Journal of Educational Psychology

Transcription

1 Journal of Educational Psychology The Role of Perceived Popularity on Collaborative Learning: A Dyadic Perspective Rob Gommans, Eliane Segers, William J. Burk, and Ron H. J. Scholte Online First Publication, October 20, CITATION Gommans, R., Segers, E., Burk, W. J., & Scholte, R. H. J. (2014, October 20). The Role of Perceived Popularity on Collaborative Learning: A Dyadic Perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.

2 Journal of Educational Psychology 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 106, No. 4, /14/$ The Role of Perceived Popularity on Collaborative Learning: A Dyadic Perspective Rob Gommans Radboud University and Utrecht University Eliane Segers, William J. Burk, and Ron H. J. Scholte Radboud University The current study investigated how perceived popularity and collaboration quality were associated with knowledge gain of adolescents during a collaborative learning task. Participants included 264 children ages years (52.3% boys), who collaborated 3 times in same-sex dyads on a computer assignment. Results indicated that the knowledge of the more popular member at Time 1 predicted knowledge gain of the less popular member at Time 2. Furthermore, mutual listening, reported by either member of the dyad, had a positive effect on the knowledge gain of the less popular member, whereas dominance of the more popular member negatively affected the knowledge gain of the less popular member. These findings suggest that prior knowledge of the more popular dyad member affects the learning of the less popular dyad member and that the quality of the collaboration between both dyad members appears to affect the outcome for the less popular dyad member; more mutual listening and less dominance presumably ensures equal participation and likely increases the chances of the less popular dyad member to participate sufficiently in the collaboration process. Keywords: collaborative learning, peer status, popularity, collaboration effectiveness, dyad composition Collaborative learning is increasingly being implemented in classrooms as a potentially effective way to improve learning and promote prosocial behavior (Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Working together with peers on a task offers many opportunities to ask questions, explain and justify opinions, articulate reasoning, and elaborate and reflect upon individual and shared knowledge. Collaboration between peers can motivate children academically and improve their learning (e.g., Cohen, 1994; Fawcett & Garton, 2005; Murphy & Faulkner, 2000). The effectiveness of collaboration depends on factors such as motivation, quality of interaction, structure of the collaborative task, and similarity and dissimilarity between group members on various individual characteristics (Cohen, 1994; Salomon & Perkins, 1998; Slavin, 1983; Slavin, 1996). Placing children in groups or pairing them with peers at random does not always lead to effective collaborative learning, and not all group members may benefit equally from collaborating with peers on a task. For instance, several studies showed that students of lower ability learned more when paired with more able students, as long as the task and the interaction remained within the student s zone of proximal development (e.g., Denessen, Veenman, Dobbelsteen, & Van Schilt, 2008; Fawcett & Garton, 2005; Tudge, 1992). Other Rob Gommans, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, and Centre for Child and Adolescent Studies, Utrecht University; Eliane Segers, William J. Burk, and Ron H. J. Scholte, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rob Gommans, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Montessorilaan 3, 6525 HR Nijmegen, the Netherlands. r.gommans@bsi.ru.nl studies showed that the effectiveness of collaboration could be increased by providing group rewards and holding individuals accountable for their contribution to the process and the outcome (Slavin, 1983), by promoting verbalization and reflection (Fawcett & Garton, 2005; Garton, Harvey, & Pratt, 2003), or by ensuring an equal level of participation by all group members (Fuchs et al., 2000). Another individual characteristic that may affect collaboration effectiveness is peer status. Peer status is related to peer interaction, and interaction is a key component of collaborative work. Therefore, the peer status of collaboration partners is likely to influence the effectiveness of the collaboration. High-status children interact differently with their peers than low-status children. High-status children are more socially competent, possess more communicative skills and have more positive interactions with their peers than low-status children (Matthews & Kesner, 2003). Their more advanced social skills enable high-status children to construct explanations, clarify processes, and elaborate on their knowledge and the learning material, which enhances the collaborative process and the subsequent outcome (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Karns, 1998; Matthews & Kesner, 2003). To date, however, the role of peer status is rather understudied in the context of collaborative learning. It is unclear how similarity or dissimilarity in peer status between group members contributes to the effectiveness of collaborative learning. In the present study, we therefore examined the role of popularity, a reputational peer status, in dyadic collaborative learning in elementary school children. In the peer group, two types of status are generally distinguished: likeability and popularity (e.g., Lease, Musgrove, & Axelrod, 2002; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006). Likeability reflects acceptance and preference, and 1

