Publications>
Research Bulletin

Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research
September 1999, No. 24

Influence of Assertive Partners in Group Learning Activities
by Mark Windschitl

When teachers assign students to work in pairs for class activities, generally they intend that partners facilitate each other's learning through meaningful dialogue and shared insights. In such cases, student characteristics, such as ability or prior knowledge, can affect not only the individual's learning but also the learning of other group members.1

Several individual characteristics can influence the learning of other group members, including confidence in one's ability, self-efficacy, epistemological beliefs, and perceived academic status.2 In addition, the influence of these attributes may be mediated by yet another important learner characteristic -- the willingness to assert oneself in group settings.

Assertiveness is characterized by the ability to express thoughts or feelings without violating the rights of others, and unassertive behavior is marked by submissive or withdrawn behavior.3 Assertiveness is conceptually related to the construct of self-efficacy, which is the belief in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage learning situations.4 Self-efficacy influences effort, persistence, and perseverance.5

Assertiveness may vary in different situations. Individuals with ample ability and self-efficacy in science, for example, may lack the assertiveness to function productively in settings where interpersonal interaction is essential to constructing understandings. Furthermore, this effect may be amplified when students are engaged in activities designed to stimulate conceptual change. These activities require verbal sharing of one's views of how certain phenomena take place and joint decision making about methods for testing hypotheses; they often also require refutational exchanges among group members.

For the purposes of the study described in this bulletin, the tendency for students to express themselves through words or actions in a dyadic learning situation was termed academic assertiveness. Behaviors associated with academic assertiveness can result in consonant interactions between partners (e.g., putting forward an argument about evidence or suggesting alternative courses of action) or dissonant interactions (e.g., commandeering lab equipment or criticizing others' ideas). Behaviors associated with academic assertiveness help students confront their own misunderstandings, reorganize their approach to problems, and stimulate conceptual change.6 Being "direct without hedging" in group activities often indicates effective communication among learners.7 At the opposite extreme, students who are withdrawn from interactions with others may not recognize when they misunderstand something and may not have correct conceptions reinforced by their own participation in dialogue.8

ABOUT THE STUDY

This study examines how middle school students' level of academic assertiveness is related to conceptual change learning and whether individuals' level of assertiveness is related to the learning of partners paired with them. The study was conducted in a public suburban middle school with a sample group of 90 eighth-grade students (47 female and 43 male) enrolled in a life science class. The ethnic distribution of the participants was approximately 71% white, 20% Asian American, and 9% African American. Students were engaged in a series of conceptual change activities that used a simulation of the human cardiovascular system.

The instructional component of this study was a series of problem-solving activities designed to change students' concepts about the function of the human cardiovascular system. Students first took a pretest to assess their existing concepts of the human cardiovascular system and rated their own sense of self-efficacy about their science ability. In addition, three teachers who taught science, math, and social studies to these students rated each student on a descriptive, four-point assertiveness scale ranging from highly assertive (one) to highly unassertive (four). Students then were randomly assigned to pairs for the simulation activities. After a week of activities, they were given a posttest to assess their conceptual change.

Various learner attributes were analyzed to determine the degree to which each one could predict a posttest score. These attributes were: pretest score, self-efficacy rating, assertiveness rating, assertiveness rating of the individual's partner, and the partner's self-efficacy rating. Additionally, nine pairs of students were videotaped during the activities to characterize the interactions between more assertive individuals and their less assertive partners. Each videotaped dyad was composed of students with similar pretest scores but different assertiveness ratings.

The first question of the study was: After accounting for students' prior knowledge and efficacy beliefs, does academic assertiveness predict the degree of conceptual change in individuals? The second question was: After accounting for students' prior knowledge and efficacy beliefs, does the academic assertiveness of dyad partners predict the degree of conceptual change in individuals? The final question was: Were the behaviors exhibited in the dyadic interactions consistent with teachers' ratings for individual students?

FINDINGS

The mean score for all student participants on the pretest was 10.6 (SD = 3.05) out of a possible score of 22, or approximately 48% correct. The mean score for the posttest was 13.1 (SD = 3.83) out of a possible score of 23, or approximately 59% correct, which was significantly higher (p < .01) than the mean score for the pretest. For students scoring above the mean for assertiveness, the pretest mean was 11.52; for those scoring below the mean for assertiveness, the pretest mean was 10.04. The posttest mean for those rated high on assertiveness was 14.04; for those rated low in assertiveness the posttest mean was 12.47.

