Enhancing collaborative argumentation in an online environment

Studies indicate that collaborative argumentation can aid students\u27 understanding and improve their problem-solving skills. This study used the online environment WebCT to explore the improvement of argumentation through goal instruction. In previous studies of collaborative argumentation using WebCT, small groups of students discussed controversial questions. Some groups were given a general goal to persuade, but others were given an elaborated goal to generate reasons and evidence. The effect that the elaborated goal had compared to the general goal was analyzed. This study replicated those previous studies, with some alterations. The goal was to evaluate two interventions designed to increase argument balance and development; Elaborating the question did enhance balance and argument development, especially for low-knowledge students. The reason condition had some effectiveness with some knowledge interactions. Also, asking students to complete a survey and declare their position before engaging in discussion tended to reduce balance

Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning

Collaborative learning in computer-supported learning environments typically means that learners work on tasks together, discussing their individual perspectives via text-based media or videoconferencing, and consequently acquire knowledge. Collaborative learning, however, is often sub-optimal with respect to how learners work on the concepts that are supposed to be learned and how learners interact with each other. One possibility to improve collaborative learning environments is to conceptualize epistemic scripts, which specify how learners work on a given task, and social scripts, which structure how learners interact with each other. In this contribution, two studies will be reported that investigated the effects of epistemic and social scripts in a text-based computer-supported learning environment and in a videoconferencing learning environment in order to foster the individual acquisition of knowledge. In each study the factors ‘epistemic script’ and ‘social script’ have been independently varied in a 2×2-factorial design. 182 university students of Educational Science participated in these two studies. Results of both studies show that social scripts can be substantially beneficial with respect to the individual acquisition of knowledge, whereas epistemic scripts apparently do not to lead to the expected effects

The influence of the discussion leader procedure on the quality of arguments in online discussions

Online discussions can lead to an enriched understanding of course content. This study explored the influence of a discussion leader procedure with specific instructions on the quality of online argumentation and interactivity. Sound analysis of both sides of an issue and movement towards a final resolution has not been evaluated within online discussions current research. Subjects were 44 undergraduate students who participated in online discussions on a technology issue over two weeks. Participants also completed a need for cognition scale developed by Cacioppo, Petty, and Kao (1984). Results indicated that students participating in groups receiving specific argumentation instructions from the leader produced better online argumentation for the second week and exhibited increased interactivity patterns for both weeks

