Evaluation of a collaborative multimedia conflict resolution curriculum

Abstract This article describes the development and evaluation of STAR-streams, a pilot effort to utilize videos and online discussions in a conflictresolution curriculum that acknowledges the inherent socio-personal aspectsof conflict. The STARstreams curricula includes a set of video-based scenariosdepicting conflict situations and potential resolutions to those conflicts, a web-based conferencing system for cross-classroom discussion of the scenarios, anda handbook to guide teacher implementation of the curriculum. Thesematerials were evaluated in a 2-week field trial with four geographically di-verse 5th and 6th grade classrooms. The experimental STARstreams curric-ulum was well-received by participating students and teachers, engenderedextensive participation in online discussions about the scenarios, and had astatistically significant effect on measures of social problem solving, self-effi-cacy toward conflict resolution, and perceived value and satisfaction with thematerials. The overall program and its development are described; classroomexperiences, online discussion, and quantitative outcome measures are pre-sented; and implications for future efforts are discussed.

Keywords Conflict resolution Æ Social problem-solving Æ Technology ÆComputers Æ Internet Æ Collaboration

R. Goldsworthy (&)The Academic Edge, Inc., P.O. Box 5307, Bloomington, Indiana 47403, USAe-mail: [email protected]

N. SchwartzTelecommunications Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA

S. BarabLearning Sciences Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA

A. LandaDue Diligence Corporation, Bloomington, USA

123

Education Tech Research Dev (2007) 55:597–625DOI 10.1007/s11423-006-9006-5

DE VELO PM ENT AR TICL E

Evaluation of a collaborative multimedia conflictresolution curriculum

Richard Goldsworthy Æ Nancy Schwartz ÆSasha Barab Æ Anita Landa

Published online: 20 September 2006� Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2006

Introduction

Learning to avoid and resolve conflicts is an important part of becoming anactive and productive member of society in general and the classroom inparticular. While certain skills and information that assist people to resolveconflict may generalize across situations, conflicts and the resolutions to themare always embedded in personal, interpersonal, and cultural contexts. Thisinherent embeddedness suggests that fostering conflict resolution is as muchabout social awareness and critical thinking as it is about learning a pre-defined set of conflict resolution strategies. From this perspective, an impor-tant part of conflict resolution curricula is to place learners in rich situations,to scaffold their generalization of conflict resolution strategies and skills, toprovide opportunities for them to apply skills to diverse cases in a variety ofsettings, and to enable ongoing reflection. By learning how to resolve conflictsin the context of rich situations, students can develop a situated appreciationfor the value of conflict resolution skills.

Within this overarching pedagogical perspective, technology is one of manytools designers can use to establish situations that foster conflict avoidanceand resolution skills. The purpose of this exploratory study was to examinehow technology can be used to establish these situations and provide scaffoldsfor students to work collaboratively to resolve conflict. The reported effortused video-based technologies to situate the content and then utilized asyn-chronous discussion tools to support the collaborative interrogation of thevideos. As students examined the situations presented in the videos, they wereintroduced to various conflict resolution skills. This pedagogical approach isconsistent with the situated cognition perspective that information and skillsare more likely to be applied in future situations when learned in the contextof use, as opposed to when information and skills are learned as abstractcontent or as decontextualized skills (Barab et al., 1999; Greeno, 1998).Specifically, this effort explores: (1) What might a multimedia-enhancedcurriculum intended to support conflict avoidance and resolution look like?(2) How do teachers and students use a multimedia conflict resolution cur-riculum in the classroom? and (3) What impact does the use of a multimediaconflict resolution curriculum have on learners’ conflict resolving skills andself-efficacy toward conflict resolution?

Significance and background

In the United States, the classroom is considered to be a major arena forsocialization (Dewey, 1980). In addition to the traditional ‘‘three R’s,’’ there isa growing recognition that schools have the added responsibility of helpingstudents master the fourth ‘‘R’’ of Relationships. Programs addressing conflictresolution and violence prevention are increasingly being integrated intoclassroom, school, and district-wide efforts (Department of Justice, 1995;Johnson, Johnson, Dudley, Mitchell, & Fredrickson, 1997; Lovett & Walzak,1997; Lupton-Smith, Carruthers, Flythe, Goettee, & Modest, 1996; McCarthy,

123

598 R. Goldsworthy et al.

1992; Thompson, 1996). Accordingly, researchers and evaluators have turnedtheir attention toward developing more effective curricula, tools, and evalu-ation methods for addressing the reduction of violence, aggression, and con-flict among children, tweens, and adolescents. For some populations, over30% of students report having been involved in a physical fight sometimeduring the previous year (Brener, Simon, Krug, & Lowry, 1999). Although themost recently available data reveal a modest decline in the overall percentagesof students who report being involved in violent situations, overall ratesremain unacceptable (CDC, 2004).

Conflict avoidance and resolution skills are subsumed under a variety ofnames, yet the core underlying competences are similar. Emotional intelli-gence, intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence, conflict resolution, andsocial problem solving are representative of domain titles under which conflictavoidance and resolution skills are found. Goleman popularized the notion ofemotional intelligence in his 1995 book of the same name. This popularizationdrew upon previous work by Salovey and Mayer (1990) that introduced theterm. Gardner (1993) described an individual’s ability to assess emotions inone’s self and in others and to harness those emotions in order to interacteffectively with the world and others as intrapersonal and interpersonalintelligence. Drawing on these theories, Goldsworthy (2002, 2000) proposedan Emotional Intelligence Framework (EIF) to guide intervention and pre-vention efforts in the socio-emotional domain. Delineated in Table 1, the EIFprovides a means for designers, developers, and reviewers to systematicallyaddress areas of socio-emotional competence, whether in the development ofnew programs and applications or in the review of existing ones. The frame-work consists of six top-level competencies (Table 1, 3.1–3.6) ranging fromemotional self-awareness to the practice of context-appropriate social skills.

Previously, Goldsworthy introduced a set of ‘‘lenses’’ for considering theuses of technology in education (Goldsworthy, 1999b). The lenses are used toexamine the relationship between learning and technology, in terms ofobjectives and affordances, when the learning is conceived to occur (1) fromtechnology (e.g. direct instruction, modeling), (2) with technology (e.g.

Table 1 The emotional intelligence framework

1. Emotional intelligence is not static; it can and should be taught.2. Emotion and cognition are highly interrelated and should be treated as such.3. Emotional intelligence has roughly six components:

3.1 Self-awareness of emotion3.2 The ability to handle emotion appropriately3.3 The ability to motivate oneself by harnessing emotion3.4 Awareness of emotional responses in others3.5 The ability to relate to and manage emotional relations with others3.6 Knowledge and practice of appropriate, situationally and culturally appropriate social

skills—such as negotiation, making eye contact, etc, in support Emotional IntelligenceFramework (EIF) #s 3.1–3.5.

4. These six components (3.1–3.6) recur at various levels of complexity throughout an individual’slife, and therefore emotional development is lifelong and somewhat cyclical.

123

Multimedia conflict resolution curriculum 599

technology as tools), (3) around technology (e.g. collaborative learning), and(4) through technology (e.g. computer-mediated communication), as well aswhen learning is (5) assessed by technology. In any given educational effortthat involves technology, each of these roles may be adopted, to a greater orlesser extent, in an effort to increase learning and learner engagement. Infact it is rare, if not impossible, for the technology to play only one of theseroles. Therefore, it is important for designers and educators to consider waysto purposefully bring non-primary roles into use—as well as to be cognizantof ways the different roles may inadvertently ‘‘leak’’ into an educationaleffort.

The lenses are useful as reminders to the developer, educator, and evalu-ator of the ways technology may be used to engender learning. By using thelenses, tunnel-vision toward a particular role can potentially be avoided. Forexample, technology developers often assume the perspective that learningoccurs from technology—that is, the medium itself is doing the teaching. Forsome learning objectives, in some domains, and under certain conditions, thismay be a reasonable decision. Explicit tutorials and drill-and-practice areoften useful for activities such as rote vocabulary memorization or acquisitionof procedural knowledge. However, such strategies are less effective for morecomplex objectives, particularly those that are ill-structured (Spiro, Feltovitch,Jacobson, & Coulson, 1992). Social problem solving is one such complexdomain. Frequently when instruction remains focused on what can be learnedfrom the technology, the educational effort ‘‘fails to address the knowledgerequirements of a rapidly expanding technological society’’ by emphasizingthe acquisition of information rather than purposive action in the world (Land& Hannafin, 1997, p. 167). Designing activities that require overt and reflec-tive responses, rather than assumed and unexamined ones, serves to enhancelearning. Similarly, by making technology integration decisions overt andreflective, rather than assumed and unexamined, the design process becomesmore transparent. The lenses assist in this regard.

