Abstracts - Earli

P 1701 September 2007 11:00 - 12:20Room: 0.83 EötvösPaper SessionReasoning and problem solvingChair: Angela O’Donnell, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, USAThe function of counterfactual thinking in academic contextAna Cristina Quelhas, Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, PortugalCsongor Juhos, Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, PortugalCounterfactual thinking (CT) refers to the kind of thoughts that we have when we imagine howthings could have happen in a different way. We usually have these thoughts when somethingundesirable happens, e.g. a student that obtains a poor grade in an examination might think: If Ihad studied more, I could have gotten a better grade. The aim of this research is to understand ifstudents take advantage in their academic performance when they are prompted to thinkcounterfactually. We analyzed, in a real life academic situation, the preparatory function of CT notonly at an intentional, but also at a behavioral level. 304 students of the 1st year of psychology atISPA (Lisbon) took a regular test in classroom situation. At the end, they corrected their testsunder supervision of the lecturer and got grades. Afterwards they were invited to write down thethoughts they had about the situation, and to evaluate how prepared they felt for future similarsituations. Then, they were induced to think counterfactually about what happened and again theyreported their feelings of preparation. Finally, they were asked about future intentions in order toimprove their performance. Control group followed the same procedure, except that they were notinvited to think counterfactually. In general, counterfactual thoughts were of upward direction(78%), and of additive structure (70%). Results showed that the reported feelings of being moreprepared to future similar situations, and to avoid a low grade, were higher after CT than before:F(1, 181)=3,993, p=0.047, and planned comparisons showed that this is a significant effect in theexperimental group, but it is not in the control group. In a near future similar situation, we aregoing to evaluate if intentions for improvement were fulfilled, and if a better grade is obtained.The importance of distinguishing ‘dialogic’ from ‘dialectic’ in studies of teaching and learningthrough social interactionRupert Wegerif, The University of Exeter, United KingdomThis paper argues for the distinctive value of Bakhtin’s concept of ‘dialogic’ in educationalresearch using a combination of critical literature review, conceptual analysis and evidence fromempirical studies of learning through social interaction. First the paper questions the intellectualcoherence of the widespread synthesis of Vygotsky with Bakhtin, a synthesis often described as adialogic theory of education. The paper argues that Vygotsky’s application of dialectic theory todevelopment treats the perspective of the other as a mediating means for the development of theself and for the development of knowledge structures. By contrast, it is argued, Bakhtin’s dialogicbegins by positing the irreducible difference of the other claiming that this is a pre-condition formeaning. Understanding, for Bakhtin, is not a cognitive structure but the reflective awareness thatcomes from seeing things from more than one perspective at the same time. The conceptualdistinction between dialectic and dialogic translates to the pedagogical distinction betweendialogue as a means for the construction of knowledge and dialogue as an end in itself. Two case– 857 –