Cognitive load of critical thinking strategies

Critical thinking is important for today\u27s life, where individuals daily face unlimited amounts of information, complex problems, and rapid technological and social changes. Therefore, critical thinking should be the focus of general education and educators\u27 efforts (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Oliver & Utermohlen, 1995). Despite passively agreeing or disagreeing with a line of reasoning, critical thinkers use analytical skills to comprehend and evaluate its merits, considering strengths and weaknesses. Critical thinkers also analyze arguments, recognizing the essentiality of asking for reasons and considering alternative views and developing their own point of view (Paul, 1990). Kuhn and Udell (2007) emphasize that the ability to participate in sound argument is central to critical thinking and is essential to skilled decision making. Nussbaum and Schraw (2007) emphasized that effective argumentation includes not only considering counterarguments but also evaluating, weighing, and combining the arguments and counterarguments into support for a final conclusion. Nussbaum and Schraw called this process argument-counterargument integration. The authors identified three strategies that could be used to construct an integrative argument in the context of writing reflective essays: a refutation, weighing, and design claim strategy. They also developed a graphic organizer called the argumentation vee diagram (AVD) for helping students write reflective essay. This study focuses on the weighing and design claim strategies. In the weighing strategy, an arguer can argue that the weight of reasons and evidence on one side of the issue is stronger than that on the other side. In a design claim strategy, a reasoner tends to form her opinion or conclusion based on supporting an argument side (by taking its advantages) and eliminating or reducing the disadvantages of the counterargument side. Based on learning other definitions for argumentation, I define argumentation in this study as a reasoning tool of evaluation through giving reasons and evidence for one\u27s own positions, and evaluating counterarguments of different ideas for different views. In cognitive psychology, cognitive load theory seems to provide a promising framework for studying and increasing our knowledge about cognitive functioning and learning activities. Cognitive load theory contributes to education and learning by using human cognitive architecture to understand the design of instruction. CLT assumes limited working memory resources when information is being processed (Sweller & Chandler, 1994; Sweller, Van Merriënboer & Paas, 1998; Van Merriënboer & Sweller, 2005). The Present Research Study Research Questions 1- What is the cognitive load imposed by two different argument-counterargument integration strategies (weighing, and constructing a design claim)? 2- What is the impact of using the AVDs on amount of cognitive load, compared to using a less diagrammatic structure (linear list)? It is hypothesized that the weighing strategy would impose greater cognitive load, as measured by mental effort rating scale and time, than constructing a design claim strategy. As proposed by Nussbaum (2008), in using weighing strategy a larger number of disparate (non-integrative) elements must be coordinated and maintained in working memory. It is also hypothesized that the AVDs would reduce cognitive load, compared to a linear list, By helping individuals better connect, organize, and remember information (various arguments) (Rulea, Baldwin & Schell, 2008), and therefore freeing up processing capacity for essential cognitive processing (Stull & Mayer, 2007). The experimental design of the study consisted of four experimental groups that used strategies and two control groups. I tested the hypotheses of the study by using a randomized 2x3 factorial design ANOVA (two strategies prompt x AVD and non- AVD) with a control group included in each factor. Need for cognition (NFC), a construct reflecting the tendency to enjoy and engage in effortful cognitive processing (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), was measured and used as an indication of participants\u27 tendency to put forth cognitive effort. Thinking and argument-counterargument integration processes took place through electronic discussion board (WebCampus), considering analysis questions about grading issue Should students be graded on class participation? I chose that analysis question as it represents an issue that is meaningful and important for college students, in that they can relate and engage easily in thinking about it. The results of the first research question pointed to a significant relationship between the complexity of an essay, as measured by complexity of weighing refutation, and cognitive load as measured by time and cognitive load scale. Weighing refutations also involved more mental effort than design claims even when controlling for the complexity of the arguments. The results also revealed that there was a significant interaction effect for NFC. The results of the second research question were non-significant. The results showed that the linear list that was used by the control group was as productive as the AVDs. There was no difference between the control and experimental groups in the amount of cognitive load that they reported in terms of mental effort and time spent on the thinking and integration process. Measuring the cognitive load of different argument-counterargument integration strategies will help inform instructional efforts on how best to teach these strategies, design effective instructional techniques for teaching critical thinking, and will also help provide theoretical insight in the cognitive processes involved in using these strategies

The effects of students\u27 asynchronous online discussions of conceptual errors on intentionally flawed teacher-constructed concept maps

Research shows that online discussions are often unfocused and without providing much benefit to students\u27 learning outcomes. One of the reasons behind this phenomenon is the lack of or inadequate scaffolding or guidance provided to students when participating on asynchronous discussion boards. The collaborative misconception mapping strategy is a tool that was designed to mediate cognitive and metacognitive processes via feedback provided by peers and a teacher-created concept map that contains intentional conceptual errors; This study evaluated the effects of collaborative misconception mapping as compared with those of a traditional online discussion activity, where students post responses to discussion questions. Subjects were 52 undergraduate students in health sciences statistics classes at a large southwestern urban university; 24 in the misconception mapping group and 29 in the traditional discussion group. The level of meaningfulness of students\u27 discussions using a rubric based on an intentional conceptual change model, and their post-test scores were compared. In addition, utilizing mean scores on the Metacognitive Self-regulation subscale of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), the collaborative misconception mapping strategy\u27s effectiveness for students with low self-regulation skills was investigated. Findings indicate that the misconception mapping strategy outperforms the traditional discussion tool, as it provides a self-regulatory scaffold to students, and improves learning outcomes even for those with low levels of self-regulation. The strategy also enhances the meaningfulness of discussions in terms of their reflection of cognitive and metacognitive processes, and promotes more positive learner perceptions regarding the tool itself. It is recommended that instructors reevaluate their online discussion requirements, consider the negative impact unguided online discussions may have on their students\u27 online learning experience, and provide appropriate cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding for optimal learning outcomes