3 2 GOMMANS, SEGERS, BURK, AND SCHOLTE popularity reflects visibility and power. Although some attributes, such as good leadership, prosocial behavior, and high-quality friendships, are associated with both status types, numerous studies have shown that behaviors vary considerably between children with different status types (Asher & McDonald, 2009; Mayeux, Houser, & Dyches, 2011), specifically in interaction with peers. Studies on peer influence suggest that popular children, rather than well-accepted children, wield more social influence and power compared with less popular peers across a variety of social contexts (Sandstrom, 2011). Thus, popular children are more likely to influence the collaborative process and outcomes in both positive and negative ways. Popular children may display behavior that promotes the achievement of joint goals (i.e., positive interdependence; e.g., prosocial behavior, resolving conflicts in a satisfactory manner). Compared with the social skills of unpopular children, a popular child s potentially more advanced social competence positively affects academic achievement (Wentzel, 1991, 2005). However, in contrast to these positive effects, popular children are just as likely to display behavior that obstructs the achievement of each other s goals (i.e., negative interdependence; e.g., discouraging and obstructing other group members efforts; Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Moreover, popularity is clearly associated with several indices of risk, including academic disengagement (Mayeux et al., 2011). Previous research confirmed the assumption of both positive and negative effects of popularity on collaboration by showing that the associations between popularity and academic achievement are mixed (van den Berg & Cillessen, 2012). These findings correspond with and are likely explained by the heterogeneity in traits and behaviors of popular children. For instance, some children are highly popular, highly aggressive, and less academically successful, while other children are highly popular, considerably less aggressive, and more academically successful (Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & McKay, 2006). Murphy and Faulkner (2000) found that pairing unpopular 5- to 6-year-old children with popular classmates positively influenced the collaboration quality. Popularity was measured by peer ratings and friendship nominations. Collaboration in popular unpopular pairs was more successful and less disruptive than in pairs of two unpopular children, supposedly due to the fact that unpopular children lack the required communication skills and experience to successfully participate in collaborative work. Paired with a popular partner, unpopular children argued less and were more likely to resolve any disagreements than when paired with another unpopular child. Meijs, Cillessen, Scholte, Segers, and Spijkerman (2010) also found a significant positive correlation between popularity and measures of social intelligence (social information processing, social skills, and social awareness). In addition, Markell and Asher (1984) showed that dyads composed of an unpopular child and an average child displayed more asymmetry in influence, less cohesiveness and comfort, and more problems following task rules than dyads composed of a popular and an average child. Because sex differences exist in peer relationship processes and in determinants of popularity (for a review, see Rose, Glick, & Smith, 2011; Rose & Rudolph, 2006), it is important to examine these differences in research on collaborative learning. For example, girls tend to engage in more prosocial interactions and tend to put more emphasis on the importance of connection-oriented goals than boys (Eagly, 1987). In general, girls have been found to display more collaborative speech (Strough & Berg, 2000), more elaboration of peers proposals, and more responsivity and mutual coordination than boys (Tannen, 1990), supposedly due to a greater orientation toward interpersonal concerns by girls in comparison to boys because of socially prescribed roles (Eagly, 1987). Further, girls are found to be more collaborative and more network-oriented than boys (Arbaugh, 2000). In a study by Murphy and Faulkner (2006), it was found that popularity moderated communication effectiveness for girls but not for boys. Popular girls used certain forms of speech (questions, directives, and elaborations) associated with successful collaboration more frequently than unpopular girls. In sum, there is evidence suggesting that peer status may be an important factor in collaboration quality and collaborative learning and that sex may moderate the effects of peer status. In the current study, we investigated (a) the direct effects of one dyad member s popularity on the other dyad s member learning gain and (b) whether self-reported collaboration quality predicted changes in either dyad member s knowledge. We also investigated moderating effects of gender. Despite a large body of literature on collaborative learning, it remains unclear what group members actually learn from each other, as previous studies have focused on individual improvement by group members rather than investigating how and to what degree one group member directly influenced another group member in terms of learning gain. Second, as many previous studies have used theoretical or observational indicators to assess collaboration effectiveness (see Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Slavin, 1983; Slavin, 1996), little is known about the predictive validity of one group member s own evaluation of the effectiveness of the collaboration. It was hypothesized that the more popular dyad member would have a stronger influence on the less popular dyad member s knowledge test score at Time 2 (T2) than in the opposite direction. Furthermore, it was expected that the self-reported collaboration quality of one dyad member would positively affect the knowledge test score at T2 of the other dyad member. That is, children whose collaboration partner reported a higher collaboration quality would improve more on their knowledge test scores (between T1 and T2), than children whose collaboration partner reported a lower collaboration quality. Finally, it was hypothesized that effects would be stronger for girls than for boys, given girls stronger engagement in and orientation toward prosocial interactions and goals (see Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Method Participants The sample consisted of 303 children between the ages of 10 and 12 years (M age years; SD 0.90; 50.5% boys) from 11 classes (Grades 4 6) of three elementary schools. Seven classes were mixed groups, consisting of children from all three grades (M age 10.93; SD 0.95). The other four classes were Grade 5 or Grade 6 (M age 11.36; SD 0.66). In total, 47 schools were approached to participate in the current study. All participating schools were located in the southeastern part of the Netherlands and were in neighborhoods with a socioeconomic status (SES) factor score within 1 standard deviation from the mean