Using both the EIF framework and the technology lenses, Goldsworthy(2002) conducted a review of media-based, socio-emotional educational ef-forts. The programs reviewed range from the modeling of cooperative socialskills for 8- to 11-year old emotionally disturbed children (Thorkildsen, Al-lard, & Reid, 1983) to social problem-solving skills for students diagnosed withAttention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (Goldsworthy, Barab, & Golds-worthy, 2000) to tools for expressing emotions through cartoons (Jones &Selby, 1997). Bosworth, Espelage, DuBay, Dahlberg, and Daytner (1996),Bosworth, Espelage, and DuBay (1998), Bosworth, Espelage, DuBay, Dayt-ner, and Karageorge (2000) examined the use of SMART Talk, a system ofseveral multimedia modules designed to enhance anger management andconflict-resolution among middle school students. In a field trial with 558middle school students, Bosworth found significant main effects between thecontrol and experimental groups on self-reported intentions to use peacefulconflict resolution strategies. Components of the modules included recogni-tion of anger, anger and conflict management strategies, presentation of

123


role-models, and the vicarious experience of anger inducing situations. Amodule that scaffolds students’ generation of solutions to their own conflictswas also examined.

A review of the commercial marketplace for existing products yields ahandful of technology-based applications that purport to teach conflict reso-lution, social problem solving, or some variation of these skills. Most existingcommercial media are videos designed to teach educators how to implementpeace-keeping or conflict-resolving/conflict-avoiding strategies in their class-rooms or videos intended to be shown in the classroom in order to explainconflict resolving strategies or to model the use of such strategies. Few mul-timedia products exist in this field. Two such products, The Coolien Challengeand BeCool, appeared most frequently during the review of existing media;however, no published reports of their development process, underlying the-oretical base, or efficacy could be found.

An examination of the literature on non-technology based conflict resolu-tion curricula reveals several classroom and school wide efforts. In generalthese efforts have not been subjected to methodologically rigorous evaluation;however, most have some level of positive, published, evaluative data. TheResponding in Peaceful and Positive Ways (RIPP) program focuses on thesociocognitive skills requisite to effective social problem solving—including aseven-step problem-solving process (Farrell & Meyer, 1997; Farrell, Meyer, &White, 1998; Farrell, Meyer, Sullivan, & Krug, 2003; Meyer, Northrup, &Plybon, 1998). RIPP targets the transition period between elementary andmiddle school and is typically delivered through classrooms in 12 or moresessions, with different versions of the curriculum available for delivery acrossmultiple consecutive years. The Peaceful Kids Early Childhood Social-Emo-tional Learning (Peaceful Kids ECSEL) program, developed for use duringearly childhood in daycare settings, encourages daycare staff to use cooper-ative rather than punitive discipline techniques and to implement activitiesdesigned to foster social and emotional skills (Sandy & Cochran, 1998). Theprogram uses puppets to enact conflict scenarios and integrates scaffolding byadults, a spiraling curriculum, and the teaching of emotional awareness andshared emotional vocabulary. The Second Step Violence Prevention Programadvocates perspective taking, anger management, social problem solving, andimpulse reduction through modeling, role-play, practice, and feedback (Be-land, 1992; Taub, 2001). The program is tailored to specific grade levels, with‘‘kits’’ for pre-school, grades 1–3, and grades 4–5. Other efforts reported in theliterature include the Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP) (Aber,Brown, Chaudry, Jones, & Samples, 1996; Aber, Brown, & Henrich, 1999;Aber, Jones, Brown, Chaudry, & Samples, 1998), Peacebuilders (Embry,Flannery, Ansonia, Powell, & Atcham, 1996; Flannery et al., 2003), andViolence Prevention Curriculum for Adolescents (DuRant et al., 1996).

The aforementioned efforts point to important content areas and strategiesthat are likely to be useful in most conflict resolution curriculum, such as theinclusion of a social problem-solving model, the development of a sharedlanguage for discussing conflict, the use of stories and scenarios, emphasis on

123


perspective-taking and emotional awareness, and the use of curricular scaf-folding and spiraling over a prolonged period of implementation, often inyears, rather than a single shot intervention. The design and development ofthe present project was informed by these strategies as well as by generalproblem-solving and social problem-solving models (e.g. Bransford & Stein,1993; Elias & Tobias, 1996; Lochman, 1992; Shure & Spivack, 1978).

In previous work, Goldsworthy et al. (2000) developed a social problem-solving model summarized by the acronym STAR—Stop, Think, Act, Reflect.This model differs from most prior models in the overt articulation of the Reflectstep—a component of the learning process that Schon (1987) and others havesuggested is important for helping the learner to achieve maximum benefit fromthe learning situation. This previous work by Goldsworthy and colleagues uti-lized three 5-min video vignettes depicting conflict situations and their resolu-tions. The vignettes were used in a multimedia program in which learners wereintroduced to conflict situations by an animated avatar, or mentor, character.Learners analyzed the vignettes through open- and close-ended questions andwere provided feedback by the mentor. Goldsworthy (Goldsworthy et al., 2000;see also, Goldsworthy, 1999a, 1999b) examined the use of these vignettes as adelivery mechanism for stand-alone social problem-solving interventions foradolescent learners diagnosed with ADHD. In a controlled three-group, pre–post experimental design (n = 60), the prototype group performed significantlybetter than an attention-placebo control and comparably to a therapist-directedgroup on a transfer measure of problem solving and on one of two engagementmeasures. This research demonstrated that multimedia could feasibly be used asan adjunct to or partial replacement of traditional therapist-directed interven-tions. The researchers also found attendance rates for the experimental condi-tion were significantly higher than in either of the other conditions.

The present article reports on a development and evaluation effort to extendthis previous work. The goal was to develop a preliminary conflict resolutioncurriculum and supporting media for use by the general upper-elementary andlower-middle-school populations. A video-based, web-enhanced, cross-class-room, collaborative conflict resolution curriculum was developed that incor-porates elements of the EIF and social problem solving, and draws uponanchor-based instructional strategies (CTGV, 1990, 1993) in a manner that isintellectually and emotionally engaging for learners. The resulting effort isreferred to as ‘‘STARstreams’’—so named for the use of streaming videos toengage students in learning the STAR conflict resolution model.

Materials

The researchers embedded social problem-solving content within complexvideo-based scenarios; enabled learners to interact with the scenarios, lessons,and each other using streaming video and web-based conferencing; andcreated teacher support materials based on a constructivist pedagogicalphilosophy. The first stage of the effort involved development of the videoscenarios, web site, and teacher materials.

123


Video-based scenarios

Four video-based conflict scenarios served as launching pads for bothclassroom and online interaction (see Fig. 1: STARstreams Video-basedScenarios). Three endings were developed for each conflict scenario in orderto provide students with an opportunity to examine a variety of potentialsolutions and to compare and contrast various conflict resolution strategies.The endings varied by the number of individuals involved in the resolution(self, peer, group mediated), the strategies used (e.g., various aspects ofSTAR, including ‘‘I’’ statements, stopping, generating multiple solutions), andthe outcome. This strategy of embedding various key learning outcomes

Rat Fink. In Rat Fink, two best friends arediscussing an upcoming test when it is revealedthat one of the girls is aware that a classmate hasstolen the test and is selling copies of it to otherstudents. The conflict explodes when the girlsdisagree about their responsibility to report thisviolation of school rules and the repercussions oftheir actions.

Freaks. In Freaks, a conflict arises between fourstudents over the use of a public space. It beginswith two students at a table studying for a chemistry test. Two other students arrive with a boom box to listen to their music, which disturbsthe studying students. The cultural differencesbetween the two groups inflame the conflict whenthey begin name-calling.

Party Time. In Party Time, two good friends arein disagreement about their plans for Saturdaynight. Jordan thinks it will be fun to go to an un-chaperoned party at another student’s house.Stephanie rejects this idea because she has heardthat these other students are into smoking anddrinking. Jordan claims that she has no evidenceof this and that Stephanie is prejudiced againstthese students because of where they live.

Frick and Frack. In Frick and Frack,stepbrothers Kurt and Chuck argue about issues ofintellectual property. Chuck is very excited aboutthe approval of his science project until Kurtaccuses Chuck of stealing the idea from him.Chuck claims that the two of them came up withthe idea together, Kurt decided not to do it, and,therefore, Chuck has the right to do it on his own.

Images Courtesy of The Academic Edge, Inc.

Fig. 1 The STARstreams Video-based Conflict Scenarios

123


across multiple stimuli in order to allow learners to generalize across the set ofstimuli is similar to that frequently used in anchored instruction.