To determine the influences of an individual's and a partner's assertiveness on an individual's conceptual change, a regression analysis was conducted on the posttest scores. A student's pretest score was the strongest predictor of her or his posttest score (ß = .51, p < .01). A student's own science self-efficacy rating was also a strong predictor of her or his posttest score (ß = .25, p < .01). However, while a student's own assertiveness rating was not a significant predictor of her or his posttest score (ß = .16, p < .11), the assertiveness rating of a student's partner had a significant negative relationship with that student's posttest score (ß = ­.18, p < .03). The Beta weight (ß) is a standardized quantity that indicates the magnitude of relationship between a predictor variable (such as a partner's assertiveness rating) and the variable being predicted (posttest score for individual). A Beta weight can be negative, which indicates an inverse, or negative relationship.

Follow-up correlations were calculated to see if a student's prior knowledge about the cardiovascular system was related to her or his partner's posttest score; the two were not related (r = .01). Also, because of the random pairings, students were not matched according to gender. Analyses of gender showed that teachers rated boys (mean = 1.90) as slightly more assertive than girls (mean = 2.02) on the assertiveness scale, with one indicating highest assertiveness and four indicating lowest. However, the predictive power of assertiveness on posttest scores was independent of whether members of the dyads were of the same gender or of mixed gender.

Analyses of the videotaped dyad interactions revealed that those individual students in a pair who were rated as more assertive were indeed more verbally active than their less assertive partners. They demonstrated more incidents of constructive behaviors, such as initiating courses of action, sharing interpretations of what was happening in the simulated system, and suggesting "what if" scenarios. They also demonstrated significantly more incidents of nonconstructive behaviors, such as physically appropriating the mouse and keyboard and taking courses of action without consulting their partners.

Less assertive partners were often passive recipients of their more assertive partner's reasoning. Interestingly, less assertive partners did not appear to be less methodical or disinterested; but they tended to focus on the stepwise completion of tasks in the written guide with few expressions about why or how phenomena took place. Less assertive partners were unlikely to deviate from the script of the lesson, and assertive partners were more likely to create and explore novel situations in the cardiovascular simulation.

Even though there was high consistency among the three teachers' on their ratings of individual student's assertiveness, much of the activity observed between pair members could better be described as impulsive, rather than assertive, behavior. Students rated high in assertiveness tended to initiate activities in the simulation without consulting their partners, and they jumped to conclusions without examining evidence or discussing options with their partners. These behaviors are not indicative of thoughtful involvement with either the learning task or the dyad partner. Also, the quality of dyad discussion was consistently low. There were few on-task deliberations of significant length; typically there were only three or four exchanges of ideas during the course of each class period, and these usually were not supported by reasoning or careful observation.

DISCUSSION

The first objective of the study was to determine if a student's assertiveness was a predictor of that individual's conceptual change as measured by the posttest score. The regression analysis showed that an individual student's assertiveness rating was not a predictor of his or her own conceptual change. The second objective of the study was to determine whether the assertiveness level of an individual's partner could predict that individual's conceptual change score. Interestingly, the assertiveness rating of an individual student's partner was inversely related to an individual's posttest scores, even after the student's pretest score and his or her self-efficacy rating were taken into account. That is, with all other factors being equal, individuals who were paired with more assertive partners tended to score lower on the posttests.

Physically assertive behaviors, such as taking control of the computer's mouse to set conditions in the simulation, and socially assertive behaviors, such as suggesting courses of action or expressing one's opinions, are indicative of an intellectual investment in the learning activity. However, some assertive behaviors may be described more accurately as impulsive, such as taking action without consulting one's partner or commandeering the computer mouse to control action. These may alienate a dyad partner and suppress her or his opportunities to learn from the experience, thus offering some explanation for the lower posttest scores of the less assertive partners.

Some studies on dyad interactions suggest matching higher-ability students with lower-ability students in order to boost the achievement of the lower-ability students.9 In studies of the effect of pairing higher-ability students with lower-ability students, higher-ability students tended to verbalize their thinking processes and strategies for manipulating equipment and directed the attention of lower-ability students to relevant aspects of the task. In the current study, however, observations showed that, without coaching, students do not spontaneously adopt the role of mentors to less knowledgeable or less assertive partners. Although students rated as assertive appeared more physically and intellectually active, they engaged in very few helping behaviors (giving hints, modifying rather than rejecting inappropriate suggestions, giving explanations).

This study reinforces the importance of the teacher helping students to understand about constructive interactions in group settings and how to work productively with partners. These behaviors do not come naturally to young learners.