4 POPULARITY AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING 3 (Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands, 2006). Active or passive consent procedures were applied, depending on the procedure the schools preferred. All parents consented to let their children participate in the study. The vast majority of the participants were native Dutch-speaking residents (97%). Materials WebQuest and poster presentation. A total of 264 participants were paired in same-sex dyads (69 boy dyads and 63 girl dyads). The remaining 39 participants were excluded from the main analyses due to the fact that they were members of mixed-sex dyads or same- or mixed-sex triads. Dyads collaborated on a WebQuest about bullying (pesten; WebQuests.nl/Verver Foundation, n.d.; n 79 dyads) or about the pollution of the North Sea (vervuiling van de Noordzee; WebQuests.nl/Verver Foundation, n.d.; n 53 dyads) during three weekly collaboration sessions of 1 hr between Assessment Sessions 1 (T1) and 2 (T2). A WebQuest is a computer assignment within a relatively sheltered Internet environment, which is presented together with a series of web pages to help guide and structure the learning process (Segers & Verhoeven, 2009). Given the vast amount of information on the Internet, a theory-driven layer of structure between the child and the Internet helps to create an optimal learning situation. A WebQuest typically consists of five pages, including introduction (information about a specific topic), tasks/goals, sources of information (links to web pages), process guidelines (how to accomplish the tasks/goals), and conclusion/review (how the end product will be graded). The end product of the WebQuest was a poster presentation in which each dyad had to present information they had learned and considered important about the subject. The purpose of the posters was to provide dyad members another opportunity to elaborate on the materials they learned. Posters were not intended to be used in the analyses but rather as a way to facilitate dyadic influence. Dyads were composed by the teacher with a few restrictions. First and foremost, teachers were instructed to pair same-sex classmates who in their opinion would be able to collaborate with each other in a satisfactory manner. Second, for the classes with mixed groups, paired same-sex classmates had to be of approximately the same age and grade. Third, and finally, children with diagnosed learning or developmental difficulties (e.g., dyslexia or autism) that could affect the collaborative process were requested to be paired together. This was done to allow for the possible exclusion of these dyads (nine boy dyads and six girl dyads) if the collaborative process and outcome were significantly different from those of the other dyads. Preliminary analyses revealed no significant differences. Therefore, these dyads were also included in all subsequent analyses. Teachers were told that the purpose of the study was to investigate whether learning more about bullying would lead to changes in attitudes toward bullying and a decrease in actual bullying behavior. Teachers were not informed about the real purpose of the study. Further, teachers did not receive any information as to how popularity should be taken into account in assigning participants to dyads, nor did they express any awareness of how peer status specifically, popularity may play a role in the current study. Measures Participants completed a computerized questionnaire (Inquisit, Version , 2010) and a knowledge test twice, during two assessment sessions (T1 and T2) with an interval of 6 9 weeks. The first part of the computerized questionnaire contained sociometric questions (Cillessen, 2009), measuring constructs of peer affiliation and social behavior by peer nominations. The second part of the computerized questionnaire contained self-report items. Knowledge test. The knowledge test contained 12 true false questions and six open-ended questions about bullying (e.g., Children who bully often have a lot of confidence, Bullying occurs only in school, Write down four different ways to bully ) or about the pollution of the North Sea (e.g., Accidents involving oil tankers are the largest source of oil pollution in the North Sea, It s cheaper to transport oil by water than by air, Write down two different ways how oil ends up in the North Sea ). The questions were created by the researchers based on information provided by the web sources included in the WebQuest. At least one question was formulated for each web source, and efforts were made to ensure questions covered the complete range of dimensions related to the knowledge domain under investigation (e.g., for bullying: causes and consequences, forms, functions, roles, personal characteristics, and prevalence). The open-ended questions measured recall of facts provided by the web sources and not the application of knowledge or an in-depth understanding of the dimensions related to the knowledge domain under investigation. For each correct answer on the true false questions, children received 1 point. For each answer on the open-ended questions, children could receive between 0 and 2 points, depending on the correctness and completeness of their answer. A total score for each child was calculated by summing all points received. Answers on the open-ended questions were scored by the same researcher at T1 and T2 using a key containing correct and incorrect answers and the points to be earned for each correct answer. Additional scoring by a different researcher on approximately 30% of the questionnaires showed adequate interrater reliability for both knowledge tests ( bullying.83, North Sea.88). To assess convergent validity as an indication of measurement quality, we analyzed correlations between the true false and the open-ended questions. Analyses showed no significant correlation at T1 (r.10, p.10) and only a small significant correlation at T2 (r.21, p.01). These correlation coefficients were expected, given the assumption that participants had no to little prior knowledge of the knowledge domain and given the multidimensionality of the knowledge tests. Other than, for instance, personality tests that measure one homogeneous construct, the administered knowledge tests measured multiple distinct dimensions related to the same knowledge domain. Being knowledgeable on one dimension does not necessarily mean one is equally knowledgeable on other dimensions as well. Due to this multidimensionality, Cronbach s alpha internal consistency is not an appropriate total-test reliability estimate and thus also cannot provide a correct indication of measurement quality (Revelle & Zinbarg, 2009). Further, Cronbach s alpha can be highly underestimated with binary data using Pearson correlation or covariance matrices to calculate the estimates as a result of guessing (Gadermann, Guhn, & Zumbo, 2012; Grosse & Wright, 1985). We therefore calculated McDonald s omega t (McDonald,