The following guidelines were used to develop the scenarios: (a) they arebased on situations likely to arise among students; (b) they present situationswhere antagonists are more or less equally right or wrong, are peers in statusand personal attributes, and are acting within acceptable codes of behavior inmost American pre-teen and early teen sub-cultures; (c) there are no perfectsolutions to the conflicts presented, although core values such as fairness,friendship, responsibility and honesty should be able to be preserved; (d) theconflicts are at a level where both the disputants themselves and relativelyuntrained persons and groups can help resolve them using the STARstreamssteps; (e) the resolutions do not depend on larger processes (e.g., classmeetings or school courts); (f) the STAR conflict-resolving steps and strate-gies are embedded in dramas; and, (g) although resolution of underlying, or‘‘core,’’ problems need not always be directly addressed, the vignettes providesufficient context to enable learners to consider the immediate argument froma broader perspective.

Structurally, the STARstreams videos are comprised of a Problem Segmentand three Resolution Segments. The Problem Segment establishes the conflictand breaks off in the heat of the moment. Learners use these segments topractice identifying problems and to suggest solutions. The Resolution seg-ments show characters resolving the conflicts through the use of problem-solving steps and strategies. Learners use these segments to recognize stepsand strategies used to resolve conflict. Resolutions are either Self-Mediated(the disputants work through their differences without the assistance of anoutside/uninvolved individual), Peer Mediated (one or two outside/unin-volved individual(s) the same age as the disputants assist in mediating theconflict), or Group Mediated (several outside/uninvolved individuals, perhapsa council or team, participate in the mediation process). Learners generatetheir own conflict resolution strategies by generalizing across the resolutions.Online prompting, teacher questioning, and classroom activities scaffold thisidentification and evaluation of strategies.

Three full sets of videos (problem segment plus three resolutions) and oneproblem segment without resolutions were scripted and produced. In total,approximately 40 minutes of video were produced. These videos were close-captioned for the hearing impaired. The videos were compressed using theMedia Cleaner Compression Suite and Sorenson’s Professional codec. Theywere delivered via the web during the field trial. The scenarios were alsotransferred to VHS to allow the field trial teachers to present them via tele-vision to their full classroom if they so desired.

Web site

A fully functional prototype website was produced (see Fig. 2: STARstreamsWebsite Screen Captures). The site consisted of an initial home page portal,an ‘‘atrium’’ from which videos could be selected, and an online discussion

123


forum through which small-group, cross-classroom discussion of the videosoccurred. The site also included reference materials on problem solving andan area for teachers to share lesson concerns, report problems, and makesuggestions. The development team designed all graphic and sound elementsand implemented a user administration and tracking system. Most of theresources on the site (e.g. videos, discussion groups) were implemented in arelative database rather than hard-coded, thereby making the system moreextensible and modifiable than static html.

Teacher materials

The research team developed a 62-page teacher guide for the trial. This guideprovides suggestions for structuring the web-based and in-class collaborativeactivities as well as supplemental materials intended to support teacher per-formance. The guide, developed jointly by instructional designers with K-12teaching experience and members of the target audience, includes lessons forthe field trial, background materials, reproducible student worksheets, andadditional resources. The student worksheets can be distributed at thebeginning of the trial as a student workbook or they can be passed out on adaily basis by the teachers. The worksheets consist of open-ended questionsthat are intended to guide student exploration of the day’s associated videoscenario segments. Full-color, laminated, 36¢¢ · 48¢¢ posters of STAR werealso produced and distributed to all trial classrooms (see Fig. 3).

All three components (video vignettes, the web site, and teacher materials)went through several stages of formative evaluation with students, teachers, andcontent experts prior to implementation in the field trial. These sessions wereconducted on an individual basis (one researcher and one participant) and in-volved examination of the components through directed tasks and semi-struc-tured interviews. As a result, a feature that allowed teachers to discuss what washappening in their classrooms was added to the web site. No other large-scalechanges were made; errors and omissions were identified and corrected.

When formative evaluation results were acceptable, the field trial wasscheduled. During the field trial itself, the research team set up a ‘‘problems

(1) Learners entered the site, (2) chose a primary activity from the atrium, and (3) could then view one of manyvideo-based scenarios, and (4) engage in group discussion of the conflicts. A resource section was also available.Images courtesy of The Academic Edge, Inc.

Fig. 2 STARstreams Website

123


and possibilities’’ discussion group on the website. Comments were alsoencouraged via the group listserv. As a result of the discussion and comments,on-the-fly changes were made during the two-week field trial period. Thesechanges were mostly implementations of new functionalities (e.g., the abilityto delete messages) and ‘‘bug’’ fixes.

Research questions

After development and formative evaluation, the research team conducted afield trial to examine the potential efficacy, value, and implications of usingthe STARstreams curriculum within the classroom environment. The researchquestions were:

I. How are the STARstreams materials, specifically the video scenariosand the asynchronous conferencing tools, used in the classroom?

II. What impact do the STARstreams materials have on conflict resolutionskills?

III. What impact do the STARstreams materials have on students’ self-efficacy, empathy, and perspective taking?

IV. What is the perceived value of and satisfaction with the STARstreamsmaterials?

The STAR poster summarizes a model for conflict resolution and steps that may be takenat each stage. The model (and poster) were introduced midway through the two-week trial. Images courtesy of The Academic Edge, Inc.

Fig. 3 STAR Poster Distributed to Classrooms

123


Methods

Four classrooms in four separate public schools—two in the Midwest and twoin the Northeast—took part in the STARstreams field trial. At each of thefour sites, members of the STARstreams research team attended all programsessions during the entire two-week intervention. While many interactionsacross classrooms happened in the online space, the local researchersobserved interactions around the computers and within the classrooms.Qualitative data collection included: (1) capturing the discussions amongstudents, and among students and teachers; (2) conducting open-ended andstructured interviews; (3) tracking individual students, their artifacts, actions,and procedures over time; and (4) capturing student dialogue about theon-line discussions. Throughout the trial, team members participated in con-ference calls to discuss observations and interviews in order to generateassertions and direct future data collection.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommend triangulation as one means ofincreasing the credibility of interpretations derived from naturalistic obser-vations. Data were triangulated using classroom observations, learner andteacher interviews (including debriefing), content analysis of online artifacts,and analyses of pre- and post-test measures and materials.

Participants

Members of the research team recruited four schools to participate in theevaluation. The schools were located in suburban Indiana (5th grade class with15 girls and 8 boys), rural Vermont (5th & 6th graders with 10 girls and 12boys), a small town in Connecticut (6th grade class with 12 girls and 13 boys),and urban Kentucky (6th grade class with 8 girls and 11 boys). Participatingschools were recruited based on willingness to participate and availability oftrained researchers, thus constituting a convenience sample. The schools dif-fered in terms of technology access, technology competence of teachers, andprior technology experience of students; however, all groups had access to theirschool’s computer laboratory in order to participate in the online discussions.Each site was an inclusion classroom with approximately 20% of the studentsidentified as having special needs (defined as requiring IEPs or ILPs). Theoverall sample consisted of 60 Caucasian, 14 African-American, 7 Hispanic,and 11 of other descent.1 The total number of student participants equaled 87,but because the intervention lasted 12-winter days, there were student ab-sences throughout the trial. Nonetheless, all students who began the STAR-streams program completed the experience. The number of respondents variesby measure as a result of incomplete or missing instruments from participants.

1 The total N does not equal the tallies for race/ethnicity because of overlapping reports, espe-cially from the cross-racial group Hispanic.

123


Measures

Qualitative data gathering included classroom observation, one-on-oneinterviews, and online artifacts. In each classroom, a member of the researchteam recorded field notes daily. These observations were discussed nightly byresearch team members via conference call. During these debriefing discus-sions, team members debated various interpretations, identified points offocus for observations for the subsequent day, and generated interviewquestions that would help confirm/disconfirm emerging hypotheses. Followingthe 2-week trial, two members of the research team examined the field notesto build interpretations about the nature of the implementation within andacross sites. These interpretations were later checked with teachers, a subsetof students, and other researchers located at the different sites. While the two-team members examined the field notes, two other team members read andreviewed the online posts. First, each researcher independently examined theposts to identify emerging themes, and then the two researchers comparedtheir interpretations. The three themes that emerged as most salient are dis-cussed in this article. In addition to this observational data, the researchersalso gathered quantitative data through social problem solving, self-efficacy,and perceived value and satisfaction measures.

Social problem-solving measure

The social problem-solving measure is similar to the Social Problem-SolvingMeasures (SPSM) used by Lochman and colleagues (1992, Dunn, Lochman,and Colder (1997) as an assessment tool for determining effects of anaggression/anger reduction program. Bloomquist (1996) used a similar mea-sure to successfully distinguish between hyperactive-aggressive and non-hyperactive-non-aggressive children. The STARstreams trial used two videosegments depicting hypothetical conflicts of similar complexity and charac-teristics to examine changes in learners’ abilities to describe conflicts, considerstrategies, and suggest solutions. Students viewed one segment on the first dayof the trial and viewed the second segment on the last day of the trial. Aftereach viewing, learners were asked to define the problem, specify problem-solving strategies, and suggest solutions to the conflicts embedded in themedia. The interview questions followed the structure in Table 2. The resultswere coded according to the rubric in Table 3.