Results of the current study also suggest that teachers may have to take into account their students' level of assertiveness, as well as students' ability, when pairing them for activities. The observations consistently showed that less assertive students, regardless of ability, tended to be passive observers; unless they are matched with students with similar levels of assertiveness, they will not be prompted to take any initiative.

Finally, teacher ratings may be reliable in assessing levels of assertiveness. The three teachers' ratings for individuals were consistent, and the ratings did hold significant predictive power for posttest scores of dyad partners. However, ratings for assertiveness should be refined so that teachers can distinguish between students who demonstrate assertive behaviors and those who demonstrate impulsive behaviors.

With the current emphasis on group learning in our schools, particularly in situations where computer stations are shared, this type of research can inform not only the design of learning activities, but also how classroom teachers might choose to group students for conceptual change instruction. However, assertiveness, like other psychological variables, is related to a host of similar constructs. Teachers and researchers must work together to disentangle what counts as assertiveness from constructs as disparate as leadership and impulsivity, and they must determine the role that each plays in group learning activities.

This study represents only one piece of a complex puzzle concerning group work in classrooms -- a piece that must be judged against many other qualitative and quantitative studies in order to furnish a picture that is complete enough to responsibly inform classroom instructional decisions.

ENDNOTES

1. Glenda Carter and Gail M. Jones, "Relationship Between Ability-Paired Interactions and the Development of Fifth Graders' Concepts of Balance," Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31, no. 8 (1994): 847-56; Jonathan Tudge, "Peer Collaboration: The Case for Treating the Dyad as the Unit of Analysis" (paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, Wash., April 1991); Noreen Webb, "Testing a Theoretical Model of Student Interaction and Learning in Small Groups," in Interaction in Cooperative Groups: The Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning, edited by Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz and Norman Miller (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 102-19.

2. Jonathan Tudge, "Vygotsky, the Zone of Proximal Development, and Peer Collaboration: Implications for Classroom Practice," in Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology, edited by L. Moll (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 155-72; Albert Bandura and Dale Schunk, "Cultivating Competence, Self-Efficacy, and Intrinsic Interest through Proximal Self-Motivation," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41 (1981): 586-98; Mark Windschitl, "Student Epistemological Beliefs and Conceptual Change Activities: How Do Pair Members Affect Each Other?" Journal of Science Education and Technology 6, no. 1 (1997): 37-47; Elizabeth G. Cohen and Rachel A. Lotan, "Producing Equal-Status Interaction in the Heterogeneous Classroom," American Educational Research Journal 32, no. 1 (1995): 99-120.

3. Robert Alberti and Lillian Emmons, Your Perfect Right: A Guide to Assertive Behavior (San Luis Obispo, Calif.: Impact, 1974); Edwin Gerler, Jr., "Research and Innovation in Elementary School Guidance and Counseling," Elementary School Guidance Counseling 5 (1981): 43-46.

4. Albert Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (New York: Freeman, 1997).

5. Bandura and Schunk, 1981; Therese Bouffard-Bouchard, "Influence of Self-Efficacy on Performance in a Cognitive Task," Journal of Social Psychology 130, no. 3 (1990): 353-63.

6. David Dickinson, "Young Children's Collaborative Writing at the Computer" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Ill., 1985); David Bearison, Sol Magzamen, and Emily Filardo, "Socio-Cognitive Conflict and Cognitive Growth in Young Children," Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 32, no. 1 (1986): 51-72; Giyoo Hatano, "Enhancing Motivation for Comprehension in Science and Mathematics Through Peer Interaction" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Calif., 1986); Jean Piaget, "Piaget's Theory," in Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology, 3d ed., vol. 2, edited by Paul H. Mussen (New York: Wiley, 1970), 703-73; Andrew T. Lumpe and John R. Staver, "Peer Collaboration and Concept Development: Learning About Photosynthesis," Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32, no. 1 (1995): 71-98.

7. William Damon, "Peer Education: The Untapped Potential," Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 5 (1984): 331-43.

8. Nel Noddings, "Small Groups as a Setting for Research on Mathematical Problem Solving," in Teaching and Learning Mathematical Problem Solving, edited by E. A. Silver (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1985), 345-59; Noreen Webb, "Microcomputer Learning in Small Groups: Cognitive Requirements and Group Processes," Journal of Educational Psychology 76, no. 6 (1984): 1076-88.

9. Carter and Jones, 1994; Gail M. Jones and Glenda Carter, "Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior of Ability-Grouped Dyads," Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31, no. 6 (1994): 603-19; Noreen Webb, "Peer Interaction and Learning with Computers in Small Groups," Computers in Human Behavior 3, no. 3-4 (1987): 193-209.