5 4 GOMMANS, SEGERS, BURK, AND SCHOLTE 1978) using polychoric (true false questions) and Pearson (openended questions) correlation matrices to assess the proportion of total common variance in both knowledge tests (Gadermann et al., 2012; Revelle & Zinbarg, 2009). Analyses showed adequate homogeneity for most knowledge test items (i.e., omega internal consistency.60) allowing the use of sum and deviation scores in subsequent analyses (first t estimate is for the true false questions, second t estimate for the open-ended questions; bullying t1 t.74/.57, bullying t2 t.83/.64; North Sea t1 t.39/.65, North Sea t2 t.79/.62). Sociometric questions. Participants were asked to nominate class members on various sociometric questions. For each sociometric question, the first names of all class members were displayed on screen in random order (different order for each child, same order for each sociometric question). The respondent s own name was excluded from the list to avoid self-nominations. Children were allowed to nominate an unlimited number of same-sex and other-sex peers on each question, with a minimum of one. Children could select or deselect a class member by clicking on that child s first name. Once they were done selecting class members for a question, they were required to confirm their nominations by clicking on a text saying That s it in Dutch. This option to confirm was only displayed after at least one nomination was provided. For all sociometric questions and all participants, the raw number of nominations received was summed and standardized to z scores within classrooms to account for differences in the number of participants per class. Perceived popularity was measured by asking participants to nominate class members on the questions Who is/are the most popular? (MP) and Who is/are the least popular? (LP). Perceived popularity is the standardized difference between the standardized number of received MP and LP nominations. Dyad members were distinguished by their popularity scores, with each dyad consisting of a more and a less popular member. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess whether distinguishing dyad members by popularity was warranted. A main effect emerged for reporter, F(1, 128) , p.001, Wilks lambda.42, with more popular dyad members significantly differing from less popular members (M more popular 0.76, M less popular 0.66, Popularity 1.42). No other main effects or interactions emerged as statistically significant in this analysis. That is, popularity scores did not differ as a function of sex or WebQuest topic. These results suggest that relative popularity provided a meaningful distinction between collaboration partners in this study. An additional analysis also investigated whether these results differed as a function of classroom. Results of this analysis indicated that the differences in popularity between dyad members were similar across classrooms. This suggests that none of the teachers paired classmates systematically by popularity. To summarize, these results justified distinguishing dyad members by their relative popularity scores in all classrooms and justified the use of the actor partner interdependence model (APIM: Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) with distinguishable dyad members to answer the research questions. Quality of collaboration. After each WebQuest collaboration session, children filled out a short questionnaire containing seven items about their collaboration in the previous session (e.g., How well did you collaborate with each other? How much did you learn from him or her? ). Since a vast majority of the dyads omitted to fill out the questionnaire after the third session, only the data of the first two sessions were used. Five items, measuring collaboration satisfaction (i.e., the extent to which the collaboration was satisfying for the participant; three items;.84) and dominance (i.e., the extent to which the participant was the dominant dyad member; two items;.81), were answered on a 10-point interval scale (1 not much/well at all, 10 very much/well) with labels presented at both ends of the scale. Two items, measuring mutual listening (i.e., the extent to which both dyad members listened to each other s suggestions;.82), were answered on a 4-point scale with labels presented at each point on the scale (1 never, 4 always). One score for each of the three collaboration quality constructs was calculated by taking the average of the scores of both collaboration sessions. Both dyad members reports on collaboration quality were used to predict each other s knowledge test scores at T2. Procedure During the two assessment sessions (T1 and T2), participants completed the computerized questionnaire twice on a laptop provided by the researchers or the school. During the first session (T1), prior to the assessment, the class was informed about the study and the questionnaire during a 15-min instruction period. The key points of this instruction were repeated prior to the second assessment session (T2). Participants were told that the goal of the study was to understand children s peer relationships at school. Instructions were given as to how the computerized questionnaire should be completed. The confidentiality and anonymity of their answers was emphasized. Participants were rewarded with a small toy following the completion of the second assessment. During the assessment, talking was prohibited