Self-efficacy

In order to assess changes in self-reported self-efficacy toward conflict reso-lution and social problem solving, the learners were asked to respond to fivestatements pre- and post-trial regarding conflicts. These Likert-type itemsasked the learners to rate on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree) their responses to statements related to conflict resolution and conflicts:

123


(1) ‘‘I am able to help solve my own conflicts,’’ (2) ‘‘I am able to help someoneelse resolve conflicts,’’ (3) ‘‘I find it easy to solve conflicts,’’ (4) ‘‘I know anumber of strategies that I can use to resolve conflicts,’’ and (5) an inverseitem, ‘‘I am often involved in conflict.’’

Table 2 Interview questions for video-based social problem-solving measure

Questions after the video (pre/post, responses were audiotaped and transcribed):1. What is the conflict in the video about? Describe it in your own words.

(a) What things in the video led you to decide this was the conflict? Is there anything else?(b) What might character X be thinking/feeling? Why? (Repeat for both/all characters)

2. What are some of the specific steps/strategies that the characters in the video could take tobegin to resolve this conflict?

3. If you were going to solve this problem, what would you do? What do you think some of theconsequences might be to this solution?Can you think of another solution? What do you see as some of the consequences of thissolution? (Repeat until no new responses are forthcoming)

4. Which of your solutions is best? What made you choose that solution instead of another one?

Table 3 Rubric for video-based social problem-solving measure

Scores are assigned to transcribed student responses as follows:1. Problem Definition—Do they identify the problem? (1st two questions in transcript)

Pre0 = nothing or mostly incorrect description1 = meager description (maybe only partially correct)2 = meager description and captures some of the essence*3 = good description and captures the essence* of problemPost0 = nothing or mostly incorrect description1 = meager description (maybe only partially correct)2 = meager description and captures some of the essence* or elaborate description with

minimal essence3 = good description and captures the essence* of problemEmpathy (both pre and post) —Did they empathize with the actors0 = no description of actor’s inner states (thought & feelings)1 = description of some of the actor’s inner states (thought & feelings)2 = description of some of the actor’s inner states (thought & feelings) w/ rationale3 = description of most actor’s inner states (thought & feelings) w/ rationales

2. Specific Problem Solving Strategy—What were the steps/strategies mentioned?0 = nothing1 = vague steps/approach stated or name dropping of approach2 = problem solving model described or elaborate resolution proposed3 = problem solving model described and specific application mentioned

3. Problem Resolutions—Is it a reasonable conflict resolution?0 = nothing1 = a resolution, no elaboration2 = one or more resolution(s), some relevant elaboration3 = one or more resolution(s), some relevant elaborations, & integrated w/ strategies

* Essence: ability to step out of simply a rote description and give a higher-level characteriza-tion—doesn’t have to be profound but should demonstrate a ‘‘deeper’’ understanding of issuesthan pure description

123


Perceived value (usefulness) and satisfaction

Gathered post-only, the perceived value and satisfaction measure sought toascertain whether the learners enjoyed the activities and whether they per-ceived the activities as worthwhile. This measure consisted of ten five-pointLikert-type items (ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree), such as‘‘I learned some strategies that will be useful to me,’’ ‘‘I would like to take thenext unit of STARstreams,’’ ‘‘I thought doing these lessons was a worthwhileactivity,’’ and ‘‘The conflicts in the stories were similar to ones in my ownlife.’’ Additionally, open-ended questions solicited information about whatthe learners liked most and least about the activities.

Procedures

On the first day of the trial, all learners completed the conflict resolution self-efficacy questionnaire regarding their ability to solve conflicts and their tendencyto be involved in them. All learners were then shown a video segment that de-picted a conflict. Individually, the learners completed a worksheet that promptedthem to analyze the conflict and to suggest solutions. Specifically, learners wereasked to record what the conflict was about, what steps or strategies could be usedto resolve the conflict, what could be done to solve the problem, what the con-sequences might be, and, if several suggestions were made, which suggestedsolution was best and why. Recognizing the limitations of written responses,researchers randomly selected individual students to interview one-on-one aboutthe conflict scenario. This provided more elaborate responses and richer data.Only the interview responses are analyzed for this report.

On days two through nine, the classes participated for approximately40 minutes each day in online and offline learning activities that includedwithin-class group work and between-class discussion. Activities focused onunderstanding the video-based scenarios and their embedded conflicts andresolutions. During this time, data collection focused on student-student,student-teacher, and student-computer interactions. Data was gathered fromfield notes, interview transcripts, and artifact collection (worksheets, and on-line posts).

On day ten, the learners completed a post-version of the conflict resolutionquestionnaire that also included perceived value and satisfaction questions.They were shown a new video segment depicting a conflict scenario andcompleted a worksheet concerning the conflict and potential solutions. Thoseselected to be interviewed on day one were interviewed again, following theprocedures used on day one.

Results

Results of the STARstreams field trial begin with an overview of the class-room experiences in order to provide the context of the everyday happenings

123


of the program for the reader. Next, the teacher experience and the studentonline posts are discussed. These are followed by a report of quantitativepre–post social problem-solving, self-efficacy, and perceived value andsatisfaction scores. The section closes by looking across all data to summarizethe importance of the findings.

What happened in classrooms

‘‘Yikes, look at this! It’s cooool. Lookit!’’ Dan,2 a sixth grade student at a ruralVermont school, has just accessed the STARstreams website. What he’sseeing are descriptions of three other schools—in Connecticut, Kentucky, andIndiana—and greetings from groups of fifth and sixth graders in those schoolswho are participating in the 2-week STARstreams conflict resolution trial.Kids are working in small groups on the project, each group conversing withits counterparts in the other schools. Dan’s group has named itself ‘‘TheConflict Kids,’’ and now he sees that the others have called themselves‘‘Funky Monkey,’’ ‘‘Tiger Girls,’’ and ‘‘Big Dog.’’ The kids have posted theirfavorite bands and their photographs. They are ready to start learning aboutconflict resolution.

Students in all the schools watch the first of four STARstreams conflictvideos together as a class. In it, two girls are arguing about whether it is theirresponsibility to inform the math teacher that the next day’s test has beenstolen and copies are being sold. In each school—whether in a computer lab ora library or a classroom—the kids appear engaged by the scenario: they wantto know how old the actors are; they want to know how the conflict will end.When invited to speculate about what might happen next, their predictionstend toward simple possibilities: ‘‘The girls will go tell the teacher together....’’‘‘The girls will cool down and make up...’’ They are not yet thinking about thenuts and bolts of actually resolving conflicts.

During the two weeks that follow, students view sets of video scenariosillustrating conflicts and resolutions. Each set depicts a conflict followed bythree alternative resolutions. Each of these sets is embedded with steps andstrategies for resolving conflicts. In each school, small teams of students dis-cuss what they think the conflict is about, determine which solution is the‘‘best,’’ and justify their choices. The discussion results in a collective groupdecision that each group posts to the web site. Posts are asynchronous but aretied to an overall time frame that is necessitated by the field trial. The groupsread what the other groups have posted to the website. They also read andrespond to questions and comments from an online mentor named Socratesand from characters from the video scenarios. The ‘‘socratic’’ dialogue waswritten and posted by the primary investigator and comments from theother characters were written by other members of the research team. The

2 All student and teacher names are pseudonyms. Group names, selected by the students, areretained.

123


back-and-forth among groups and between groups and outside charactersresults in a lively online dialog focused on the conflicts and their resolutions.

By the end of the first week, students in all four schools realize conflicts areresolvable and begin to understand the steps that disputants and mediatorscan take to resolve a conflict. At this time, they are not yet able to apply thesteps—when a conflict erupts in one of the classrooms about taking turnskeyboarding, the students turn to adults to resolve it. However, by the middleof the second week of the trial a similar dispute emerges. In this case, thestudents themselves suggest that the conflict resolution strategies they havebeen watching on the videos be used to resolve the situation.

