The Influence Of Group Big-Five Personality Composition On .

International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 10, No. 10, October 2020The Influence of Group Big-Five Personality Compositionon Student Engagement in Online DiscussionXiaojie Zhang, Guang Chen, and Bing Xuenvironment. In online discussion, many facts can affectstudent engagement, such as students’ personality traits, selfefficacy and basic psychological needs. And personality traitis an important aspect [12], [13]. The related researchesmostly pay attention to the individual personality traits ofstudents. Group discussion is a process in which studentscollaborate to solve problems. The personality traitscomposition of group members will affect studentengagement and the effect of collaborative learning.Therefore, this study aims to explore the impact of Big-5personality composition on student engagement in the onlinediscussion.Abstract—To explore the influence of the group personalitycomposition on students' engagement in the online discussion,correlation analysis was conducted among the Big-5 personalityof group members and student engagement in the group. Thisstudy comprehensively used four measurement indicators of theBig-Five personality of group members as group composition:average, variance, maximum, and minimum. In this study,student engagement was divided into behavioral engagement,affective engagement, and cognitive engagement. The studyfound that the combination of the Big-Five personalities in thegroup could have an impact on student engagement, especiallyaffective engagement. When organizing students' onlinediscussion, the instructors need to consider the personalitycharacteristics of the group members onalityComposition, student engagement, online discussion.II. LITERATURE REVIEWA. Student Engagement in Online DiscussionStudent engagement is defined as the student'spsychological commitment and effort to learn, understand,and acquire knowledge, skills, and technology that aredirected toward academic work [14]. According to previousstudies, student engagement consists of three or fourcomponents [15]. The three-component model, which thisstudy used, has been widely accepted [9]. The threecomponents are behavioral engagement, affectiveengagement, and cognitive engagement.Behavioral engagement is the concentration of effort,persistence, and energy that students demonstrate in thelearning process [16]. It is behavior that reflects theparticipation of their learning activities, including askingquestions, answering questions, actively discussing, andcompleting tasks [17], [18]. Behavioral engagement in onlinediscussions can be lecture coverage and quiz coverage [19],or log file data(such as discussion posts, annotating andcommenting, etc.) [20]. Affective engagement is consideredto be the student's emotional response to the group and thelearning content, including the degree of student attachmentto the teacher and peers (such as group belonging), and theemotional experience of learning content interest, importance,and learning process pleasure [18], [21]. The definition ofcognitive engagement given by researchers is slightlydifferent. Some scholars believe that cognitive engagementrepresents motivation and effort for challenges, and theability to face failure with optimistic attitude [18], [21]. Someresearchers emphasize that the connotation of cognitiveengagement should be that students use psychologicalresources and inputs such as cognitive and metacognitiveskill strategies to construct knowledge, solve problems andcomplete tasks [22].Because of the inseparable relationshipbetween students' motivation and cognitive effort, othersthink that both of them should be regarded as the connotationof cognitive engagement [4], [23].I. INTRODUCTIONSince the beginning of the new century, with the rapiddevelopment of information technology, education entered anew era. Online learning breaks the limitation of time andspace and is widely used in the fields of elementary educationand higher education [1]. For example, MOOCs enablesglobal learners to obtain high-quality learning resources. Atthe same time, a variety of social networking sites andsoftware make it possible for learners from all over the worldto have real-time interaction. As a typical representative ofonline learning, online discussion is commonly used inhigher education because it can effectively promoteinteraction and feedback among group members, and furthersupport learning achievement [2], [3]. Studies have shownthat online discussion can support students' active learning[4], develop higher-order thinking [5], and social awarenessand performance [6]. All the above benefits need to be basedon students' engagement [7], [8]. In other words, if students'engagement is low, the advantages of online discussion willbe hard to show [9]. Previous studies have shown that studentengagement is related to academic performance, knowledgeacquisition, and motivation [10]. Increasing studentengagement is considered as an effective way to solve theproblem of "low interest in learning and high dropout rate"[11].It is generally believed that students' engagement is theproduct of the interaction between individuals and theManuscript received March 6, 2020; revised May 18, 2020.Xiaojie Zhang and Guang Chen* are with School of EducationalTechnology, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing,China (e-mail: zhang xiaoxiao jie@163.com, guang@drgchen.com*).Bing Xu was with Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875 China.She is with University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand (e-mail:bing.xu@auckland.ac.nz).doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2020.10.10.1452744