to guarantee children s privacy and the reliability of the assessment. All children were seated in a test arrangement at their assigned desk, with adequate space between each desk to prevent them from looking at the computer screen of others. During both assessment sessions, at least two researchers were present to make sure instructions were followed and to answer any questions the participants had while filling out the computerized questionnaire. On three occasions during the intermediate weeks between both assessment sessions, children collaborated in dyads for approximately 1 hr on each occasion on the computer assignment (WebQuest) and the poster presentation. The posters were presented in a separate session after the second assessment session. Strategy of analyses. First, preliminary analyses were conducted that describe mean-level differences and rank-order similarity between knowledge test scores prior to (T1) and after (T2) the collaboration, and between collaboration partners collaboration quality (dominance, mutual listening, and satisfaction). To examine mean-level differences on knowledge, we conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA with two within-dyad effects: time (i.e., knowledge test scores before [T1] and after [T2] the collaboration) and reporter (i.e., the more and less popular dyad member). Sex of the dyad and WebQuest topic (bullying or pollution of the North Sea) were the between-dyad effects. For collaboration quality (dominance, mutual listening, and satisfaction), reporter was included as a within-subject effect, and sex and WebQuest topic were included as between-subjects effects. Pearson correlations examined the degree of similarity between partner knowl-

6 POPULARITY AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING 5 edge and reports of collaboration quality. Correlational contrasts tested between-dyad differences as a function of sex and Web- Quest topic. These preliminary analyses examined differences between collaboration partners as a function of sex and WebQuest topic but were also necessary to establish that partner reports were similar or statistically interdependent, which is a prerequisite for subsequent dyadic analyses. The primary research questions were investigated with two longitudinal actor partner interdependence models (APIMs; Kenny et al., 2006). The first APIM included both partners knowledge scores at T1 and T2, distinguishing collaboration partners on the basis of their relative popularity (see Figure 1). This model involves two types of effects. Actor effects are depicted by horizontal paths for the more and less popular dyad member (a1 and a2, respectively) and describe each dyad member s knowledge score at T1 predicting his or her own knowledge at T2. Partner effects are depicted by diagonal cross-paths that describe each dyad member s knowledge score at T1 predicting their partner s knowledge at T2. Specifically, the effects were (a) the more popular member s knowledge at T1 predicting changes in the less popular member s knowledge at T2 and (b) the less popular member s knowledge at T1 predicting changes in the more popular member s knowledge at T2 (p1 and p2, respectively). These analyses were performed within a structural path modeling framework using Mplus Version 6.1 (Muthén, & Muthén, ). Sex and WebQuest differences in these paths were separately examined using multiple group analyses. That is, the four paths were individually constrained to be the same for male and female dyads; the four paths were then individually constrained to be the same for dyads completing the bullying and North Sea WebQuests. Statistically significant differences were determined with chisquare difference tests between models with and without the equality constraints. The second APIM examined links between partners collaboration quality and changes in knowledge. This analysis included actor and partner effects involving knowledge at T1 and T2, as well as actor and partner effects involving the three measures of collaboration quality (dominance, mutual listening, and satisfaction). The six additional actor effects (three for each member) examined whether adolescents reports of collaboration quality Knowledge T1 More Popular Knowledge T1 Less Popular p2 p1 a1 a2 Knowledge T2 More Popular Knowledge T2 Less Popular Figure 1. Conceptual actor partner interdependence model of gain in knowledge before and after collaboration for more and less popular partners. a1 and a2 actor effects describing intraindividual stability in knowledge scores; p1 and p2 partner effects describing interpersonal influence in knowledge scores; e mp and e lp residual error terms for more and less popular dyad member, respectively. T1 Time 1 assessment; T2 Time 2 assessment. Emp E lp predicted changes in their own knowledge from T1 to T2; the six additional partner effects examined whether adolescents reports of collaboration quality predicted changes in their partner s knowledge from T1 to T2. Sex and WebQuest differences were also tested for this model using a multiple group analysis, in which each path was individually constrained and tested with a chi-square difference test. Results Preliminary Analyses First, a repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to examine mean-level differences in knowledge at T1 and T2 for the more and less popular dyad members (within-dyad), and to test whether effects differed as a function of sex and WebQuest topic (betweendyads). Means and standard deviations of knowledge test scores at T1 and T2 are presented in Table 1. A main effect of time emerged, F(1, 112) 30.35, p.001, partial 2.21, indicating an overall gain in knowledge from T1 to T2. This main effect was qualified by a two-way interaction between time and WebQuest topic, F(1, 112) 14.72, p.001, partial 2.12, which was in turn qualified by the four-way interaction involving Time Reporter Sex WebQuest Topic, F(1, 112) 7.27, p.01, partial Follow-up analyses performed separately for T1 and T2 indicated no significant main or interaction effects for knowledge scores at T1, but the three-way interaction of Reporter Sex WebQuest Topic was significant for knowledge scores at T2, F(1, 117) 4.17, p.05, partial Next, analyses performed separately for reporter indicated a main effect for WebQuest for more popular dyad