Comparing Argumentative Language Use in Conditionally and Non-Conditionally Prompted Group Discussions Among 9- to 10-Year-Old Primary School Children—An Exploratory Study From a Sociocultural Perspective

Participating in a deliberative democracy involves engaging with a variety of perspectives. Previous research, particularly within Langer's mindfulness research program, has explored how a linguistic variation in tasks or research instructions (conditional prompting: X is…; non-conditional prompting: X could be…) has a positive impact on the inclusion of different perspectives. This study reports on a small-scale exploratory quasi-experiment that applied this linguistic variation in an argumentative task presented to primary school children in small-group discussions. The group discussions were video-recorded and transcribed. For statistical analysis, means of 10 categories of argumentative language use (e.g., verbs pertaining to argumentation) were compared between the differently prompted groups. The main finding shows similar argumentative language use across conditional and non-conditional prompts, which is unexpected from a Langerian perspective. The results are discussed in light of the Langerian research program and regarding educational research. Further research with larger data sets is necessary to better understand the trends observed in this study.