How Introverts versus Extroverts Approach Small-Group Argumentative Discussions

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.

[1]  Andrew S. Rancer,et al.  A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. , 1982, Journal of personality assessment.

[2]  E. Michael Nussbaum.  The Process of Becoming a Participant in Small-Group Critical Discussions: A Case Study. , 2002 .

[3]  H. Eysenck.  Biological dimensions of personality. , 1990 .

[4]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[5]  R. Straton,et al.  The Development of a Co-Operative, Competitive, and Individualised Learning Preference Scale for Students. , 1980 .

[6]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities , 1984 .

[7]  Michael J. Beatty,et al.  Communication apprehension as temperamental expression: A Communibiological paradigm , 1998 .

[8]  P. Costa,et al.  Personality trait structure as a human universal. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[9]  F. Murray,et al.  When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. , 1982 .

[10]  The education of reason: Cognitive conflict and its role in intellectual development. , 1992 .

[11]  W. Turnbull,et al.  Conversational structure and facework in arguing , 1998 .

[12]  M. Pressley,et al.  Discourse Patterns and Collaborative Scientific Reasoning in Peer and Teacher-Guided Discussions , 1999 .

[13]  A. Furnham,et al.  Personality and speech production: a pilot study of second language learners , 2000 .

[14]  E. Cohen.  Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups , 1994 .

[15]  G. Blickle.  Argumentativeness and the Facets of the Big Five , 1997 .

[16]  Herbert J. Walberg.  Teaching and Learning Through Discussion: The Theory, Research, and Practice of the Discussion Method. , 1991 .

[17]  Melanie Killen,et al.  Peer interaction and the process of change in children's moral reasoning. , 1982 .

[18]  W. Doise.  The social development of the intellect , 1984 .

[19]  N. Webb,et al.  Constructive Activity and Learning in Collaborative Small Groups. , 1995 .

[20]  Matthew W. Keefer,et al.  Judging the Quality of Peer-Led Student Dialogues , 2000 .

[21]  J. T. Dillon.  Questioning and Discussion: A Multidisciplinary Study , 1988 .

[22]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  L. Mason.  Collaborative Reasoning on Self-Generated Analogies: Conceptual Growth in Understanding Scientific Phenomena. , 1996 .

[24]  J. Gray,et al.  Perspectives on Anxiety and Impulsivity: A Commentary , 1987 .

[25]  D. Walton.  Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning , 1995 .