Improving Argumentation Through Goal Instructions in Asynchronous Online Discussions

Argumentation incorporated into class discussions can improve students\u27 problem solving skills and enhance their epistemic and conceptual understanding. Research indicates students sometimes need scaffolding such as goal instructions to improve their argumentation skills. This study examined the effectiveness of different types of goal instructions on participants\u27 argumentation achievement. In particular, the study compared the effects of minimal, moderate, substantial, and no goal instructions in asynchronous online discussions on participants\u27 argumentation achievement, as measured by development, balance, and explanatory discourse scores. The study also tried to understand participants\u27 experiences of the goal instructions by comparing the differences in emergent themes across goal instructions groups. Ninety-seven undergraduate students participated in three debates and posted responses to an open-ended qualitative question over a three-week period. The study found significant differences in the balance scores between minimal, moderate, and substantial goal instructions and no goal instructions, indicating that goal instructions are effective in facilitating responses that consider both sides of an issue. In particular, findings suggested that goal instructions with any level of specificity are more effective in creating balance in argumentation than no goal instructions and that minimal goal instructions are more effective than moderate and substantial goal instructions in encouraging participants to present both sides of an issue. While the study did not find significant differences in explanatory discourse scores, the differences were close enough to significance to suggest that goal instructions did have some positive effect on helping participants consider other people\u27s perspectives in a constructive way and build on each other\u27s ideas. Quantitative analysis of codes across goal instructions groups revealed participants who received limited instructions focused their discussions on the environment itself while participants who received extended instructions focused their discussions on the impact that debates had on them. Therefore, it is likely that more extended instructions made an impact on encouraging participants to think about their views and consider other people\u27s perspectives. The study did not find significant differences in development scores or differences in participants\u27 perceptions across goal instructions groups. However, there are indicators that suggest that participants might have dismissed many aspects of moderate and substantial goal instructions, and additional research is needed to confirm these conclusions. Additional research on goal instructions using different methods for evaluating quality of argumentation is also needed to confirm the results of this study

The effects of question prompt-based scaffolding and social presence enhancement on students' argumentation and ill-structured problem solving

Asynchronous online discussions have the potential to facilitate meaningful learning activities, such as ill-structured problem-solving, due to their asynchronicity and connectivity. However, the literature identifies two significant challenges in effectively supporting students' ill-structured problem-solving in these environments - argumentation and social interactions. Although argumentation is critical for ill-structured problem-solving, students tend to avoid engaging in critical argumentation activities, such as generating rebuttals and counterarguments, to construct meaning in discussion forums. Similarly, social interactions are essential to ill-structured problem-solving, but students tend to display low levels of engagement in asynchronous online discussions. This study aimed to explore how these two critical components of problem-solving can be supported in asynchronous online discussions using question prompt-based argumentation scaffolds in combination with social presence enhancement strategies. The primary focus was to compare the differential effects of question prompts alone and the combination of question prompts with social presence enhancement prompts on students' argumentation behaviors, problem-solving processes during discussions, and post-test problem-solving performance. This study randomly assigned 44 students to three conditions (control, question prompt-based, and question prompt with social presence enhancement) to analyze their argumentation behaviors, problem-solving processes, and problem-solving performance in asynchronous online discussions. The findings reveal that: (1) lower level interactive argumentation behaviors dominate over higher level interactive ones; (2) students focus more on identifying problem representations and generating solutions than on justifying and evaluating them; (3) there is no significant difference in argumentation behaviors and problem-solving processes in asynchronous online discussions across the conditions. However, students who received both the question prompt scaffolds and the social presence enhancement strategies consistently showed more evidence of engaging in argumentation, especially higher level interactive argumentation, and in problem-solving processes; and (4) there is a significant difference in post-test problem-solving performance across conditions, where students in the condition that received both the question prompt scaffolds and the social presence enhancement strategies performed significantly better than students in the control condition. The study's findings underscore the importance of supporting students' social presence to engage them in interactive argumentation and problem-solving processes, thereby enhancing their problem-solving performance. This study contributes to the understanding of argumentation scaffolding and social interactions in asynchronous online discussion environments and provides design recommendations for instructional designers and instructors seeking to support students' argumentation and social presence in these environments.Includes bibliographical references