Over the trial period, a STARstreams culture develops. The vocabulary ofconflict resolution begins to permeate both online and person-to-person discus-sions. Students begin to talk about such topics as using ‘‘I’’ statements, listeningactively, stopping name-calling, and remaining in the present when resolving aconflict. The web-based experience becomes as compelling—perhaps morecompelling—than in-class discussions. Socrates, the mentor, becomes an impor-tant force. The students discuss his questions. His ‘‘real’’ identity is a topic offrequent speculation, and, when he actually appears in one of the classrooms and ateacher inadvertently blows his anonymity, his authority is not diminished. Soc-rates has become a pedagogical tool, a web based instrument of learning. Whenmessages from the characters in the skits appear on the web site, they are re-sponded to with enthusiasm but with a different tone—after all, the characters arejust kids like themselves. Interaction with characters is more informal, sometimeseven personal as, for example, when one group told one of the characters that thegroup thought she was ‘‘hot.’’ The two types of interaction make for an interestingsynergy that was not initially expected.

The video scenarios facilitate in-class discussions that might otherwise havebeen difficult. For example, one of the scenarios shows ‘‘freaks’’ and ‘‘prep-pies’’ in a turf battle. Each group harbors stereotypes about the other thatinterfere with their ability to resolve their conflicts. In all the schools, thisconflict sparks in-depth and sophisticated in-class discussions of similaritiesand differences among persons and groups, about prejudice and stereotyping,and about creating ‘‘common ground.’’

‘‘How are preppies and freaks alike?’’ a teacher asks. Students answer,‘‘They’re human, their humanity...they like music, even if it’s different kindsof music...friends are important to both of them...they hate the chemistryteacher...they have to study for the chemistry test...’’ ‘‘And differences?’’ theteacher asks. Students respond, ‘‘How they dress... their hair...their taste inmusic...their styles...’’ The teacher doesn’t have to direct students to a com-parison of the similarities and differences, the students themselves say, ‘‘Theyhave a lot more in common...the differences are artificial,’’ ‘‘you meansuperficial....’’ And, ‘‘The preppies thought the freaks were dumb because ofhow they looked and the music they liked, but that was just stereotypes. Thefreaks were better at chemistry than the preppies.’’ The conversation shifts tothe idea of common ground, and students struggle to understand it. ‘‘It’s whenthe same thing is good for both sides,’’ is as close as they can get.

123


The video scenarios are enacted by kids and depict situations that arefamiliar to kids. In this sense, they are kid-centered and the knowledge theyconvey is not abstract but is situated in naturalistic contexts. The scenarios canbe accessed on the web site, thus students are able to access them as needed inorder to facilitate their own learning. In addition to the video scenarios, stu-dents are able to access cartoons, illustrated charts depicting strategies used toresolve conflicts, and a glossary.

As students learn to work with the STARstreams materials, they also learnto access the web site, to carry on conversations with multiple correspondentsin complex online forums, and to engage with and troubleshoot interactiveprograms. STARstreams is designed to promote these technological outcomesas well as the core knowledge and skill of conflict resolution. Students withlower levels of computer expertise become more fluent, and the more ad-vanced students are able to solve complex technological problems that presentdifficulties even to the teachers. Problems range from not being able to log into the site because of the caps lock key being down (and passwords beingcapitalization sensitive) to navigational and posting issues. Students also ex-plore the boundaries of the technology. For example, when Socrates encodessome of his messages with embedded html tags to make items bold, larger, andotherwise formatted, some student groups, without instruction or support, alsobegin to embed tags in their messages in order to emphasize points.

Students become engaged in the web-based interactions and their worlds ofdiscourse appear to expand beyond their classrooms and beyond the conflictresolution domain, at least narrowly defined. For example, one student asks‘‘Why can’t we use this for other subjects?’’ ‘‘Like?’’ replies a puzzled re-searcher. ‘‘Like art class. We could post our products and the kids from otherschools could criticize them.’’ ‘‘Yeah,’’ another student adds, ‘‘and we couldfind out what kids in the south think about slavery.’’ ‘‘Now that’s stereotyping!They’re not going to defend slavery!’’ The students seem to want to continuelearning cooperatively, to call on far flung peers for multiple perspectives, andto discover knowledge among themselves rather than depending, solely, onteachers to provide them information and ideas.

Perhaps another way to describe the apparent emerging relationship amongcontent, technology, and learning is that it is synergistic. Students learn how touse technology because they are learning something interesting (conflict res-olution) that is technology-based; they are able to learn the subject matterbecause the technology that delivers it gives them access to a far flung learningcommunity and promotes collaborative learning in each classroom; and thestudents’ learning skills are enhanced because the technology gives them theopportunity to discover and control information and their relationship to it:

‘‘So, over all, what do you think you’ve learned?’’‘‘Different ways conflicts can be solved. Lots of neat stuff aboutcomputers.’’‘‘Anything else?’’‘‘Yeah. Well.’’

123


‘‘Yes?’’‘‘Don’t tell Mrs. Fox, okay? I can learn stuff without teachers. I mean, Ican figure things out and talk with the other kids.’’‘‘And you couldn’t do that before?’’‘‘Maybe I could, but I didn’t know I could.’’

As they work through the STARstreams curriculum, students gain knowledgeabout the causes and resolutions of conflicts. With knowledge comes someconfidence in their ability to resolve their own conflicts and to mediate others’conflicts. While they are not yet able to demonstrate their knowledge in aconcrete way and seem able to apply it only to simple real life situations—theconflict over keyboard sharing mentioned above—the students can demon-strate their burgeoning competence in two ways that mark the onset of gen-uine understanding: they can use the vocabulary and concepts of conflictresolution flexibly and creatively, and they can invent conflict resolutionvignettes that depict a grasp of principles and processes.

Teachers’ experience

Information regarding teachers’ experiences with the STARstreams programwas gathered through daily observation, informal conversations, recordedsemi-structured interviews, and examination of teachers’ posts to the web site.Analysis of these data yielded information about teachers’ experiences withSTARstreams specific to their students’ gains, their roles vis-a-vis the stu-dents, support needs, and ideas about future development.

Teacher satisfaction and student gains

All of the teachers liked the project and found it valuable for themselves andtheir students. They enjoyed the videos and appreciated their students’enjoyment of and involvement in the vignettes. Teachers were particularlypositive regarding the use of multimedia and believed that it was effective insupporting learning about conflict resolution. There was agreement amongteachers that STARstreams represents a solid introduction to conflict reso-lution and can serve as pre-training for mediators. Some of the teachers feltstrongly that the next step in STARstreams development should includeopportunities to practice conflict resolution skills.

In addition to the content of conflict resolution, the teachers used STAR-streams to reinforce previous computer instruction and to introduce new com-puting skills. Two of the teachers had recently taught students about internet usein their regular school curriculum but had found limited opportunities for stu-dents to practice using passwords and discussion boards. In the words of oneteacher, ‘‘Having a discussion board, having them take care of their pass-words—its just good practice for next year when they go to middle school andthere’s not a teacher to hold their hand.’’ Finally, some teachers were able to linkSTARstreams to other curricular areas, and all recommended that such links be

123


forged in the future, e.g. finding opportunities to integrate personal and politicalconflicts in science and math into those subjects.

Roles of teachers

Three themes emerged that characterized teachers’ roles in the program: theycreated links to the local context; they facilitated meaning making for the stu-dents; and they managed classroom dynamics. Linking STARstreams to kids’lives and to the school culture was an informal and ongoing teacher activity. ‘‘Doyou and your brother ever fight?’’ a teacher asks after students have viewed thevideo about stepbrothers fighting over authorship/ownership of a science pro-ject. ‘‘What are the things you fight about? How do you resolve them?’’

Managing classroom dynamics required facilitating the groups that werecreated for purposes of communicating among schools. Teachers urged groupmembers to discuss the videos among themselves before posting an opinion tothe web site. They tried to get kids to share keyboarding, to respect oneanother’s ideas, and to share information and skills. While the degree ofcollaboration within the small groups varied from classroom to classroom,most of the teachers had trouble getting students to write down and discusstheir own thoughts prior to posting an agreed-upon group consensus. Whatemerged for observers is that students had developed their own way of col-laborating: write your own thoughts in your workbook, type everyone’s ideason the computer, and negotiate among the ideas by combining some anderasing others. ‘‘O.K., which is better?’’ students would ask one another. ‘‘Canwe combine these, or do we have to choose one or the other?’’

Facilitating meaning making was the teachers’ hardest task. Given the con-structivist pedagogical commitment of the program, teachers were expected tosupport, draw out, question, or even challenge, but not tell students what to do or‘‘teach’’ them the materials. Some of the teachers had difficulty with this. Oneteacher told a researcher, ‘‘I just want to tell him that his solution is not aneffective one and misses the point.’’ Instead, he waited until the student nego-tiated with his peers to determine their online post, then posed questions thatchallenged the collective voice. The whole group was then able to see the flaw intheir reasoning. Another teacher wanted to stop the program at one point todeliver a lecture. He thought the kids just ‘‘weren’t getting it.’’ Instead, he led achalkboard discussion in which the class collectively made a list of the conflictresolution strategies common to all the videos. He then displayed the STAR-streams poster that listed basic steps and strategies that are effective in resolvingconflicts and had students compare their own list with the ‘‘official’’ one.

