Dissensus in Student Discussions of Assigned Readings

We asked students to take turns hosting online discussions of assigned readings. This assignment took between one and two weeks to complete. Hosts composed discussion prompts and moderated the conversations that followed as their peers posted their responses. With topics ranging from capital punishment to same-sex marriages, students had many different perspectives to share. Here is a sample prompt from one student:

T:In The Crackdown on Kids it mentions the use of the death penalty on children as young as eleven, do you agree with this? Why or why not?

This prompt provoked varied responses, as participants in this discussion did not see eye to eye on one student's proposal for dealing with minors who commit murder.

J: I have very strong feelings about this issue. Whoever the person is no matter race or age that kills another individual, they don’t deserve the right to live themselves--Someone has to take the punishment for taking the live of an innocent individual no matter what their age is. What do you think of this proposal?

Students did not hesitate to share their differing ideas in this discussion thread. One respondent pointed out a problem of logos in J's argument, while another suggested that some homicides don't involve premeditated violence, but result from poor judgement being used in crisis situations.

R: J, you mention [an earlier post] how precious life is, yet you are so quick to take it from a kid who isn’t even mentally mature yet. What will killing an eleven year old kid accomplish?

G: J, In some situations you can not always shoot someone in the leg or arm, because most likely there is going to be a wrestle for the gun. Then it could maybe go off. What do you think about people doing that do you still think they should be executed?

After being confronted with the counter-arguments of his peers, J conceded that there might be some conditions under which his proposal was problematic.
J: Yeah, I see where you are coming from. If they can prove that they were struggling for the gun, then they shouldn’t be executed.

In a different discussion on same-sex marriages, students explored how tensions between moral and civic systems of authority informed their opinions. Here are the prompts the hosts asked their peers to consider:

A: After reading this article I am curious what people's thoughts about gay marriage are? How does the idea of marriage affect our culture today? What do people find as the true purpose marriage serves and how are children intertwined within this concept?

L: Along with the "traditional understanding of marriage" was a belief that a two-person couple needed to have the ability to bear children. Please share your views on what you feel about this "traditional understanding of marriage." Why do the majority of Americans fear homosexual marriages?

Two respondents objected to the idea of same-sex marriage on moral grounds, citing the Bible as a textual authority. However, they expressed varying degrees of vehemence and commitment to these objections:

M: Raised and still a firm believer in the Catholic faith, I find homosexuality morally devastating and sinful in every angle. The Bible states that marriage is a life long commitment between a man and woman, and intercourse is solely for procreation of children, and the unity of a marriage couple (that does not include recreation purposes). Rauch states in paragraph 18 that "If marriage is allowed between members of the same sex, then the concept of marriage has been emptied of content except to ask whether the parties love each other. Then anything goes, including polygamy."

R: I do not agree a lot with homosexuality yet I don't discriminate, but I think that the gay community will always have problems since what they do goes against the teachings of a book followed by millions. The Bible denounces it as M pointed out, therefore, of course we will have tons of people always against it, because they will argue that your going against God. That's one thing that you can't take to court, or really win with, its just how life is right now.

In response, three other discussion participants expressed respect for the authority of the Bible as a sacred text for adherents to Christianity, but argued that the debate about same-sex marriage in America is not a religious or a moral issue.
D: When reading the responses to Rauch, Matthew 7:1 (Judge not others for you too may be judged) immediately came to mind. The fact that this discussion is turning to church should validate to everyone that the government has absolutely no right to instill sanctions on marriage. One of our great strengths, as Americans, is our separation of Church and State.

K: I guess just referring to M and R’s last comments. I understand that the Bible denounces homosexuality, but i wonder why in a country founded by Christians, and with a government that often refers to God. Why if the country grew to accept these things, and the law obviously is beginning to accept does it make it wrong. I understand that God comes before government in peoples minds, but is this nation or everyone in it going to be punished in the after life for not following the Bible close enough. I think that this discussion is turning to much into a religious battle over what the real focus should be, and that is if it should be legal. In my opinion, people can spend the rest of there life together whether they are married or not. Marriage is a not just a sign of unity, but it does carry many benefits and rights as S said earlier. As Americans we are aloud to be free and have rights, so these rights need to be distributed and respected to those who have homosexual marriages.

S: The issue of same-sex marriage isn't really as complicated as it seems. There are religions out there that do not allow same-sex marriages in their congregations. However, there are others that do allow them. But, really, when discussing the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, we are looking at a equal rights/civil rights issue with the government. There are over 1,049 federally recognized rights granted to heterosexual couples simply because they marry. In addition, each state offers a ton of their own rights. Some of these rights include hospital visitation rights, medical insurance coverage, a number of tax incentives, inheritance rights, community property decision making, unemployment insurance (if a spouse has to move because the other relocated for a job, then they get to collect unemployment), right to sue in wrongful death situation, and so forth...These are just the few I can think of off the top of my head...The issue of same-sex marriage refers mainly to the legal recognition and the rights that are taken for granted by heterosexual couples every day. I do not believe the movement behind same-sex marriages is directed at seeking recognition by the Catholic Church, for example. And it is important to remember that our government is not run by any religion; separation of church and state is prominent in our nation's history. I think the general American public has trouble recognizing the difference between legal and religious recognition.

Although the participants did not reach consensus on the issue of same-sex marriage in this discussion thread, when confronted with opinions radically different from their own, they continued to read and respond to those opinions in thoughtful ways. Attempts were made to explain the underlying reasons that informed these disagreements. Because the discussion was asynchronous, participants had time to organize their thoughts, and to collect facts and other research to support their claims. Such careful consideration may be difficult to replicate in a face-to-face setting. This seems to support Cooper and Selfe's theory that computer-mediated writing courses foster productive disagreement (1990).