Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts

1,290 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,290
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
14
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 0:30 Andy
  • 1:00 Andy the purpose of the present study is to move beyond general questions of the relative benefits of online and face-to-face (FTF) instruction by examining whether specific affordances of computer-mediated communication (CMC) affect cooperative learning methods Disentagle what aspects of CMC affect relational processes underlying cooperative learning methods
  • 1:30 Cary Should school increase students’ self-esteem. Focus on controversy w/in coop goals (i.e., graded on both side and synthesis)
  • 2:00 Andy Sync versions of more effective than async
  • 2:30 Cary
  • 3:00 Cary
  • 3:30 Andy
  • 4:00 Andy
  • 4:30 Andy
  • 7:30 Cary
  • 9:30 Andy (2 minutes!) Note these are only significant results E.g., FTF = sync
  • 12:30 (2.5 minutes for discussion!!) Andy Cary What is about async CMC that decreases coop, motivation, achievement
  • Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts

    1. 1. Effects of Face-to-face and Computer-mediated Constructive Controversy on Social Interdependence, Motivation, and Achievement <ul><li>Cary Roseth, Andy Saltarelli, Chris Glass </li></ul><ul><li>College of Education </li></ul>
    2. 2. Intro <ul><li>Exponential growth in online course enrollment and concerns about the value and legitimacy of online education (Allen & Seaman, 2010) </li></ul><ul><li>The integration of online technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge is paramount (i.e., TPACK; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose: move beyond questions of FTF vs. online to examine how specific affordances of computer-mediated communication (CMC) affect cooperative learning </li></ul><ul><li>Specifically, we examined the relative impact of FTF and CMC versions of constructive controversy on students ’ perceptions of social interdependence, motivation, and achievement. </li></ul>
    3. 3. Constructive Controversy <ul><li>Constructive controversy is a cooperative learning procedure designed to create intellectual conflict among students (Johnson & Johnson, 2007, 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>30 – 40 min procedure in which students argue conflicting views about a controversial topic while concurrently maintain cooperative perceptions </li></ul><ul><li>5-step procedure: </li></ul>
    4. 4. Media Richness <ul><li>Key question: Does CMC moderate the effects of constructive controversy? </li></ul><ul><li>Two views: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1) Greater media richness offers higher quality communication and is more conducive to relational processes (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Question: Sync > Async? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Question: Video > Audio > Text? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2) Communicators compensate for the absence of nonverbal social cues, adapt language to the affordances and constraints of whatever form of CMC they are using (Walther 1992, 1996) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Question: Sync = Async? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Question: Video = Audio = Text? </li></ul></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Two FTF Theories, Contrasting Mechanisms <ul><li>Social interdependence theory (Deutsch, 1973; Johnson & Johnson, 2005 ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social Interdependence (Coop)  Achievement  Motivation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Question: Does CMC affect students ’ perceptions of cooperative goals? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Meeting psychological needs  Motivation  Achievement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Question: Does CMC affect students ’ perceptions of competence, relatedness, value, and interest? </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Method <ul><li>1 (control: face-to-face) x 3 (medium: video, audio, text) x 2 (synchronicity: synchronous, asynchronous) experimental-control design </li></ul><ul><li>7 course sections, 101 undergraduates (77 female) </li></ul><ul><li>Random assignment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Class sections: FTF (1 section), synchronous CMC (3 sections), and asynchronous CMC conditions (3 sections) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Individuals : Video, audio, text conditions respectively – Skype™ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Partners (dyads) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Controversy: ( “Should schools try to increase student’s self-esteem?”) </li></ul><ul><li>Each dyad given unique activity scaffold -- Google Docs™ </li></ul>
    7. 7. Method <ul><li>Google Docs TM Online Activity Scaffold </li></ul>
    8. 8. Method <ul><li>Synchronous CMC: dyads complete entire activity over 70 min. class period </li></ul><ul><li>Asynchronous CMC: dyads complete activity over 7 days </li></ul><ul><li>Dependent variables: social interdependence (i.e., Coop, Comp, Indiv), Motivation, Achievement </li></ul>
    9. 9. Method <ul><li>Video </li></ul>Audio Text Video
    10. 10. Results <ul><li>Main effects of synchronicity: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cooperative perceptions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sync > Async </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Individualistic perceptions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Async > Sync </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Motivation (relatedness & value) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sync > Async </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Achievement (completion rate) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sync 100% > Async 62.5% </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Achievement (knowledge) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Async > Sync </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>No main effects of media </li></ul>
    11. 11. Results <ul><li>FTF control compared with all 6 experimental conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Cooperative perceptions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FTF > Async </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Individualistic perceptions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Async > FTF </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Motivation (relatedness & value) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FTF > Async </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Achievement (completion rate) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FTF 100% > Async 62.5% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Achievement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No sig differences among students completing procedure </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Discussion <ul><li>Results suggest that CMC synchronicity moderates outcomes of constructive controversy. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Decreases cooperative perceptions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decreases motivation (relatedness and value) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decreases achievement </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Social Interdependence Theory  Decreasing cooperative and increasing individualistic perceptions are relational processes by which achievement and motivation decrease under asynchronous CMC </li></ul><ul><li>Self-determination Theory  Decreasing relatedness represents an unfulfilled need that undermines motivation and results in decreased achievement. </li></ul>

    ×