The potential of on-line discussions to prompt greater reflection of course material is often stymied by a tendency of students to agree with one another rather than to formulate counter-arguments. This article describes an experiment using note starters and elaborated cases to encourage counter-argumentation and examines interactions with personality characteristics. Participants were 48 undergraduates who wrote on-line discussion notes in response to two issues in educational psychology. Participants also completed a personality survey, based on McCrae and Costa's (1997) five-factor personality model. There was a significant positive main effect of note starters on the frequency of disagreement, as well as personality-treatment interactions between note starters and several personality characteristics, The results suggest that note starters are most useful for students with low degrees of curiosity (“openness to ideas”) or assertiveness, and who are not overly anxious. Note starters appear to encourage students to consider other points of view during on-line discussions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexopoulouE.DriverR. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1099–1114.
2.
AlthauserR.MatugaJ. M. (1998). On the pedagogy of electronic instruction. In BorkC. J.KingK. S. (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 183–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
AndersonR. C.ChinnC.WaggonerM.NguyenK. (1998). Intellectually stimulating story discussions. In OsbornJ.LehrF. (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (pp. 172–186). New York: Guilford.
4.
AndriessenJ.BakerM.SuthersD. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In AndriessenJ.BakerM.SuthersD. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1–25). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
5.
AndriessenJ.ErkensG.van de LaakC.PetersN.CoirierP. (2003). Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In AndriessenJ.BakerM.SuthersD. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 79–115). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
6.
AshtonM. C.LeeK.PaunonenS. V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion?: Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83, 245–251.
7.
BakerM. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In AndriessenJ.BakerM.SuthersD. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47–78). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
8.
BakerM.HansenT.JoinerR.TraumD. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. In DillenbourgP. (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 31–63). New York: Pergamon.
9.
BarabS. A.ThomasM. K.MerrillH. (2001). Online learning: From information dissemination to fostering collaboration. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 105–143.
10.
BeattyM. J.McCroskeyJ. C.HeiselA. D. (1998). Communication apprehension as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. Communication Monographs, 65, 197–219.
11.
BellP.LinnM. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artefacts: Designs for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.
12.
BlickleG. (1997). Argumentativeness and the facets of the big five. Psychological Reports, 81, 1379–1385.
13.
BonkC. J.KingK. S. (1998). Computer conferencing and collaborative writing tools: Starting a dialogue about student dialogue. In BonkC. J.KingK. S. (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 3–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BrownR. A. J.RenshawP. D. (2000). Collective argumentation: A sociocultural approach to refraining classroom teaching and learning. In CowieH.van der AalsvoortG. (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 52–66). New York: Pergamon.
16.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.FeinsteinJ. A.JarvisW. B. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.
17.
ChanC. K. K. (2001). Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information. Instructional Science, 29, 443–479.
ChinnC. A.O'DonnellA. M.JinksT. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 77–97.
20.
ClarkH. H.BrennanS. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In ResnickL.LevineJ. M.TeasleyS. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
21.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.
22.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1994). From visual word problems to learning communities: Changing conceptions of cognitive research. In McGillyK. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 157–200). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
ColemanE. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 387–427.
24.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
25.
Davidson-ShiversG. V.MuilenburgL.TannerE. J. (2001). How do students participate in synchronous and asynchronous online discussions?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25, 351–366.
26.
DuffyT. M.DeuberB.HawleyC. L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In BonkC. J.KingK. S. (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 51–78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
ErkensG.AndriessenK.PetersN. (2003). Interaction and performance in computer-supported collaborative tasks. In van OostendorpH. (Ed.), Cognition in a digital world (pp. 225–251). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28.
FernándezM.WegerifR.MercerN.Rojas-DrummondS. (2001). Re-conceptualizing “scaffolding” and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36, 40–53.
29.
GlickJ. (1997). Discourse and development: Notes from the field. In ResnickL. B.SäljöR.PontecorvoC.BungeB. (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 243–264). New York: Springer.
30.
GoffmanE. (1972). Relations in public: Microstudies of the social order. New York: Basic Books.
31.
GoldmanS. R.DuschlR. A.EllenbogenK.WilliamsS. R.TzouC. (2003). Science inquiry in a digital world: Possibilities for making thinking visible. In van OostendorpH. (Ed.), Cognition in a digital world (pp. 253–283). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
HaraN.BonkC. J.AngeliC. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152.
33.
HartleyK.BendixenL. D. (2001). Educational research in the Internet age: Examining the role of individual characteristics. Educational Researcher, 30(9), 22–26.
34.
HickeyD. T.MooreA. L.PellegrinoJ. W. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference?American Educational Research Journal, 38, 611–652.
35.
HsiS.HoadleyC. M. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6, 23–36.
36.
InfanteD. A.RancerA. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80.
37.
InfanteD. A.RancerA. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. In BurlesonD. R.KunkelA. W. (Eds.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 319–351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
JärveläS.HäkkinenP. (2003). The levels of web-based discussions: Using perspective-taking theory as an analytical tool. In van OostendorpH. (Ed.), Cognition in a digital world (pp. 77–95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
JonassenD. H.CarrC. S. (2000). Mindtools: Affording multiple knowledge representations for learning. In LajoieS. P. (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools (vol. 2): No more walls (pp. 165–196). Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
KingA.StaffieriA.AdelgaisA. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 134–152.
41.
KingJ. E. (2002, April). Logistic regression: Going beyond point-and-click. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
42.
