Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts
Download as PPT, PDF1 like777 views
1) The study examined the effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated constructive controversy on social interdependence, motivation, and achievement. 2) 101 undergraduates participated in either face-to-face, synchronous computer-mediated, or asynchronous computer-mediated conditions involving a controversial debate topic. 3) Results showed that the synchronous computer-mediated condition led to more cooperative perceptions, higher motivation, and better achievement outcomes than the asynchronous condition, which was closest to face-to-face interaction.
Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts
- 1. Effects of Face-to-face and Computer-mediated Constructive Controversy on Social Interdependence, Motivation, and Achievement Cary Roseth, Andy Saltarelli, Chris Glass College of Education
- 2. Intro Exponential growth in online course enrollment and concerns about the value and legitimacy of online education (Allen & Seaman, 2010) The integration of online technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge is paramount (i.e., TPACK; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) Purpose: move beyond questions of FTF vs. online to examine how specific affordances of computer-mediated communication (CMC) affect cooperative learning Specifically, we examined the relative impact of FTF and CMC versions of constructive controversy on students ’ perceptions of social interdependence, motivation, and achievement.
- 3. Constructive Controversy Constructive controversy is a cooperative learning procedure designed to create intellectual conflict among students (Johnson & Johnson, 2007, 2009) 30 – 40 min procedure in which students argue conflicting views about a controversial topic while concurrently maintain cooperative perceptions 5-step procedure:
- 4. Media Richness Key question: Does CMC moderate the effects of constructive controversy? Two views: 1) Greater media richness offers higher quality communication and is more conducive to relational processes (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) Question: Sync > Async? Question: Video > Audio > Text? 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) Question: Sync = Async? Question: Video = Audio = Text?
- 5. Two FTF Theories, Contrasting Mechanisms Social interdependence theory (Deutsch, 1973; Johnson & Johnson, 2005 ) Social Interdependence (Coop) Achievement Motivation Question: Does CMC affect students ’ perceptions of cooperative goals? Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) Meeting psychological needs Motivation Achievement Question: Does CMC affect students ’ perceptions of competence, relatedness, value, and interest?
- 6. Method 1 (control: face-to-face) x 3 (medium: video, audio, text) x 2 (synchronicity: synchronous, asynchronous) experimental-control design 7 course sections, 101 undergraduates (77 female) Random assignment Class sections: FTF (1 section), synchronous CMC (3 sections), and asynchronous CMC conditions (3 sections) Individuals : Video, audio, text conditions respectively – Skype™ Partners (dyads) Controversy: ( “Should schools try to increase student’s self-esteem?”) Each dyad given unique activity scaffold -- Google Docs™
- 7. Method Google Docs TM Online Activity Scaffold
- 8. Method Synchronous CMC: dyads complete entire activity over 70 min. class period Asynchronous CMC: dyads complete activity over 7 days Dependent variables: social interdependence (i.e., Coop, Comp, Indiv), Motivation, Achievement
- 9. Method Video Audio Text Video
- 10. Results Main effects of synchronicity: Cooperative perceptions Sync > Async Individualistic perceptions Async > Sync Motivation (relatedness & value) Sync > Async Achievement (completion rate) Sync 100% > Async 62.5% Achievement (knowledge) Async > Sync No main effects of media
- 11. Results FTF control compared with all 6 experimental conditions Cooperative perceptions FTF > Async Individualistic perceptions Async > FTF Motivation (relatedness & value) FTF > Async Achievement (completion rate) FTF 100% > Async 62.5% Achievement No sig differences among students completing procedure
- 12. Discussion Results suggest that CMC synchronicity moderates outcomes of constructive controversy. Decreases cooperative perceptions Decreases motivation (relatedness and value) Decreases achievement Social Interdependence Theory Decreasing cooperative and increasing individualistic perceptions are relational processes by which achievement and motivation decrease under asynchronous CMC Self-determination Theory Decreasing relatedness represents an unfulfilled need that undermines motivation and results in decreased achievement.
Editor's Notes
- #2: 0:30 Andy
- #3: 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
- #4: 1:30 Cary Should school increase students’ self-esteem. Focus on controversy w/in coop goals (i.e., graded on both side and synthesis)
- #5: 2:00 Andy Sync versions of more effective than async
- #6: 2:30 Cary
- #7: 3:00 Cary
- #8: 3:30 Andy
- #9: 4:00 Andy
- #10: 4:30 Andy
- #11: 7:30 Cary
- #12: 9:30 Andy (2 minutes!) Note these are only significant results E.g., FTF = sync
- #13: 12:30 (2.5 minutes for discussion!!) Andy Cary What is about async CMC that decreases coop, motivation, achievement