Interpersonal Aspects of Thinking Skills in an Intercultural Language Learning Context

Asking and answering certain types of questions are thought to develop thinking skills in all types of classrooms. Previous research has demonstrated that asking higher order questions and answering with elaborated responses are associated with high achievement in first, second, and foreign language contexts. Typically more attention is paid to question frequency or achievements inferred from individual performances than to the dialogues in which asking and answering occurs. This paper argues for a focus on the construction of responses in interaction as an alternative to the investigation of questions, effects of training or individual measurements of performance. Drawing on interactional data from an adult English as a Second Language classroom, it is argued that constructing an answer to a critical question appears to be a highly collaborative and evaluative affair. The thinking skills literature suggests that responding to higher order questions is an individual higher cognitive function, however it is argued in this paper that in attempting to construct evaluative answers language learners are involved not only in a cognitive task, which may or may not be helpful to language learning, but also in a complex social task in which perspectives need to be negotiated, stances taken and identities navigated. It is suggested that higher order thinking cannot be separated from the social and cultural knowledge through which it is brought into being. It is argued that any implementation of thinking skills in an English language teaching context ought to consider interpersonal and social aspects, particularly in intercultural settings.

Claw removal and feeding ability in the edible crab, Cancer pagurus: Implications for fishery practice

Feeding ability and motivation were assessed in the edible crab, Cancer pagurus, to investigate how the fishery practice of de-clawing may affect live crabs returned to the sea. Crabs were either induced to autotomise one claw, or were only handled, before they were offered food. Initially, autotomised and handled crabs were offered mussels, Mytilis edulis, a large part of their natural diet. After 3 days, both autotomised and handled crabs were then offered fish, a more readily handled food source. Autotomy induced crabs consumed significantly fewer mussels and less mussel mass, but ate significantly more mass of fish. This indicates that the effect of autotomy was a reduction of ability to feed on mussels rather than a general reduction of feeding motivation. The discontinuation of claw removal needs to be considered, both for the sustainability of the fishery and animal welfare concerns. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Assessment of fighting ability in animal contests

Selection should favour accurate information gathering regarding the likely costs and benefits of continued conflict. Here we consider how variation in the abilities of contestants to assess resource-holding potential (RHP) influences fights. This has been examined in various game theory models. However, discriminating between assessment strategies has proven difficult and has resulted in confusion. To add clarity, we group existing models into three main types that differ in the information about RHP that contestants are presumed to gather: (1) pure self-assessment, (2) cumulative assessment and (3) mutual assessment. Within this framework we outline methods advocated to discriminate successfully between the three main assessment models. We discuss support for each model, before highlighting a number of conflicting and inconclusive studies, leading us to consider alternative approaches to investigate assessment. Furthermore, we examine support for newly emerging concepts such as 'varying degrees of assessment', 'switching assessment' strategies and the possibility of contestants adopting different assessment strategies within a fight involving distinctive roles. We suggest future studies will benefit by judicious use of a battery of techniques to determine how animals settle contests. Finally, we highlight difficulties with current game theory models, and raise concerns regarding the use of certain behavioural criteria to accept or reject a model, particularly since this may conflict with evidence for a given assessment strategy. Furthermore, the failure of existing models to account for newly emerging concepts points to limitations of their use and leads us to challenge game theoreticians to develop upon them. (C) 2009 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.