Designing Asynchronous Online Discussion Environments: Recent Progress and Possible Future Directions

Asynchronous online discussion environments are important platforms to support learning. Research suggests, however, threaded forums, one of the most popular asynchronous discussion environments, do not often foster productive online discussions naturally. This paper explores how certain properties of threaded forums have affected or constrained the quality of discussions, and argues that developing alternative discussion environments is highly needed to offer better support for asynchronous online communication. Using the Productive Discussion Model developed by Gao, Wang & Sun (2009), we analyzed current work on four types of asynchronous discussion environments that have been developed and researched: constrained environments, visualized environments, anchored environments and combined environments. The paper has implications for developing future asynchronous discussion environments. More specifically, future work should aim at (a) exploring new environments that support varied goals of learning; (b) integrating emerging technologies to address the constraints of current environments; (c) designing multi-functional environments to facilitate complex learning, and (d) developing appropriate instructional activities and strategies for these environments

Conceptualizing and supporting awareness of collaborative argumentation

In this thesis, we introduce “Argue(a)ware”. This is a concept for an instructional group awareness tool which aims at supporting social interactions in co-located computer-supported collaborative argumentation settings. Argue(a)ware is designed to support the social interactions in the content (i.e., task-related) and in the relational (i.e., social and interpersonal) space of co-located collaborative argumentation (Barron, 2003). The support for social interactions in the content space of collaboration is facilitated with the use of collaborative scripts for argumentation (i.e., instructions and scaffolds of argument construction) as well with the use of an argument mapping tool (i.e., visualization of argumentation outcomes in a form of diagrams) (Stegmann, Weinberger, & Fischer, 2007; van Gelder, 2013). The support for social interactions in the relational space of collaboration is facilitated with the use of different awareness mechanisms from the CSCL and the CSCW research fields (i.e., monitoring, mirroring and awareness notification tools). In this thesis, we examined how different awareness mechanisms facilitate the regulation of collaborative processes in the relational space of collaborative argumentation. Moreover, we studied how they affect the perceived team effectiveness (i.e., process outcome) and group performance (i.e., learning outcome) in the content space of collaboration. Thereby, we studied also the effects of the design of the awareness mechanisms on the application of the mechanisms and the user experience with them. In line with the design-based research paradigm, we attempted to simultaneously improve and study the effect of Argue(a)ware on collaborative argumentation (Herrington, McKenney, Reeves & Oliver, 2007). Through a series of design-based research studies we tested and refined the prototypes of the instructional group awareness tool. Moreover, we studied the ecological validity of dominant awareness and instructional theories in the context of co-located computer-supported collaborative argumentation. The underlying premise of the Argue(a)ware tool is that a combination of awareness and instructional support will result in increased awareness of collaboration, which will, in turn, mediate the regulation of collaborative processes. Moreover, we assume that successful regulation of collaboration will result in high perceived team effectiveness and the group performance in turn. In the first phase of development of the Argue(a)ware tool, we built support of the content space of collaborative argumentation with argument scaffold elements in a pedagogical face-to-face macro-script and an argument mapping tool. Furthermore, we extended the use of the script for supporting the relational space of collaboration by embedding awareness prompts for reflecting on collaboration during regular breaks in the script. Following, we designed two variations of the same pedagogical face-to-face macro-script which differ with respect to the type of group awareness prompts they used for supporting the relational space of collaboration i.e. behavioral and social. Upon designing the two script variations, we conducted a longitudinal, multiple-case study with ten groups of Media Informatics master students (n = 28, in groups of three or two, group=case, 4 sessions x70 min, Behavioural Awareness Script group= 5, Social Awareness Script group =5.) where each group was conceptualized as a case. Students collaborated every time for arguing to solve one different ill-structured problem and for transferring their arguments in the argument mapping tool Rationale. Thereby, we intended to investigate the effects of different awareness prompts on (a) collaborative metacognitive processes i.e., regulation, reflection, and evaluation (b) the relation between collaborative metacognitive processes and the quality of collaborative argumentation as well as (c) the impact of the two script variations on perceived team effectiveness and (d) what was experience with the different parts of the script variations in the two groups and how this fits into the design framework