Teacher support & further development

The teachers agreed that they would have benefited from: a guided orientationto the web site, a more detailed teachers’ manual, more contact with otherteachers, and the freedom to determine their own schedules for presenting theSTARstreams materials and participating in the activities. Participating

123


teachers suggested presenting STARstreams materials twice a week instead ofevery day, resulting in a six-week unit instead of a two-week intensive one.Making the curriculum more longitudinal, allowing more time for spiraling ofdifficulty and complexity as well as for integrating ongoing ‘‘booster’’ sessionswould provide more time for students to practice the skills and integrate otherconflict resolution activities. Teachers also recommended that additionalSTARstreams materials be developed to facilitate integration into standardsbased curriculum, a unit be developed to teach students to produce their ownvideos, and more opportunity be provided for creative dramatics.

Examination of online posts

There were 516 total posts; 385 were by student groups and the remainderwere by Socrates, program staff, and the teachers. Socrates initiated most ofthe online activity by creating a question to which student teams had torespond in order to gain access to that particular discussion. There were eightteams per school. Each team was assigned to a discussion group and membersof each group were only able to view the posts of their assigned discussiongroup (i.e., they could not see posts from local classmates or from students atother schools who were not in their discussion group). This structure facili-tated interclass dialogue and intragroup participation by keeping the numberof interlocutors in each conference small.

For each set of scenarios, all student teams initially posted a summary ofthe problem depicted in the video and/or suggested possible solutions. Eachpost was collaboratively developed by two to four students within a classroomand posted on the website for the other teams in their discussion group. Atthis level, there were 235 group posts distributed across four main discussiontopics. After student teams completed their initial posts, responses to theirposts could come from Socrates (21 posts), the actors in the videos (posted incharacter by a member of the team—28 posts), and other students in thediscussion group (128 posts).

The process of posting involved students communicating their beliefs,arguing for the validity of their beliefs, and then evaluating them in thecontext of their peers’ work to find the most useful descriptions. Once studentsposted their work, they were eager to see what the other groups posted. Whilesometimes the posts were of a personal nature (e.g., asking the other memberswho they were, what their town was like, what their favorite hobbies were),most of the posts and ensuing discussions focused on the content of the videos,clarifying the conflicts, and evaluating resolutions. Three themes that emergedduring the two-weeks of online dialogue were: (1) self-reliance versus deus exmachina,3 (2) learners’ grappling with conflict resolution strategies and STAR,and (3) differentially valued resolution outcomes across occasion and group.

3 Deux ex machina refers to a common plot element in Greek theatre in which a situation isresolved through external intervention, usually by the gods. It is applied here in the sense that thesubjects frequently suggested such external intervention, a form of mediation, as the primarymeans for resolving the conflicts portrayed in the video scenarios.

123


Deus ex machina

Early on in analysis of the online posts, it became apparent that the groups’responses to what they thought would or should happen next were predomi-nantly clustered around what we came to call the ‘‘deus ex machina’’ ap-proach: calling for a third party to resolve the conflict for the disputants.Groups would, for example, suggest ‘‘someone else would come in and try tobreak up their fight,’’ or that the disputants ‘‘may tell a teacher,’’ ‘‘get amediator,’’ or have ‘‘someone intervene.’’ In one case, the group metaphor-ically threw up their hands and stated ‘‘we need someone to help solve thisconflict.’’ Interestingly, however, as the groups moved on to the activities inwhich they had to support selection of one solution as being ‘‘best,’’ they oftenchose endings that did not have mediators as being ‘‘best’’ because ‘‘theysolved it themselves’’ which is ‘‘more mature.’’ In the relatively brief trialperiod, the dissonance between ‘‘3rd person’’ trends in the proposed solutionsand ‘‘1st person’’ choices and justifications was not resolved—the deus exmachina approach continued to dominate the second and third scenario dis-cussions. However, it is noteworthy that by the third problem descriptionactivity, more groups did mention self-resolution—a tentative indication thatamong the learners there was a growing understanding that disputants can, onoccasion, resolve their own conflicts.

Grappling with strategies

A second theme in the posts was the manner in which the groups appeared tobe grappling with their tasks, especially as they tried to compare and contrastendings. This comparing and contrasting effort began when groups attemptedto justify their selection of one of three endings for the Freaks conflict as being‘‘best.’’ The endings varied by number of participants, types of resolutionstrategies used by participants, and outcomes (all outcomes were positive butthey varied by actual resolution). Groups struggled with making sense of thesedifferences. This struggle is illustrated by one group’s posted justification forself-mediation:

...it was the easiest one. What if there were no kids around to help solvethe problem and you had to solve it yourself? First the punk girl splitthem up. Then they asked questions to get closer to the answer. Theywere uncomfortable at first. They found things that were similar.

The group not only grappled with justification but also began to identifyimportant steps (e.g. making space, asking questions to understand theproblem) and underlying issues (the freaks and preppies were uncomfortablewith each other at first but found common ground).

Another trend emerged once the STAR strategies were officially intro-duced in the classes. Once these pre-determined social problem-solvingframeworks were introduced, the groups tended to use them as short cuts tograppling with the problems. In essence, by injecting the STAR framework

123


into the classroom dialogue, students were provided with a shared frameworkand vocabulary for discussing the situations. However, in doing so, the projectmay, essentially, have short-circuited the constructive process. With STAR asa short cut, students could justify their selection of a resolution by stating ‘‘Wethe people of The Blade Collander think that the resolutions have many thingsin common. For instance, they all incorporate S.T.A.R. (Stop, Talk, Act, andReflect) and all end with people giggling,’’ or, worse, ‘‘We think that #3 wasthe best. We think that because they used S.T.A.R. which we thought wassomething that is a good thing to use!’’ without truly grappling with theunderlying strategies and reasons why one specific solution might be betterthan another.

In the present effort, the relatively short time frame for implementationseemed to require the early introduction of the STAR framework. One of thechallenges of future work will be to explore ways that permit students togenerate their own framework and construct a shared vocabulary that can leadto the adoption of STAR as a conceptual framework—as opposed to theSTAR framework driving the structure and vocabulary used by the students.Increased implementation time would give students more time to recognizeinvariant elements embedded in the materials, to articulate them publicly, andto generate a framework to summarize them. Such a framework could thenbecome established in the classroom as a common structure and shared lan-guage for working through conflicts prior to the introduction of a pre-con-ceived, shared framework. On a deeper level, the question arises as to whetherand at what point such pre-developed ‘‘master’’ frameworks play a worthwhilerole in learning. If a framework is introduced, and more time is available, thenthe initial ‘‘short-cuts’’ may in fact represent learning opportunities to beaddressed through prompting and questioning by teachers and more compe-tent peers. In some situations, a simple ‘‘yes, STAR would work, but how?Can you explain it to me?’’ may be enough to prompt additional inquiry,reflection, and eventual deeper understanding and application. Answers tothis and similar questions are tempered not only by scheduling realities, suchas time available in classrooms, but also by theoretical considerations. On onehand, construction of understanding through inductive generalization may beof primary importance for effective instruction. On the other hand, convey-ance of a shared framework and practice applying that readymade frameworkmay be of primary importance.

Differently valued outcomes

A third theme of note involved differences across groups in the valueattributed to different outcomes. Valued outcomes appeared to cluster arounda few concepts important to the groups. Some groups valued getting what onewants above all else, as was evidenced by posts such as Funky Monkey’schoosing ‘‘the third resolution so Kim and Steve can study for their chemistrytest. Also, so the ‘freaks’ can listen to their music without complaints.’’ Othergroups valued friendship (e.g. ‘‘hanging out together’’) or cooperation

123


(e.g. ‘‘the Freaks helping the preppies study’’). Interestingly, different valueswere frequently attributed to a given resolution: different groups justified thesame ending with different reasons.

Socrates attempted to probe some of the underlying similarities and differ-ences in these values by asking participants to compare and contrast the out-comes by determining the pros and cons of each. Socrates’ modeling of thequestioning behavior may have led the student groups themselves to begin toquestion one another. For example, in response to one group’s claim that whathad to happen next was a ‘‘hissy fight,’’ the Cougars asked, ‘‘Why do you thinkthat they have to have a fight? All problems don’t always come down to fighting.You should think about other solutions besides fighting.’’ Future efforts con-ducted on extended timeframes should allow the learners, the teachers, and theresearchers to further explore these social understandings and how multimedia-enhanced inter- and intra-class activities can foster them more deeply.

