Abstracts - Earli

commencement, and more linkage between the topics of the forum, class discussions, and those ofthe tutorials. Recommendations for adopting this course structure for teaching technology-relatedissues in higher education will be presented in the talk.Conceptualising participation: Personal development planning for undergraduate students in UKhigher educationCatherine Howell, University of Cambridge, United KingdomThis paper applies a phenomenographic perspective to the interpretation and analysis of a studentcentred,developmental research project in higher education. The Personal Development Planning(or PDP) Project at the University of Cambridge aims to institutionalize and embed reflectivepractice as a non-assessed, non-compulsory activity for all undergraduate students. Students’responses to open-ended questions about their attitudes to learning, and the methods they use todevelop skills, were used to map three dimensions of reflective practice: concepts, contexts, andtools. These dimensions are not static, but are shown to interact in complex ways. Parallels withthe alternative approach of activity theory are discussed. The spectrum of engagement with PDP isdescribed in terms of individual choices and motivations for negotiating the overlappingdimensions of reflective practice at a collegiate university. In terms of evaluating the respectivecontributions of these two critical perspectives, the value of activity theory is shown to lie in itsability to analyze the cross-sectoral implementation of PDP as a change process in highereducation. By contrast, the value of phenomenography lies in its usefulness as a tool forinterpreting students’ individual experiences of participation in higher education.P 1401 September 2007 11:00 - 12:20Room: 0.99Paper SessionWritingChair:David Galbraith, Staffordshire University, United KingdomStimulating the generation of counterarguments during writingHermann Astleitner, University of Salzburg, AustriaMichael E. Nussbaum, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USAManfred Hofer, University of Mannheim, GermanyWithin this study, it was investigated how university students can be encouraged to consider morecounterarguments during writing argumentative texts. One hundred eighty undergraduates wroteessays on TV violence. In Experiment 1, students, which were given specific goals, generatedmore counterarguments and rebuttals than controls and than a group, who was stimulated to givereasons for arguments. In Experiment 2, one group of participants was provided with a textoutlining arguments and counterarguments. Another group was asked to write a persuasive letter.Persuasion instructions had no or small negative effects. Text positively affected supportingreasons for primary claims and the overall quality of arguments. There were no effects of priorattitudes or gender. The danger of using persuasion goals and the advantages of specific goalinstructions are discussed.– 850 –