members, F(1, 117) 8.61, p.01, partial 2.07; and a two-way interaction effect between sex and WebQuest topic for less popular dyad members, F(1, 120) 4.07, p.05, partial Finally, follow-up analyses of these results indicated that a significant learning gain was found for dyad members completing the bullying WebQuest and for the less popular female dyad members completing the North Sea WebQuest (see Table 1 for Cohen s d effect sizes and significance of paired samples t tests). No learning gain was observed for male dyad members and more popular female dyad members who completed the North Sea WebQuest. Second, a series of three repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted to examine mean-level differences in collaboration quality. These analyses included reporter as a within-dyad effect, and sex of the dyad and WebQuest topic as between-dyads effects. Means and standard deviations of the collaboration quality measures are presented in Table 2. For mutual listening, the main effects of WebQuest, F(1, 126) 13.87, p.001, partial 2.10, emerged as statistically significant, indicating that dyads completing the bullying WebQuest reported more mutual listening compared with dyads completing the North Sea WebQuest. For dominance, the main effect of sex emerged as statistically significant, F(1, 126) 4.49, p.05, partial 2.03, with male dyads reporting more dominance than female dyads. No statistically significant main or interaction effects emerged in the analysis involving collaboration satisfaction. These analyses of variance collectively indicate that knowledge gain differed as a function of reporter (i.e., the more or less popular dyad member), sex of the dyad, and WebQuest topic. Collabora-

7 6 GOMMANS, SEGERS, BURK, AND SCHOLTE Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for the More and Less Popular Dyad Members Knowledge at T1 and T2 by Sex and WebQuest Topic Measure tion quality, on the other hand, did not differ as a function of reporter, but mutual listening differed as a function of WebQuest topic and dominance differed as a function of sex. Correlational Analyses More popular member Less popular member M SD M SD Knowledge test Time 1 Female Bullying North Sea Male Bullying North Sea Time 2 Female Bullying North Sea Male Bullying North Sea Learning gain Female Bullying North Sea 0.19 ns 0.56 Male Bullying North Sea 0.17 ns 0.16 ns Note. Knowledge at Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2) ranged from four to 18 (out of 24) correct answers. For learning gain, Cohen s d effect sizes and significance of paired samples t tests are reported. p.05. p.01. Interclass correlations describing dyadic similarity are presented on the diagonal in Table 3. The positive and statistically significant correlations indicated that dyad members reported similar levels on all study measures, with the exception of dominance. The correlation coefficient for dominance was statistically significant and negative, indicating that the more popular and the less popular dyad member reported dissimilar levels of dominance experienced in the collaboration. Correlational contrasts revealed only two statistically significant sex difference in the magnitude of similarity. First, male dyads were more similar on knowledge scores at T2 (r.57, p.01) than female dyads (r.26, p.05; z 2.14, p.032). Second, female dyads reported stronger dissimilar levels of dominance (r.53, p.01) than male dyads (r.26, p.01). Correlational contrasts between dyads completing the bullying WebQuest and dyads completing the North Sea WebQuest were not significant. These analyses confirmed interdependence between dyad members on most collaboration quality measures and knowledge scores, which necessitates the use of dyadic data analyses (such as APIMs). Significant correlations between the collaboration quality measures also indicated adequate interrater reliability to use both dyad members self-reported collaboration quality measures to predict each other s knowledge test scores at T2 (see coefficients on the diagonal in Table 3). Further, correlational analysis including all predictor variables (see Table 3) showed significant positive correlations between collaboration satisfaction, and popularity and mutual listening for both dyad members. Collaboration satisfaction was also negatively correlated with dominance for the more popular dyad member, and popularity was positively correlated with mutual listening for the less popular dyad member. Actor Partner Effects of Popularity on Learning The first APIM investigated whether the more popular dyad member s knowledge at T1 (prior to the collaboration) predicted changes in the less popular member s knowledge at T2 (after the collaboration), and vice versa. Knowledge test scores of both partners explained 38% of the variance of the more popular member s knowledge at T2 and 40% of the variance of the less popular member s knowledge test score at T2. Both actor effects were statistically significant (.60, p.001, for the more popular and.44, p.001, for the less popular member) indicating that knowledge scores were moderately stable for each dyad member. One of the two partner effects, the path of the more popular member s knowledge at T1 predicting changes in the less popular member s knowledge at T2 emerged as statistically significant (.34, p.001), whereas the less popular member s knowledge at T1 did not predict changes in the more popular member s knowledge at T2 (.05, p.570). Sex and WebQuest differences in these associations were tested with multiple group analyses by individually constraining each of the four paths to be equal between groups. Chi-square difference tests did not indicate any statistically significant differences be- Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Dyad Members Reports of Collaboration Quality by Sex and WebQuest Topic Measure/Collaboration quality More popular member Less popular member M SD M SD Female Bullying Dominance Mutual listening Satisfaction North Sea Dominance Mutual listening Satisfaction Male Bullying Dominance Mutual listening Satisfaction North Sea Dominance Mutual listening Satisfaction Note. Popularity ranged from 4(unpopular)to4(popular). Dominance and collaboration satisfaction ranged from 1 (not much) to10(very much). Mutual listening ranged from 1 (never) to4(always).