by Buder (2011). The quantitative analysis of argument outcomes from the groups yield no significant difference between the groups that worked with the BAS and the SAS variations. No significant difference between the script variations with respect to the results from the team effectiveness questionnaires was found either. Prompts for regulating collaboration processes were found to be the most successfully and consistently applied ones, especially in the most successful cases from both script variations and have influenced the argumentation outcomes. The awareness prompts afforded an explicit feedback display format (e.g. assessment of participation levels of self- and others) through discussion (Buder, 2011). The prompted explicit feedback display format (i.e., ratings of one’s self and of others) was criticized for running only on subjective awareness information on participation, contribution efforts and performance in the role. This resulted in evaluation apprehension phenomena (Cottrell, 1972) and evaluation bias (i.e., users may have not assessed themselves or others frankly) (Ghadirian et al., 2016). The awareness prompts for reflection and evaluation did reveal frictions in the plan making process (i.e., dropping out of the plan for collaboration) in the least successful groups. Problems with group dynamics (i.e., free-loading and presence of dominance) but were not powerful enough to trigger the desired changes in the behaviors of the students. The prompts for evaluating the collaboration in both script variations had no apparent connection to argumentation outcomes. The results indicated that dominant presence phenomena inhibited substantive argumentation in the least successful groups. They also indicated that the role-assignment influenced the group dynamics by helping student’s making clear the labor division in the group. In the second phase of development of the Argue(a)ware tool, the focus is on structuring and regulating social interactions in the relational space of collaborative argumentation by means of scripted roles and role-based awareness scaffolds. We designed support for mirroring participation in the role (i.e., a role-based awareness visualization) and support for monitoring participation, coordination and collaboration efforts in the role (i.e., self-assessment questionnaire). Moreover, we designed additional support for guiding participation in the role i.e., role-based reminders as notifications on smartwatches. In a between-subjects study, ten groups of three university students each (n = 30, Mage =22y, mixed educational backgrounds, 1x90min) worked with two variants of the Argue(a)ware for arguing to solve one ill-structured problem and transferring their arguments in the argument mapping tool Rationale. Next, to that, students should monitor their progress in their role with the role-based awareness visualization and the self-assessment questionnaire with the basic awareness support (role-based awareness visualization with the intermediate self-assessment) and the enhanced awareness support (additional role-based awareness reminders). Half of the groups worked only with the role-based awareness visualization and the self-assessment questionnaire (Basic Awareness Condition-BAC) while the other half groups received additional text-based awareness notifications via smartwatches that were sent to students privately (Enhanced Awareness Condition- EAC). Thereby, we tested the use of different degrees of awareness support in the two conditions with respect to their impact on a) self-perceived awareness of performance in the role and of collaboration and coordination efforts (measured with the same questionnaire at two time points), b) on perceive team effectiveness, c) group performance. We hypothesized that students in EAC will perform better thanks to the additional awareness reminders that increased the directivity and influenced their awareness in the role. The mixed methods analysis revealed that the awareness reminders, when perceived on time, succeeded in guiding collaboration (i.e., resulted in more role-specific behaviors). Students in the EAC condition improved their awareness over time (between the two measurements). These results indicated that enhanced awareness support in the form of additional guidance through awareness reminders can boost the awareness of students’ performance in the role as well as the awareness of their coordination and collaboration efforts over time by directing them back to the mirroring and monitoring tools. Moreover, students in EAC exhibited higher perceived team effectiveness than the students in BAC. However, no significant differences in building of shared mental models or performing in mutual performance monitoring were found between the groups. However, students in BAC and EAC did not differ significantly with respect to the formal correctness or evidence sufficiency of their group argumentation outcomes. Moreover, technical difficulties with the smartphones used as delivery devices for the awareness reminders (i.e., low vibration modus) hindered the timely perception of the reminders and thus their effect on participation. Finally, the questionnaire on the experience with the different parts of Argue(a)ware system indicated the need for exploring further media for supporting the awareness reminders to avoid the overwhelming effects of the multiple displays of the system and enhancing higher perceptiveness of the reminders with low interruption costs for other group members. The rather high satisfaction with the