Quantitative outcomes: social problem-solving, self-efficacy, perceivedvalue, and satisfaction

The goal of the quantitative evaluation activities was to examine whetherstudents’ social problem-solving skills and self-efficacy improved after usingthe STARstreams intervention and determine whether students liked thelearning experience. Five Likert-type items to measure self-efficacy weregenerated and administered before students began the STARstreams inter-vention. Students then watched a 2-min video in which a problem situationwas presented. After watching the video, the students completed a worksheetthat prompted them to analyze the conflict and to suggest solutions. Individualstudents were randomly selected to be interviewed. During the interview, theywere asked a series of questions designed to assess their conflict resolutionskills, including their empathy and perspective taking ability. These interviewswere audiotaped and later transcribed for further analysis. Following the finalsession of the STARstreams intervention, students watched a new videoconflict scenario and responded to the same series of questions. Those whowere initially interviewed were interviewed again. All students again re-sponded to the five-item questionnaire assessing their self-efficacy of conflictresolution. Additionally, they responded to ten more Likert-type items toassess whether they liked the experience and found it useful.

Social problem-solving

Because of the time and resource intensive nature of the social problem-solving measure, a single site was selected for analysis of pre–post datagathered using the structured interview protocol. Three trained researchersindependently coded all interviews (N = 20) in accordance with the rubric inTable 3. Interrater reliability on the full set of data was 0.8723 at pretest and0.9520 at posttest, indicating acceptable reliability. Descriptive statistics arepresented in Table 4. There were significant gains from pretest to posttest with

123


respect to the multivariate composite of analytical social problem-solvingskills. When broken out by variable, all scores increased from pretest toposttest, with four of the five increases being statistically significant.4

Self-efficacy

A post-hoc t test was used to determine if there were significant gains frompretest to posttest on individuals’ self-efficacy with respect to conflict reso-lution. Cronbach’s a was .7628, indicating acceptable internal consistency ofthe construct. For self-efficacy, data were taken from all four sites (N = 80).The results are presented in table 5. The pre to post difference is quite small,albeit statistically significant (t(79) = 2.085, p < .05). The intervention seemsto have an effect on conflict resolution self-efficacy; however, the practicalsignificance of this effect is unclear. This outcome may have been affected bythe relatively short duration of the study.

Perceived value and satisfaction

Perceived Value (Usefulness) and Satisfaction were measured post-only(N = 81) since these measures pertain to learner interaction with the mate-rials. Cronbach’s a for Perceived Value was .7931 and for Satisfaction was.7908, indicating acceptable internal consistency for these constructs. ‘‘Neitheragree nor disagree’’ (3.0) was posited as a hypothetical test value (withaverage scores above 3.0 indicating the participants ‘‘Agreed’’ or ‘‘StronglyAgreed’’ with the statements and scores below 3.0 indicating participants‘‘Disagreed’’ or ‘‘Strongly Disagreed’’). The Usefulness and Satisfactionconstructs differed significantly from the test value in the positive direction,indicating satisfaction with the experience (see Table 6). In terms of perceivedvalue, on a scale of 1–5, students had an average rating of M = 3.6243,SD = .6853, suggesting students valued the program. The mean for Usefulnessdiffered significantly from the hypothesized value (t(80) = 8.207, p < .001). Interms of satisfaction, on a scale of 1–5, students had an average rating of

Table 4 Statistics for socialproblem solving measure

*p < .01, **p < .001

Pretest Posttest t

M SD M SD

Overall 1.45 .35 1.92 .41 6.116**Problem Description 1.50 .60 2.05 .46 3.457*Empathy 1.61 .66 2.14 .59 3.002*Strategies Mentioned 1.12 .54 1.79 .66 5.576**Quality of Solution 1.35 .46 1.86 .56 3.887**Number of Solutions Proposed 1.75 .44 1.89 .57 1.140

4 Since these variables were intercorrelated, the conservative Bonferroni-adjusted Alpha level of0.01was used for these tests (the original experiment-wise alpha was 0.05).

123


M = 3.7716, SD = .7562, suggesting students liked the program and materials.The mean for Satisfaction differed significantly from the hypothesized value(t(80) = 9.184, p < .001).

Conclusions and discussion

Conflict and violence in our society continue to occur at unacceptable rates.Schools are playing an increasing role in fostering conflict avoidance andresolution skills among their students, and technology may be able to help.While conflict resolution curricula targeting various student populations havebeen developed and several studies have examined the implementation andimpact of these curricula, to date very few-conflict resolution programs haveincorporated technology. Given the increasing accessibility of technologicaltools, as well as their appeal to students, the utilization of technology to assistin conflict resolution efforts seems a logical step. The present work begins toaddress this gap by looking at technology and conflict resolution, especiallyinteractive video and web-based discussions.

The results of this study provide evidence for the feasibility of using mul-timedia programs and the web for enhancing conflict resolution programs inschools. Classroom observations indicated that students were engaged andliked the intervention, and this was supported by quantitative and qualitativeuser satisfaction measures. Measures of social problem solving and conflictresolution self-efficacy indicated significant pre-to-post intervention gains.After using STARstreams, students were able to identify strategies forreducing or solving conflicts. Furthermore, as they became familiar andcomfortable with the strategies, students demonstrated an ability to applythem to hypothetical problems. Analysis of online posts revealed strongparticipation and interesting trends.

Far from being an impersonal substitute for personalized instruction,technology has the potential for supporting collaborative and constructivist

Table 6 Descriptive statisticsfor usefulness and satisfactionmeasures

*p < .01, **p < .001 (ascompared to experimentalvalue = 3)

Variable Posttest t

M SD

Usefulness 3.6253 .6858 8.207**Satisfaction 3.7716 .7562 9.184**

Table 5 Descriptive statisticsfor self-efficacy

*p < .05, **p < .01

Pretest Posttest t

M SD M SD

3.73 .56 3.87 .59 2.085*

123


learning and for enhancing inquiry, discovery, higher order thinking, andperspective taking in the social domain. STARstreams provides a freshopportunity for situating subject matter in a naturalistic, student-centeredcontext. Extensive research supports the efficacy of such pedagogy (e.g.,CTGV, 1993) and the STARstreams research should be expanded and inte-grated with existing information about situated learning to enhance the fieldof conflict resolution, other areas of social learning, and an array of academicsubjects. At the end of the STARstreams trial, students reported that they feltbetter able to deal with their own and others’ conflicts. This confidence waslikely due not only to an increase in knowledge and skills regarding conflictresolution, but also to the fact that the knowledge and skills occurred as aresult of students’ own efforts. That is, the STARstreams pedagogy helpedstudents build confidence in their own learning capacity. Students increasedtheir capacities for collaborative and constructivist learning—learning fromone another and gaining authority over their own acquisition and productionof knowledge. Teachers, following their students’ leads, permitted the onlinediscussions and videos to carry the main burden of instruction—primarilyadopting the role of facilitators and learning partners.

While the STARstreams program demonstrated improvement on socialproblem-solving outcomes, engaged the learners, and was well-received bystudents and teachers alike, there are areas that deserve further attention.These areas relate not only to technology-enhanced efforts but also to ped-agogy in general and to conflict resolution programs in particular. First, thetension between allowing learners to generate their own frameworks and theneed to make learning ‘‘efficient’’ by providing ready-made frameworks toguide understanding or to increase shared vocabularies should be furtherinvestigated. This may be a fairly significant problem for any program. Is theteaching of a standard model of problem solving, or any mental shortcut suchas an acronym or mnemonic, ever useful? If so, at what point and under whatconditions do such frameworks become available to learners? Does suchteaching inevitably lead to ‘‘short-circuiting’’ of the learning process, or does itsimply represent an opportunity for additional scaffolding and mentoring byteachers and more competent peers? Second, the potential for curricularmaterials to transfer to everyday situations is of the utmost importance.Designing materials to facilitate both the initial learning of content and thelater transfer of what is learned to everyday situations is integral to all aspectsof the development process—from the creation of stories and videos, toactivity structures, to teacher support materials. Third, the manner in whichweb-based, cross-classroom activities can be integrated into overarchingconflict resolution curricula (and other educational programs in general)without necessitating lockstep scheduling among participating classrooms isanother important area for research. Lastly, there was some evidence inthe present project that participants from schools that employ peer media-tion programs tended to generate conflict resolutions that necessitated athird-party intervening. Whether the existence of peer mediation programs in

123


schools leads to greater reliance on such mediation as contrasted with ‘‘solvingit themselves’’ is an interesting issue that merits further attention.

The findings in this study are based on a small number of students who arelimited in diversity and come from a limited number of classrooms in whichteachers were already often doing great things to support learning. No eco-logically valid direct measures of impact on behavior were collected for theschool or home environments, relying instead on measures of social problemsolving, examination of artifacts created during the intervention, and ratingsof the experience. Moreover, the program was limited to two weeks induration and did not collect longitudinal data. With these limitations in mind,the findings do suggest value in multimedia interventions for supporting thedevelopment of conflict resolution skills. The reported effort represents animportant step in understanding the utility of technology and the web forenhancing the development of conflict resolution skills. The study also raisedpotentially important questions regarding the structure and implementation ofconflict resolution curricula in general.