8 POPULARITY AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING 7 Table 3 Correlations Between Predictor Variables and Outcome for the More and Less Popular Dyad Members Measure Popularity Dominance Mutual listening Satisfaction Knowledge Test T Knowledge Test T Note. Correlations for the less popular dyad member are displayed below the diagonal, and those for the more popular dyad member above the diagonal; intraclass correlations on the diagonal. T1 Time 1; T2 Time 2. p.05. p.01. tween male and female dyads or between dyads completing the two WebQuests. Therefore, despite mean-level differences in learning gain, the results of the APIM multiple-group analyses did not indicate that associations differed as a function of sex or WebQuest topic. Collaboration Quality as a Predictor of Changes in Knowledge? The second APIM investigated whether the collaboration quality reported by the more and less popular dyad member predicted changes in their own knowledge (actor effects) and predicted changes in their partner s knowledge (partner effects). Table 4 presents the standardized estimates of this model. The pattern of results involving knowledge test scores at T1 are identical to those presented in the previous model, so they are not described again here. One actor effect emerged as a statistically significant predictor of increases in knowledge: Mutual listening reported by the less popular member predicted increases in their own knowledge (Path a2, see Figure 1). Two partner effects emerged as statistically Table 4 Standardized Estimates of Actor and Partner Effects of Collaboration Quality Predicting Knowledge at T2 Controlling for Knowledge at T1 Predictor Knowledge test T2 Actor ( ) p Partner ( ) p Less popular member a2 p1 Knowledge test T Collaboration quality Dominance Mutual listening Satisfaction More popular member a1 p2 Knowledge test T Collaboration quality Dominance Mutual listening Satisfaction Note. N 132 dyads. R 2.41 for the more popular member s knowledge test; R 2.50 for the less popular member s knowledge test. Column headers (a1, a2, p1, and p2) refer to the paths in Figure 1. Time 1 T1; Time 2 T2. significant. The more popular member s reports of dominance were negatively associated with increases in knowledge of the less popular partner (Path p1), and the more popular dyad member s reports of mutual listening was positively associated with increases in knowledge of the less popular partner (Path p1). These results indicate that collaboration quality (dominance and mutual listening) is associated with changes in the less popular member s knowledge but is not linked to changes in the more popular member s knowledge (Paths a1 and p2). Sex and WebQuest differences in these associations were tested with multiple group analyses by individually constraining each of the paths to be equal between groups. Again, as with the first APIM, none of the chi-square difference tests indicated that the associations involving collaboration quality differed as a function of sex or WebQuest topic. Discussion In the current study, we investigated whether perceived popularity and self-reported collaboration quality predicted the actual collaboration outcome of each individual in a dyad. The first research question addressed the effects of perceived popularity on knowledge test at T2. It was expected that more popular children would have a stronger influence on less popular dyad members knowledge test score at T2 than less popular children would have on more popular dyad members scores. It was further hypothesized that effects would be stronger for girls than for boys. The findings confirm our first hypothesis but not our second hypothesis concerning moderation by sex. Thus, in both male and female dyads, the more popular members= knowledge test scores at T1 positively predicted less popular members= knowledge test scores at T2. Although knowledge test score at T2 was predominantly predicted by the dyad member s own knowledge test score at T1 (knowing more at T1 also means knowing more at T2), the less popular member s knowledge test score also improved more at T2 when the more popular member performed better at T1. This could be due to the fact that more popular members are more influential (e.g., more listened to, better able to invoke conformity by the other member) in the collaborative process than less popular members (see Sandstrom, 2011). In other words, more popular members have more opportunity to elaborate on the material to be learned and to share their knowledge with the other dyad member.

