Trait Argumentativeness

Abstract
Scientific argumentation is considered both the process and the outcome of justifying scientific claims and
comparing competing theories, and should be an integral part of science teaching and learning. The present
study investigated factors influencing Scientific Argumentation Ability (SAA) in a computer-supported
collaborative learning environment. The factors examined were trait argumentativeness, type (individual or
collaborative) and issue of argumentation activities. 61 undergraduate primary education students were
administered the Argumentativeness Scale and were then allocated to 15 four-member, mixed-trait
argumentativeness groups. Each group was involved in one argumentation activity for a scientific issue, and
another for a socioscientific issue. Participants studied relevant material, then discussed on line, and finally
formulated their individual standpoint on the issues. SAA was measured using Sadler΄s (2006) scheme, but
slightly modified.  Α 3 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial design, with repeated measures of SAA and trait
argumentativeness as the between-subjects factor and argumentation issue (scientific or socioscientific) and
type of argumentation (individual or dialogical) as the within-subjects factors, was applied. Analyses
indicated a significant interaction between argumentation issue and type of argumentation. SAA for the
socioscientific issue was higher in its dialogic form, whereas, for the scientific issue, it was higher in its
individual form. A significant main effect of argumentation issue was also observed, indicating significantly
higher SAA for the socioscientific issue. Trait argumentativeness did not have any significant effect on SAA.
Educational implications of the results are discussed and recommendations for further research are put
forward.

ABSTRACT This research explored disparities between how students with different degrees of extroversion and introversion engaged in small-group discussions requiring the construction and critique of arguments. 2 studies were conducted. In the first study, 8 sixth-grade students from 2 classes discussed urban planning dilemmas in 2 small groups outside the classroom. Discussions were videotaped. Based on student responses to a short personality questionnaire, the 8 target students were selected from the extremes of the classroom distribution (4 extroverts and 4 introverts). The more extroverted students made significantly more contradictions and counterexamples during small-group discussions with other extroverts, indicating a greater tendency to use conflictual discourse. In contrast, the more introverted students worked with one another collaboratively to develop creative solutions. A replication study was conducted using 16 preservice teachers enrolled in an introductory educational psychology course; this study yielded similar results. Possible explanations of these findings are discussed.

The communication traits of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness were investigated for their relationships with small group members’ perceptions of communication satisfaction, cohesion, and consensus. Participants (N = 208) in on‐going task groups were surveyed. The results suggest that group members who are argumentative and not verbally aggressive are satisfied with their group's communication, and they perceive that the groups are more likely to reach consensus and experience a sense of cohesion. The results discuss the importance of communication traits in investigating small group communication.