constructive controversy in cmc contexts
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061223/54c30d2b4a79597e3f8b462a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
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
![Page 2: Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061223/54c30d2b4a79597e3f8b462a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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.
![Page 3: Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061223/54c30d2b4a79597e3f8b462a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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:
![Page 4: Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061223/54c30d2b4a79597e3f8b462a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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?
![Page 5: Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061223/54c30d2b4a79597e3f8b462a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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?
![Page 6: Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061223/54c30d2b4a79597e3f8b462a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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™
![Page 7: Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061223/54c30d2b4a79597e3f8b462a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
MethodGoogle DocsTM Online Activity Scaffold
![Page 8: Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061223/54c30d2b4a79597e3f8b462a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061223/54c30d2b4a79597e3f8b462a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
MethodVideo Audio
Text
Video
![Page 10: Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061223/54c30d2b4a79597e3f8b462a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061223/54c30d2b4a79597e3f8b462a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: Constructive Controversy in CMC Contexts](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061223/54c30d2b4a79597e3f8b462a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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.