9 8 GOMMANS, SEGERS, BURK, AND SCHOLTE These findings add to results found in previous studies on the positive effects of pairing unpopular or average children with popular children (Markell & Asher, 1984; Murphy & Faulkner, 2000). These previous studies suggest that collaboration in dyads with a popular dyad member is more successful and less disruptive due to the popular dyad member s higher communication skills and experiences, for instance, with regard to resolving disagreements. Thus, in addition to having more opportunity to share their knowledge, more popular members are also more effective in transferring their knowledge to the less popular members. In general, the popular members assumed advanced social and communication skills appear to benefit the collaborative process, which in turn benefits the collaboration outcome. In the current study, the magnitude of the effect on collaboration outcome varied by WebQuest; medium to high effect sizes were found for the bullying knowledge test and small effect sizes were found for the North Sea knowledge test. These findings indicate that the difficulty level of the collaboration task likely also affects the collaboration process and outcome. Compared with the bullying knowledge test, the North Sea knowledge test was considered to be of a higher difficulty level; participants were assumed to be less knowledgeable about the pollution of the North Sea while some experience with and knowledge about bullying were expected. A task that is too difficult might result in more frustration and less positive social interaction during the task, leading to a less efficient and successful collaboration process and outcome. The second research question addressed effects of collaboration quality on knowledge test at T2. As expected, significant partner effects were found. Again, findings did not confirm any moderation by sex. The less popular member s knowledge test score at T2 was negatively influenced by the more popular member s selfreported dominance but positively influenced by the more popular member s self-reported mutual listening. This can be explained by the assumption that having a more popular member who is less dominant and displays more mutual listening in the collaborative process increases the chances for the less popular member to participate sufficiently in the collaborative process. More mutual listening by both dyad members increases cooperative interaction, which benefits the collaborative process and the learning outcome. These findings confirm the hypothesis that a higher collaboration quality, as indicated by less dominance and more mutual listening, positively affects learning gain in both male and female dyads. Results do not confirm the hypothesis using collaboration satisfaction as an indicator for collaboration quality. This is most likely due to the fact that collaboration satisfaction is an overarching concept that encompasses a wide range of characteristics of the collaboration process that are not all related to learning gain or collaboration quality. For example, a less popular dyad member can be satisfied with the collaboration with a more popular dyad member for many reasons, even with a large dissimilarity in dominance and mutual listening and even without actually gaining knowledge. One such reason is, for instance, enhancing one s own popularity by collaborating with a more popular partner (i.e., basking in reflected glory ; Cialdini & Richardson, 1980). Further, students can be highly satisfied with collaborative work despite low actual collaboration quality when the final group outcome outweighs the actual individual learning of all group members in the reward structure (Slavin, 1995). Hence, it is satisfying for some if other group members did all the work to achieve the desired outcome. In summary, mutual listening thus turns out to be a crucial factor in collaboration effectiveness that predicts learning gain. This is in line with previous studies on verbalization and reflection (Fawcett & Garton, 2005; Garton, Harvey & Pratt, 2003), and on equal levels of participation (Fuchs et al., 2000). It is also in agreement with previous studies that pointed out the benefits of popular children s enhanced communication skills with regard to collaboration effectiveness when pairing unpopular or average children with popular children (Markell & Asher, 1984; Murphy & Faulkner, 2000). Less dominance and more mutual listening in the collaboration process are both indicators of more enhanced communication, compared with having a collaboration process with more dominance or less mutual listening. When interpreting the results of the current study, three limitations should be kept in mind. First, the generalization of the results found in the current study is limited, as the sample consisted of primarily native Dutch-speaking elementary school children from neighborhoods with an average SES factor score (Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands, 2006). As previous research showed that the behavioral characteristics of popularity change with age (Cillessen, Schwartz, & Mayeux, 2011), future studies could replicate the current study on qualitatively different samples, including a broader age range (children and adolescents) from secondary schools as well. Second, several potentially confounding factors were not taken into account. For instance, it is possible that some of the effects found were moderated by the degree of mutual liking between dyad members (reciprocated) friendship nominations, dyad members= likeability status, classroom culture, task structure, teacher behavior, and so forth. Third, although great efforts were taken to construct a valid and reliable knowledge test covering the complete range of dimensions related to the knowledge domain under investigation, limited information is available concerning the reliability and validity of the knowledge tests. For instance, there is no other knowledge test or related construct available that could have been used to predict actual knowledge about bullying or about pollution of the North Sea (i.e., criterion-related validity). Potentially, knowledge gains were reduced due to issues concerning the validity of the knowledge tests. Future researchers could therefore replicate the current study employing more reliable and validated knowledge tests that were developed to assess a more general knowledge domain directly related to the curriculum. Another valuable direction for future research is to learn more about the process by which the more popular dyad member affected the collaboration process and the learning gain in the less popular dyad member. Adolescents can be socially competent with peers in two ways: either by being prosocial and cooperative or by being coercive and manipulative (Cillessen & Bellmore, 2011). Either way may have affected the less popular dyad member s learning gain. Thus, it may have been the more popular dyad member s heightened verbal intelligence (i.e., more advanced communication skills and experiences) that explains the learning gain of the less popular dyad member. However, at the same time, such effect may also be explained by the more popular dyad member s stronger influence over the less popular dyad member. Finally, although additional analyses revealed no significant effects, it is important to note that relative difference in popularity