use of the role-based awareness visualization and the positive comments on the motivating aspects of monitoring how the personal success contributes to the group performance indicate that the group mirror succeeded in making group norms visible to group members in a non-obtrusive way. The high interpersonal comparability of performances without moderating the group ‘s interaction directly in the basic awareness condition was proven to be the favored design approach compared to the combination of group mirror and awareness reminders in the enhance awareness condition. In the third phase of development of Argue(a)ware, we focused on designing and testing different notification modes on different ubiquitous mobile devices for facilitating the next prototype of a notification system for role-based awareness reminders. Thereby, the aim of the system was again to guide students’ active participation in collaborative argumentation. More specifically, we focused on raising students’ attention to the reminders and triggering a prompter reaction to the contents of the reminders whilst avoiding a high interruption cost for the primary task (i.e., arguing for solving the problem at hand) in the group. These goals were translated into design challenges for the design of the role-based awareness notification system. The system should afford low interruptions, high reaction and high comprehension of notifications. Notification systems with this particular configuration of IRC values are known as "secondary display" systems (McCrickard et al., 2003). Next, we designed three low-fidelity prototypes for a role-based notification system for delivering awareness reminders: The first ran on a smartwatch and afforded text-based information with vibration and light notification modalities. The second ran on smartphone and afforded text-based information with vibrotactile and light-based notification modalities. Finally, the third prototype run on a smart-ring which afforded graphical- based (i.e. abstract light) information with and light and vibration notification modalities. To test the suitability of these prototypes for acting as “secondary display” systems, we conducted a within-subjects user study where three university students (n= 3, Mage=28, mixed educational background) argued for solving three different problem cases and producing an argument map in each of the three consecutive meetings (max 90min) in the Argue(a)ware instructional system. Students were assigned the roles of writer, corrector and devil`s advocate and were instructed to maintain the same role across the three meetings. In each meeting, students worked with a different role-based awareness notification prototype, where they received a notification indicating their balloon is not growing bigger after five minutes of not exhibiting any role-specific behaviors. The role-based awareness notification prototypes aimed at introducing timely interventions which would prompt students to check on their own progress in the role and the group progress as visualized by the role-based awareness visualization on the large display. Ultimately, this should prompt them to reflect on the awareness information from the visualization and adapt their behaviors to the desired behavior standards over time. Results showed that students perceived the notifications from all media mostly based on vibration cues. Thereby, the vibration cues on the wrist (smartwatch) were considered the least disruptive to the main task compared to the vibration cues on finger (smartwatch) and the vibration cues on the desk (smartphone). Students also declared that vibration cues on wrist prompted the fastest reaction i.e., attending to notification by interacting with the smartwatch. These results indicate that vibration cues on the wrist can be a suitable notification mechanism for increasing the perceived urgency of the message and prompting the reaction on it without causing great distraction to the main task, as studies previous studies showed before (Pielot, Church, & deOliveira, 2013; Hernández-Leo, Balestrini, Nieves & Blat, 2012). Based on very limited qualitative data on light as notification modality and awareness representation type no inferences could be made about its influence on the cost of interruption, reaction and comprehension parameters comprehensiveness. The qualitative and quantitative data on the experience with different media as awareness notification systems indicate that smartwatches may be the most suitable medium for acting as awareness notification medium with a “secondary display” IRC configuration (low-high-high). However, this inference needs to be tested in terms of a follow up study. In the next study, the great limitations of study (limited data due to low power and mal-structured measurement instruments) need to be repaired. Finally, the focus should be on comparing notification modalities of one medium (e.g., smartphone) based on a larger set of participants and with the use of objective measurements for the IRC parameter values (Chewar, McCrickard & Sutcliffe, 2004). Finally, we draw conclusions based on the findings from the three studies with respect to the role of awareness mechanisms for facilitating collaborative processes and outcomes and provide replicable and generalizable design principles. These principles are formed as heuristic statements and are subject to refinement by further research (Bell, Hoadley, & Linn, 2004; Van den Akker, 1999). We conclude with the limitations of the study and ideas for future work with Argue(a)ware

