language to think together. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mirza, N. M., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (Eds.). (2009). Argumentation and education: theoretical foundations and practices. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  40. Mirza, N. M., Baucal, A., Perret-Clermont, A. N., & Marro, P. (2003). Nice designed experiment goes to the local community. Cahiers de Psychologie, 38, 17–28.Google Scholar
  41. OECD. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: first results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. OECD (2006). PISA 2006 PISA released items - science. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. OECD (2013a). PISA 2012 released mathematics items. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. OECD (2013b). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: mathematics reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy, OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190511-en.
  45. OECD. (2016a). PISA 2015 results (volume I): excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en.Google Scholar
  46. OECD. (2016b). PISA 2015 results (volume II): policies and practices for successful schools. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.Google Scholar
  47. OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 results (volume III): students’ well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en.Google Scholar
  48. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paradise, R., & Rogoff, B. (2009). Side by side: learning by observing and pitching. Ethos, 37(1), 102–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Perret-Clermont, A. N., & Shubauer-Leoni, M. L. (1989). Social factors in learning and teaching: towards an integrative perspective. Internacional Journal of Educational Research, 13(6), 575–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Perret-Clermont, A. N., & Shubauer-Leoni, M. L. (1981). Conflict and cooperation as opportunities for learning. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Communication in development (pp. 203–233). London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive development in children. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  53. Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1993). What is it that develops? Cognition and Instruction, 11(3–4), 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Piaget, J. (1923/2002). The language and thought of the child. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Psaltis, C., & Duveen, G. (2006). Social relations and cognitive development: the influence of conversation type and representations of gender. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(3), 407–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Radišić, J., & Jošić, S. (2015). Challenges, obstacles and outcomes of applying inquiry method in primary school mathematics: example of an experienced teacher. Inovacije u nastavi-časopis za savremenu nastavu, 28(3), 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: what can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  58. Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Säljö, R., & Wyndham, J. (1993). Solving everyday problems in the formal setting: an empirical study of the school as context for thought. In J. L. Seth Chalklin (Ed.), Understanding practice: perspectives on activity and context (pp. 327–342). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schleicher, A. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills: a new framework for assessment. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.Google Scholar
  61. Schoultz, J., Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: discourse, artifacts, and children’s understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44(2–3), 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrong may make a right...if they argue together. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013b). The OECD and the expansion of PISA: new global modes of governance in education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 917–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013a). The OECD and global governance in education. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 710–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: the nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Tartas, V., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (2008). Socio-cognitive dynamics in dyadic interaction: how do you work together to solve Koh’s cubes? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(5), 561–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A. N., & Baucal, A. (2016). Experimental micro-histories, private speech and a study of children’s learning and cognitive development. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 39(4), 772–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tudge, J. R. H. (1989). When collaboration leads to regression: some negative consequences of socio-cognitive conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(2), 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tudge, J. R. H. (1992). Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: a Vygotskian analysis. Child Development, 63(6), 1364–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tudge, J., & Rogoff, B. (1989). Peer influences on cognitive development: Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives. In M. Bornstein & J. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in human development (pp. 17–25). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  71. Vygotsky, L.S. (1934/2012) Thought and language – revised and expanded edition. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  72. Wagemaker, H. (2013). International large-scale assessments: from research to policy. In L. Rutkowski, M. von Davier, & D. Rutkowski (Eds.), Handbook of international large-scale assessment: background, technical issues, and methods of data analysis (pp. 11–36). London: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  73. Wegerif, R., McLaren, B. M., Chamrada, M., Scheuer, O., Mansour, N., Mikšátko, J., & Williams, M. (2010). Exploring creative thinking in graphically mediated synchronous dialogues. Computers & Education, 54(3), 613–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wells, G. (2009). The meaning makers: learning to talk and talking to learn (2nd ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  75. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zittoun, T., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (2009). Four social psychological lenses for developmental psychology. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(3), 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Institute for Educational ResearchBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations