Céline Buchs

Conflict Elaboration and Cognitive Outcomes

This article presents advice for teachers about using sociocognitive conflicts to promote academic learning. In doing so, the conditions under which sociocognitive conflicts are constructive or disruptive are examined and the relevant research is reviewed on social development, cooperative learning, and social influence. Two types of conflict elaboration—epistemic and relational—are identified. Epistemic elaborations focus students on task resolution leading to positive cognitive outcomes, and correspond to a cooperative relationship. Relational elaborations focus students on competence differentials and lead either to compliance or to competitive confrontations. Implications for education are discussed.

Resource interdependence, student interactions and performance in cooperative learning

Two studies were carried out during university workshops, and analyzed the effects of resource interdependence on student‐student interactions, and the impact of these interactions on performance. Students worked cooperatively, either on complementary information (positive resource interdependence) or on identical information (resource independence). In Study 1, analysis of videotaped interactions revealed that working on complementary information produced more positive interactions; however this was not sufficient to prevent students who had no direct access to the information from being disadvantaged, because of informational dependence. In Study 2, with simpler texts allowing better information transmission, performance was favored when students worked on complementary information. Moreover, working on identical information not only enhanced confrontations of point of views, it also elicited competence threat. Further analysis revealed that competence threat mediated resource interdependence effect on performance. Discussion provides insights into the conditions in which different cooperative methods can benefit learning.

Is a partner’s competence threatening during dyadic cooperative work? It depends on resource interdependence

Previous studies with university students have shown that resource interdependence during cooperative dyadic work on texts produces two different dynamics in student interaction and learning. Working on complementary information produces positive interactions, but a good quality of information transmission is needed to foster student learning. Working on identical information produces a confrontation of viewpoints but also encourages a threatening social comparison of competence, which can be detrimental for learning. The aim of present study is to test the moderating role of a partner’s competence in two peer-learning methods by manipulating a partner’s competence through a confederate. Results indicate that a partner’s competence is beneficial when students work on complementary information while it is detrimental when students work on identical information.RésuméDes études antérieures avec des étudiants universitaires ont montré que l’interdépendance des ressources lors d’un travail coopératif en duos sur des textes entraîne deux dynamiques différentes en ce qui concerne les interactions et l’apprentissage. Travailler sur des informations complémentaires favorise des interactions positives; cependant une bonne qualité de la transmission des informations est nécessaire pour favoriser l’apprentissage des étudiants. Travailler sur des informations identiques stimule des confrontations de point de vue to ut en introduisant une comparaison sociale menaçante des compétences, qui peut réduire l’apprentissage. Le but de l’étude est de tester le rôle modérateur de la compétence du partenaire dans les deux situations d’apprentissage en manipulant la compétence du partenaire grâce à un compère. Les résultats indiquent que la compétence du partenaire est bénéfique losrque les étudiants travaillent sur des informations complémentaires alors qu’elle est néfaste lorsqu’ils travaillent sur des informations identiques.

Epistemic and relational conflicts in sharing identical vs. complementary information during cooperative learning

When interacting on a learning task, which is typical of several academic situations, individuals may experience two different motives: Understanding the problem, or showing their competences. When a conflict (confrontation of divergent propositions) emerges from this interaction, it can be solved either in an epistemic way (focused on the task) or in a relational way (focused on the social comparison of competences). The latter is believed to be detrimental for learning. Moreover, research on cooperative learning shows that when they share identical information, partners are led to compare to each other, and are less encouraged to cooperate than when they share complementary information. An epistemic vs. relational conflict vs. no conflict was provoked in dyads composed by a participant and a confederate, working either on identical or on complementary information (N=122). Results showed that, if relational and epistemic conflicts both entailed more perceived interactions and divergence than the control group, only relational conflict entailed more perceived comparison activities and a less positive relationship than the control group. Epistemic conflict resulted in a more positive perceived relationship than the control group. As far as performance is concerned, relational conflict led to a worse learning than epistemic conflict, and – after a delay – than the control group. An interaction between the two variables on delayed performance showed that epistemic and relational conflicts were different only when working with complementary information. This study shows the importance of the quality of relationship when sharing information during cooperative learning, a crucial factor to be taken into account when planning educational settings at the university.

Self-competence, interaction style and expert social influence: Toward a correspondence hypothesis

The conditions were studied under which an expert source induces a less competent target to adopt a contrary point of view in a context of information transmission. In an experiment with a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design, university students (N = 157) had to predict (high involvement) or not (low involvement) the findings of a bogus scientific study carried by a researcher on friendship groups, and to estimate their ability (high versus low) to assess such predictions. They were then presented with bogus results from this study that contradicted their initial beliefs. The researcher presented these findings in either an authoritarian or a democratic style. The main dependent variable was the degree to which participants went beyond mere approval and adopted the information contradicting their own initial position. Results showed that information was more extensively adopted when the source was democratic and the participants a) were highly involved in their predictions and b) felt highly competent with respect...

Interaction styles and expert social influence

An experiment examined the conditions under which an expert source induces less competent targets to adopt a point of view contradicting their own in a context of information transmission. In a 2×2 factorial design participants (N=86) were either 1st year or 4th year university students, and the style of the message delivered by the epistemic authority was either authoritarian or democratic. The main dependent variable was the degree to which participants went beyond mere approval and adopted the contradicting information. The principal finding was that the contradicting information was adopted more readily by the 1st year participants confronted with an authoritarian as compared to a democratic expert source. Students in their 4th year were more influenced by a democratic source than the 1st year students. These results partially confirm the correspondence hypothesis according to which appropriation of knowledge from an expert source is favoured when the characteristics of the influence relations match fundamental expectations that individuals have concerning this relationship, these expectations varying as a function of the stage they have reached in their university education.RésuméUne expérimentation examine les conditions auxquelles une source experte induit des cibles moins compétentes qu’elle à adopter un point de vue contredisant le leur dans un contexte de transmission d’information. Dans un plan factoriel 2×2, les sujets (N=86) étaient des étudiants universitaires de 1ère ou de 4ème année, et le message délivré par l’autorité épistémique était formulé dans un style autoritaire ou démocratique. La principale mesure était le degré auquel les sujets allaient au-delà d’une simple approbation du message et adoptaient l’information contradictoire. Les résultats mettent principalement en évidence que l’information est davantage appropriée par les sujets de 1ère année confrontés à la source experte autoritaire plutôt que démocratique. Les étudiants de 4ème année sont plus influencés par la source démocratique que ceux de 1ère année. Ces résultats confirment partiellement l’hypothèse de correspondance selon laquelle l’appropriation de connaissances émanant d’une source experte est favorisée lorsque les caractéristiques de la relation d’influence correspond à des attentes fondamentales que les individus ont quant à cette relation, attentes qui varient en fonction du stade qu’ils ont atteint dans leur éducation universitaire.

Why students need to be prepared to cooperate: a cooperative nudge in statistics learning at university

Despite the potential benefits of cooperative learning at university, its implementation is challenging. Here, we propose a theory-based 90-min intervention with 185 first-year psychology students in the challenging domain of statistics, consisting of an exercise phase and an individual learning post-test. We compared three conditions that manipulated the exercise phase: individual work, cooperative dyadic instructions (structuring three basic components of cooperative learning: positive goal interdependence, individual responsibility and promotive interactions) and cooperative dyadic interactions (the three basic components with an additional cooperative nudge, namely explaining why and how to cooperate in this task) in order to test whether a progressive increase in benefits occurs as the cooperative structure is reinforced. Results indicated a linear trend in individual post-test learning and competence perception, from individual work to cooperative instructions to cooperative interactions. Competence perception mediated the effect of experimental conditions on learning. The results highlight the benefits of the cooperative nudge.

Challenges for cooperative learning implementation: reports from elementary school teachers

Abstract Despite the well-established benefits of cooperative learning, implementation remains a challenge. This research aims to document these challenges at the elementary school level, drawing on teachers’ beliefs regarding learning as well as the difficulties teachers report. Results indicate that the most frequent instructional strategies reported are traditional ones such as teacher-monitored, collective class discussion, transmission and individual work. The use of these last two is particularly associated with teacher beliefs that learning derives from teacher-delivered knowledge. In general, this research found that teachers do not perceive cooperative learning as very easy to implement; over 40% introduce it occasionally and only 33% use it routinely. Teachers reported that they are particularly ill at ease with embedding cooperative learning in the curriculum, finding the time required for cooperative learning and evaluating pupils when using cooperative learning. Results underline that, in addition to teachers’ learner-orientation beliefs predicting the use of cooperative learning, the more teachers report difficulties in embedding cooperative learning into the curriculum and finding time for it, the less they say they actually implement it. Contributions to teacher education programmes are discussed in the light of these findings.