Acknowledgments The research discussed herein has been supported in part by grants to thefirst author from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (Grant#1R43HD39032) and the National Institute of Mental Health (1R43MH54903, 2R44MH54903).The article’s contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily representthe official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References

Aber, J. L., Brown, J. L., Chaudry, N., Jones, S. M., & Samples, F. (1996). The evaluation of theresolving conflict creatively program: An overview. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,12(5 Suppl), 82–90.

Aber, J., Brown, J., & Henrich, C. (1999). Teaching conflict resolution: An effective school-basedapproach to violence prevention. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty.

Aber, J. L., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Chaudry, N., Samples, F. (1998). Resolving conflict crea-tively: Evaluating the developmental effects of a school-based violence prevention program inneighborhood and classroom context. Development and Psychopathology, 10(2), 187–213.

Barab, S. A., Cherkes-Julkowski, M., Swenson, R., Garrett, S., Shaw, R. E., & Young, M. (1999).Principles of self-organization: Ecologizing the learner-facilitator system. The Journal of TheLearning Sciences, 8(3&4), 349–390.

Beland, K. (1992). Second step: A violence prevention curriculum for grades 1–5 (revised ed.).Seattle, WA: Committee for Children.

Bloomquist, M. L. (1996). Skills training for children with behavior disorders: A parent and ther-apist guidebook. New York: The Guilford Press.

Bosworth, K., Espelage, D., & DuBay, T. (1998). A computer-based violence prevention inter-vention for young adolescents: Pilot study. Adolescence, 33(132), 785–795.

Bosworth, K., Espelage, D., DuBay, T., Dahlberg, L. L., & Daytner, G. (1996). Using multimediato teach conflict-resolution skills to young adolescents. American Journal of PreventiveMedicine 12(5 Suppl), 65–74.

Bosworth, K., Espelage, D., DuBay, T., Daytner, G., & Karageorge, K. (2000). Preliminaryevaluation of a multimedia violence prevention program for adolescents. American Journal ofHealth Behavior, 24(4), 268–280.

Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1993). The IDEAL problem solver (2nd ed.). New York: W. H.Freeman.

123


Brener, N. D., Simon, T. R., Krug, E. G., & Lowry, R. (1999). Recent trends in violence-relatedbehaviors among high school students in the United States. Journal of the American MedicalAssociation, 282, 440–446.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2004). Surveillance Summaries. MMWR 53 No. SS-2.Cognition, Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to

situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 2–10.Cognition, Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition

revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.Department of Justice (1995). Evaluation of violence prevention programs in middle schools:

National Institute of Justice update. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED404420). Wash-ington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Dewey, J. (1980). Theroy of the moral life. New York: Irvington Publishers.Dunn, S. E., Lochman, J. E., & Colder, C. R. (1997). Social problem-solving skills in boys with

conduct and oppositional defiant disorders. Aggressive Behavior, 23(6), 457–469.DuRant, R. H., Treiber, F., Getts, A., McCloud, K., Linder, C. W., & Woods, E. R. (1996).

Comparison of two violence prevention curricula for middle school adolescents. Journal ofAdolescent Health, 19(2), 111–117.

Elias, M. J., & Tobias, S. E. (1996). Social problem solving: Interventions in the schools. New York:Guilford Press.

Embry, D., Flannery, D., Ansonia, A., Powell, K., & Atcham, H. (1996). Peacebuilders: A the-oretically driven, school-based model for early violence prevention. American Journal ofPreventative Medicine, 12(5), 91–100.

Farrell, A. D., & Meyer, A. L. (1997). The effectiveness of a school-based curriculum for reducingviolence among urban sixth-grade students. American Journal of Public Health, 87(6), 979–984.

Farrell, A., Meyer, A., Sullivan, T., & Kung, E. (2003). Evaluation of the responding in peacefuland positive ways (RIPP) seventh grade violence prevention curriculum. Journal of Child andFamily Studies, 12(1), 101–120.

Farrell, A. D., Meyer, A. L., & White, K. S. (1998, Feb.). Development and evaluation of RIPP: Aschool-based violence prevention program for urban youth. In J. L. Aber (Chair), Changingtrajectories to youth violence: Lessons learned from recent intervention studies. Symposiumconducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Diego, CA.

Flannery, D., Liau, A., Powell, K., Vesterdal, W., Vazsonyi, A., Guo, S., Atha, H., & Embry, D.(2003). Initial behavior outcomes for the peacebuilders universal school-based violence pre-vention program. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 292–308.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.Goldsworthy, R. (1999a, April). The development of adolescent social problem solving skills

through scenario-based multimedia instruction. Paper presented at the annual conference ofthe American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Goldsworthy, R. (1999b). Lenses on learning and technology: Roles and opportunities for designand development. Educational Technology, 39(4), 59–62.

Goldsworthy, R. (2000). Designing instruction for emotional intelligence. Educational Technol-ogy, 40(5), 43–48.

Goldsworthy, R. (2002). Supporting the development of emotional intelligence through technol-ogy. Computers in the Schools, 19(1/2), 119–148.

Goldsworthy, R., Barab, S., & Goldsworthy, E. (2000). The STAR project: Enhancing adolescents’social understanding through video-based, multimedia scenarios. Journal of Special EducationTechnology, 15(2), 13–26.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist,

53(1), 5–26.Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Dudley, B., Mitchell, J., & Fredrickson, J. (1997). The impact of

conflict resolution training on middle school students. Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1),11–21.

Jones, A., & Selby, C. (1997). The use of computers for self-expression and communication.Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 8(2–3), 199–214.

Land, S. L., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhancedstudent-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25(3), 167–202.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

123


Lochman, J. E. (1992). Cognitive–behavioral intervention with aggressive boys: Three–year fol-low–up and preventive effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(3), 426–432.

Lovett, M. C., & Walzak, D. P. (1997). A community-corporate DL partnership: Teaching conflictresolution to middle school students. T.H.E. Journal, 25(1), 52–55.

Lupton-Smith, H. S., Carruthers, W. L., Flythe, R., Goettee, E., & Modest, K. (1996). Conflictresolution as peer mediation: Programs for elementary, middle, and high school students.School Counselor, 43(5), 374–391.

McCarthy, C. (1992). Why we must teach peace. Educational Leadership, 50(1), 6–9.Meyer, A., Northup, W., & Plybon, L. (1998). Promoting nonviolence in early adolescence:

Responding in peaceful and positive ways. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Person-

ality, 9(3), 185–211.Sandy, S., & Cochran, K. (1998). Peaceful kids ECSEL: Conflict resolution skills for preschool

children. New York: International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution.Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Shure, M., & Spivack, G. (1978). Problem-solving techniques in childrearing. San Francisco: Jos-

sey-Bass. .Spiro, R. J., Feltovitch, P., Jacobson, M., & Coulson, R. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, construc-

tivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. Duffy, & Jonassen D. (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology ofinstruction: A conversation (pp. 57–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Taub, J. (2001). Evaluation of the second step violence prevention program at a rural elementaryschool. School Psychology Review 31(2), 186–200.

Thompson, S. M. (1996). Peer mediation: A peaceful solution. School Counselor, 44(2), 151–154.Thorkildsen, R., Allard, K., & Reid, B. (1983). The interactive videodisc for special education

project: Providing CAI for the mentally retarded. Computing Teacher, 10(8), 73–76.

Richard Goldsworthy is Director of Research and Development for the Academic Edge, Inc., amedia development group specializing in rich learning environments for the health sciences. Hisareas of expertise include sociocognitive learning and behavioral adoption, and message designand evaluation.

Nancy Schwartz is a research scientist with the Academic Edge, Inc., an instructor in the Tele-communications Department, Indiana University, and taught in the K-12 environment for manyyears. Her interests include improving instructional design for K-12 education as well as under-standing children’s affective and cognitive interactions with media.

Sasha Barab is an Associate Professor in Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems Technology andCognitive Science at Indiana University. He holds the Barbara Jacobs Chair of Education andTechnology, and is the Director of the Center for Research on Learning and Technology.

Anita Landa is a retired professor who taught curriculum theory and human development atLesley College in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She participated in designing Lesley’s Master’sProgram in Conflict Resolution and Peaceable Schools and helped to prepare a multidisciplinarycourse on brain-based human consciousness.

123


Evaluation of a collaborative multimedia conflict resolution curriculum

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of a collaborative multimedia conflict resolution curriculum