2025 Volume 98 Pages 27-35
This study empirically examined the mechanisms of mutual examination and argument adjustment in consensus-building discussions among junior high school students. The participants included second-year students experienced in discussion activities. Analysis focused on utterances related to argument examination and adjustment, emphasizing the level of agreement. Results showed that all groups employed triangular logic-based arguments, counter-arguments, and collaborative adjustments. Groups with high level of agreement demonstrated reasoning considerate of “assumed others” and shared concrete experiences, fostering “logical empathy.” Additionally, they managed to redirect discussions from conflict to cooperation by juxtaposing differing opinions and identifying common ground. Furthermore, verbalizing opinion changes and hesitation significantly promoted group collaboration for consensus. These findings suggest two key requirements for effective consensus-building discussions: raising awareness of the discussion’s purpose and “assumed others,” and fostering attitudes that seek collaborative examination and adjustment of arguments.