KoschmannT. (2003). CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry: Argumentation is learning. In AndriessenJ.BakerM.SuthersD. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 261–269). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
43.
KovalainenM.KumpulainenK.VasamaS. (2001/2002). Orchestrating classroom interaction in a community of inquiry: Modes of teacher participation. Journal of Classroom Interactions, 36/37, 17–28.
44.
KuhnD. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University.
45.
LampertM. L.RittenhouseP.CrumbaughC. (1996). Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematical discourse. In OlsonD. R.TorranceN. (Eds.), Handbook of human development in education (pp. 731–764). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
46.
LipponenL.RahikainenM.HakkarainenK.PalonenT. (2002). Effective participation and discourse through a computer network: Investigating elementary students computer supported interaction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27, 355–384.
47.
MarttunenM. (1998). Electronic mail as a forum for argumentative interaction in higher education studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18, 387–405.
48.
MarttunenM.LaurinenL. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127–153.
49.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
50.
MercerN. (1994). The quality of talk in children's joint activity at the computer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 10, 24–32.
51.
MurphyK. L.DrabierR.LueppsM. (1998). A constructivist look at interaction and collaboration via computer conferencing. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 4, 237–261.
52.
NussbaumE. M. (2001, August). Argumentation discourse patterns: Are differences caused by gender or personality? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
53.
NussbaumE. M. (2002). How introverts versus extroverts approach classroom argumentative discussions. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 183–197.
54.
NussbaumE. M.BendixenL. M. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 573–595.
55.
NussbaumE. M.SinatraG. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384–395.
56.
OshimaJ.OshimaR. (2002). Coordination of asynchronous and synchronous communication: Differences in qualities of knowledge advancement discourse between experts and novices. In KoschmannT.HallR.MiyakeN. (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 55–84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
57.
PalloffR. M.PrattK. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
58.
Pena-ShaffJ.MartinW.GayG. (2001). An epistemological framework for analyzing student interactions in computer mediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 41–68.
59.
PerkinsD. N.FaradyM.BusheyB. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In VossJ. F.PerkinsD. N.SegalJ. W. (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
60.
PilkingtonR.WalkerA. (2003). Using CMC to develop argumentation skills in children with a ‘literacy deficit.’ In AndriessenJ.BakerM.SuthersD. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 144–175). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
61.
ReznitskayaA.AndersonR. C.McNurlenB.Nguyen-JahielK.ArchodidouA.KimS. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175.
62.
RourkeL.AndersonT. (2002). Exploring social communication in computer conferencing. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13, 259–275.
63.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37–68.
64.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC.LamonM. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In McGillyK. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201–228). Cambridge, MA: Bradford MIT Press.
65.
SchwarzB. B.GlassnerA. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In AndriessenJ.BakerM.SuthersD. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
66.
SchwarzB. B.NeumanY.BiezunerS. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right: If they argue together!Cognition and Instruction, 18, 461–494.
67.
SheldonA. (1992). Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic challenges to self-assertion and how young girls meet them. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 95–117.
68.
SnowR. E. (1989). Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in learning. In AckermanP. L.SternbergR. J.GlaserR. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Advances in theory and research (pp. 14–59). New York: W. H. Freeman.
69.
SnowR. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5–32.
70.
SnowR. E.CornoL.JacksonD. N. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative functions. In BerlinerD. C.CalfeeR. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 243–310). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
71.
StewartC. M.ShieldsS. F.SenN. (2001). Diversity in on-line discussions: A study of cultural and gender differences in listservs. In EssC.SudweeksF. (Eds.), Culture, technology, communication: Towards an intercultural global village (pp. 161–186). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
72.
SuthersD. D. (1999). Effects of alternate representations of evidential relations on collaborative discourse. In HoadlyC.RoschelleJ. (Eds.), Computer support for collaboration learning (CSCL) 1999. Designing new media for a new millennium: Learning, education, and training (pp. 611–623). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
73.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
74.
TeichertM. A.StacyA. M. (2002). Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of ideas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 464–496.
75.
TienL. T.RothV.KampmeierJ. A. (2002). Implementation of a peer-led learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organize chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 606–631.
76.
van BruggenJ. M.KirschnerP. A. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In AndriessenJ.BakerM.SuthersD. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 177–204). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
77.
van EemerenF. H.GrootendorstR.HenkemansA. F. S. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, and presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
78.
van ZeeE. H.MinstrellJ. (1997). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 209–228.
79.
VeermanA. L. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In AndriessenJ.BakerM.SuthersD. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 117–143). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
80.
VeermanA. L.Treasure-JonesT. (1999). Software for problem solving through collaborative argumentation. In RijlaarsdamG.EspèretE. (Series Eds.) and AndriessenJ.CoirierP. (Vol. Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 203–229). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
81.
VyeN. J.GoldmanS. R.VossJ. F.HmeloC., Williams, S., & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). Complex mathematical problem solving by individuals and dyads. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 435–484.
82.
WebbN. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.
83.
WegerifR.MercerN.DawesL. (1998). Software design to support discussion in the primary curriculum. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 199–211.
84.
WegerifR.MercerN.DawesL. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible sociocultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9, 493–516.
85.
WilsonS. R.AlemanC. G.LeathamG. B. (1998). Identity implications of influence goals: A revised analysis of face-threatening acts and application to seeking compliance with same-sex friends. Human Communication Research, 25, 64–96.
86.
WoodD.BrunerJ.RossS. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 181–196.