International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 10, No. 10, October 2020Studies about CMC (computer mediated communication)focused on both SCMC (synchronous CMC) and ACMC(asynchronous CMC). However, with the development ofinformation technology, the boundaries betweensynchronous and asynchronous are gradually blurred. Mostof the learners are in the "always online" state [24]. Therefore,this study focuses on the online environment to explorestudent engagement in discuss. Based on existing studies,researchers generally believe that student engagement is theproduct of the interaction between individuals and theenvironment [16], [25]. On personal level, personality trait isan important aspect.B. The Effect of Personality Traits on Student EngagementAfter several generations of psychologists' efforts, the BigFive personality has become the main classification ofpersonality structure. It includes five dimensions.Neuroticism describes an individual's ability to withstandstress. Extroversion reflects the external tendencies of theindividual nervous system. Openness reflects the opennessand creativity of individuals to experience. Agreeablenessreflects the individual's interpersonal orientation in social life.Conscientiousness reflects self-restraint and motivation and asense of responsibility for achievement.Studies found that personality was related to the student’sengagement and academic achievement [26], [27].Personality traits may affect students' ability to establish anexcellent cooperative relationship with others in grouplearning and thus affect the collective learning effect andinvestment. And more nuanced and context-mindedperspective on the trait - performance relations is needed [28].Caraway found that in the traditional offline classroom, highschool students' emotional engagement will be affected bytheir personality and self-efficacy [12]. SuLea conducted anempirical study on pre-service students to explore the impactof students' personality traits on job engagement. The resultsshowed that agreeableness and conscientiousness werepositively correlated with job engagement, while neuroticismis negatively correlated with job engagement [13]. However,the above conclusions were obtained in the traditionalteaching environment and only considered the individualpersonality traits of students. Group discussion should beinvestigated because it is a process in which studentscollaborate to solve problems.Differences in personality traits among team memberscould cause differences in behavior, and inconsistencies insuch behavior often affect team performance [29]. In otherwords, the personality traits composition of group memberswill affect student engagement and the effect of collaborativelearning. But few studies had focused on the impact of BigFive personality composition on student engagement. Thisstudy aimed to explore the influence of the group personalitycomposition on students' engagement in the onlinediscussion.C. The Effect of Personality Traits Combination onStudent EngagementTo explore personality traits combination, there are fourindexes: average, variance, maximum, and minimum of theteam personality composite. The average of team personalitytrait is also called Team Personality Elevation (TPE), and thevariation of team personality trait is also called Team745Personality Diversity (TPD) [30]. TPE takes the overall levelof traits into account, and TPD pays attention to the diversityof members. Maximum and minimum are meaningful whenan individual has a significant influence on a group [29], [30].Neuroticism describes an individual's ability to withstandstress. A student with high scores for neuroticism has higheranxiety levels and is prone to hostile suppression and panic.Studies found that academic performance is negativelycorrelated with neuroticism [27]. When a team with high TPEof neuroticism, whose members are most likely to be anxiousand emotional, its cohesion will decline. And a member whohas very high neuroticism may bring negative emotions to thewhole group [29]. So, we state the following researchhypotheses:H1a. In online discussion, TPE and the maximum ofneuroticism are negatively correlated with studentbehavioral engagement.H1b. In online discussion, TPE and the maximum ofneuroticism are negatively correlated with studentcognitive engagement.H1c. In online discussion, TPE and the maximum ofneuroticism are negatively correlated with studentaffective engagement.Extroversion reflects the external tendencies of theindividual nervous system. Students with high scores areenthusiastic, positive, adventurous, and social. When a teamwith senior extroversion members, its cohesion will be stable.On the other hand, when TPD of extroversion is large, theprobability of conflict within the group may decrease. So, westate the following research hypotheses:H2a. In online discussion, the maximum and TPD ofextroversion are positively correlated with studentbehavioral engagement.H2b. In online discussion, the maximum and TPD ofextroversion are positively correlated with studentcognitive engagement.H2c. In online discussion, the maximum and TPD ofextroversion are positively correlated with studentaffective engagement.Openness reflects the openness and creativity ofindividuals to experience. A student has low openness scoreis practical, unwilling to change, willing to obey others'arrangement. If all the students in a group do not have a lowerlevel of openness, it may cause conflicts in group discussions,resulting in lower group engagement. On the other hand,teams with open individuals are more creative, moreproactive, will have a good communication effect. And somestudies have shown that openness and extroversion arepositively correlated with student engagement [26]. So, westate the following research hypotheses:H3a. In online discussion, TPD and the maximum ofopenness are positively correlated with studentbehavioral engagement; TPE and the minimum ofopenness are negatively correlated with studentbehavioral engagement.H3b. In online discussion, TPD and the maximum ofopenness are positively correlated with studentbehavioral engagement; TPE and the minimum ofopenness are negatively correlated with studentcognitive engagement.H3c. In online discussion, TPD and the maximum of