Exploring preservice teachers\u27 views of intelligence

This study explored preservice teachers\u27 views of intelligence. Specifically, I was interested in whether preservice teachers believed that intelligence was changeable (incremental) or fixed (entity). Dweck and colleagues found that people view traits like intelligence as either fixed or incremental (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; Plaks, Grant & Dweck, 2005). Teachers bring both their beliefs and knowledge into the classroom. Views about intelligence affect beliefs about student ability. Teachers\u27 expectations, instructional decisions, teaching strategies, and educational assessment are affected by these beliefs. In order for change to occur, learners must engage deeply (Dole & Sinatra, 1998, Sinatra & Mason, 2008). Change is more likely to occur when implicit theories are brought to light and examined. Interventions that refute prior knowledge and engender reflection have been shown to be facilitative of change (Mason & Gava, 2007). Change is also more likely when the learner engages deeply with the content (Patrick & Pintrich, 2001; Pintrich, Marx & Boyle, 1993; Sinatra & Mason, 2006). This study employed a mixed methods approach to explore preservice teachers\u27 personal and implicit beliefs about intelligence. Participants were randomly assigned to four conditions where they read a refutational text, an alternative text, participated in a structured discussion on intelligence or school uniforms using a prediscussion organizer, or did some combination of these activities. Specifically, Condition 1 participants read a refutational text on intelligence and completed a structured discussion, Condition 2 participants read a refutational text and discussed school uniforms, Condition 3 participants read an alternative text on the brain and had a structured discussion on intelligence, and finally Condition 4 participants read the alternative text and discussed school uniforms. Refutational texts provide a platform for deep cognitive engagement that may occur when a text directly refutes prior knowledge (Murphy & Mason, 2006). Although refutational texts have been shown to be effective (Hynd, 2003; Guzzetti et al., 1993), only a few studies have tried to increase the effectiveness of refutational texts by combining these texts with other interventions such as discussion (Broughton, Sinatra, & Nussbaum, 2009). My results did not support my hypothesis that preservice teachers would be primarily fixed in their viewpoints. In fact, participants came to the study with views consistent with an incremental perspective. In this study the most effective educational intervention to increase conceptual change was the combination of refutational text plus structured discussion. The results indicate that preservice teachers\u27 views of intelligence are centered on personal and emotional beliefs rather than theory or empirical evidence. The condition with the most change read the refutation text and discussed intelligence; however, there was also a main effect of text. From an educational standpoint, this study suggests that refutational texts combined with a structured organizer may be a more effective aid in learning. In particular, the prediscussion organizer may have provided the reflection time and thought organizer necessary to stimulate elaborative processing. Participants in Condition 1 who read the refutational text about intelligence and completed the prediscussion organizer used their individual comments from their organizer as elements within their discussion. Refutational texts and combining structured discussions has promise as an intervention both in the classroom and online. Strongly held personal views are difficult to dislodge and by having preservice teachers explore their beliefs, it may have a beneficial result later on in their future and challenging careers