ET4Online 2014 presentation

Effects of Belongingness and Synchronicity on Face-to-face and Online Cooperative Learning

Andy Saltarelli, Ph.D. Stanford University

vpol.stanford.edu | andysaltarelli.com @ajsalts

#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong

The Shoulders of Giants

Cary J. Roseth, PhD Associate Professor

College of Education | Michigan State University http://croseth.educ.msu.edu/

The Shoulders of Giants

Lewin Johnson Deutsch Roseth

Theory-Research-Practice (Pintrich, 2000; Stokes, 1997)

Pasteur’s Quad DBR

Bohr’s Quad Pure Basic

Edison’s Quad Pure Applied

Current Future

Constructive Controversy (Deutsch 1949; Lewin, 1948; Johnson & Johnson, 1998; 2009)

Argue incompatible views within a cooperative context !

Seek agreement integrating the best evidence and reasoning from both positions

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Learn & Prepare

Opening Argument

Open Discussion

Reverse Positions

Integrative Agreement

5-step Procedure:

Social Interdependence Theory (Deutsch 1949; Lewin, 1948; D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005)

Interdependent Goal Structures (Positive Interdependence)

Promotive Interaction

Goal Achievement

Motivation, Achievement, Well-being, Relationships

Why Constructive Controversy?40 Years of Research — Meta-Analysis

(Johnson & Johnson, 2009)

(ES = Mean Effect Sizes)

Constructive Controversy v. Debate

Constructive Controversy v. Individualistic

Achievement .62 ES .76 ES

Perspective Taking .97 ES .59 ES

Motivation .73 ES .65 ES

Self-esteem .56 ES .85 ES

In face-to-face settings

Constructive Controversy (Deutsch 1949; Lewin, 1948; Johnson & Johnson, 1998; 2009)

Are MOOCs a fad? NoYes

-Sebastian Thrun is a clairvoyant cyborg from the future, follow or get left behind

-They’re giving the whole world access to education, democratizing education

-They save universities & students money, accelerate time-to-degree, & foster authentic learning

-They’re commercials for elite Western institutions and ideals, educational neocolonialism

-They’re expensive time sinks, distracting from the real problems of higher ed

-They’re a Silicon Valley play thing…Valleywag, VCs, IPOs, hipsters, elitist cyclists, oh my *barf*

-They’ve co-opted and perverted distributed, connected, authentic learning methods

-They’re a more efficient way to learn - modular, self-directed alternative credentialing, etc

Roseth, C. J., Saltarelli, A. J., & Glass, C. R. (2011). Effects of face-‐to-‐face and computer-‐mediated construcCve controversy on social interdependence, moCvaCon, and achievement. Journal of Educa-onal Psychology.

IA RICHN

SYNCHRONICITY

Face-‐To-‐Face

Synchronous Asynchronous

Previous StudyTest Constructive Controversy

1 FTF x 2 Synchronicity (Sync, Async) x 3 Media (Audio, Video, Text)

Previous Results

In Asynchronous CMC Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓

1) Why does asynchronous CMC affect constructive controversy?

2) Can initial belongingness ameliorate the negative effects of asynchronous CMC?

(Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011; Journal of Educa-onal Psychology)

Why Belongingness? (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Walton et al., 2012)

Belongingness

Competence

Autonomy

Innate Needs

Self-Regulation Intrinsic Motivation

Why Belongingness? !

Feeling for an answer

SYNCHRONICITY

NGINGNESS

Face-‐To-‐Face

RejecFo

Acceptan

Synchronous Asynchronous

Current Study Design Test Constructive Controversy

3 Synchronicity (FTF, Sync, Async) x 3 Belongingness (Acceptance, Control, Mild Rejection)

Belongingness Manipulation (Romero-Canyas et al., 2010)

Complete personality profile !

Belongingness Manipulation!

Rank potential partners based on their profile !!

Belongingness Manipulation!

Get paired with partner !!

Synchronous ScaffoldSynchronous CMC Scaffold:

WordPress, Google DocsTM

Integrated text-based chat !Procedure:

Complete initial belongingness activity !Dyads complete activity over 70 min. class period

Asynchronous ScaffoldAsynchronous CMC Scaffold:

WordPress, BuddyPress !Procedure:

Complete initial belongingness activity !Dyads complete activity over 6 days

Tracking

Dependent Variables

Operationalization

1. Time Time spent? (1-item), Time preferred?(1-item)

2. Social Interdependence

Cooperation (7-items, α=.89), Competition (7-items, α=.93), Individualism (7-items, α=.86

3. Conflict Regulation

Relational Regulation (3-items, α=.80), Epistemic Regulation (3-items, α=.82)

4. Motivation Relatedness (8-items, α=.88), Interest (7-items, α=.92), Value (7-items, α=.93)

5. AchievementMultiple-choice questions (4-items, α=.41), Integrative statement: # of arguments (κ=.95), use of evidence (κ=.90), integrative (κ=.87)

6. Perceptions of Technology

Technology Acceptance (4-items, α=.90), Task-technology Fit (2-items, α=.94)

Overall: Final n = 171 (11 Sections of TE 150) Male = 46, Female = 125 Mean Age = 19.48 (SD = 2.89, 18-24)

Sample

FTF Sync Async

AcceptanceMild

RejectionControl Acceptance

Mild Rejection

Control AcceptanceMild

RejectionControl

Eligible n 24 24 24 24 24 22 40 40 38

Enrolled n 22 21 19 24 21 19 32 32 28

Analyzed n 22 20 19 22 21 17 18 16 16

Belongingness Synchronicity

1. Time!

→ Acceptance spent and preferred more time on the activity

!Main Effect:

F(4, 322) = 2.82, p = .02, n!

Post Hoc: Time Spent →Acceptance > Mild Rejection, Control

!Time Preferred → Acceptance > Mild Rejection, Control

3. Conflict Elaboration

4. Belongingness & Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Technology Acceptance

Results

1. Time!

→ Acceptance increased cooperative perceptions !

Main Effects: F(6, 320) = 2.46, p = .02, n

!Post Hoc:

Cooperative → Acceptance > Control !

5. Achievement

Results

1. Time !→ Acceptance increased epistemic regulation

!Main Effects:

F(4, 274) = 2.51, p = .04, n!

Post Hoc: Epistemic → Acceptance > Control

5. Achievement

Results

1. Time!

→ Acceptance increased intrinsic motivation !!

Main Effects: F(4, 318) = 3.19, p = .01, n

!Post Hoc:

Relatedness →Acceptance > Control, Mild Rejection Interest-Value → Acceptance > Control

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

Results

1. Time → Under mild rejection multiple-choice scores increased more under asynchronous compared to FTF and synchronous

Interaction Effect: F(2,162) = 3.19, p =.01,

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

Results

Acceptance Mild Rejection Control

AsyncFTFSync

1. Time!→ Acceptance increased task-technology fit !

!Technology Acceptance:

No Effect !!

Task-Technology Fit: F(2,83) = 3.11, p = .05, n

!Acceptance > Control

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

Results

1. Time!

→ Async spent more and wanted less time !

Main Effect: F(4, 322) = 26.21, p < .01, n

!Post Hoc:

Spent → Async > FTF, Sync !

Preferred → Sync > Async, FTF !

5. Achievement

Results

1. Time !→ Cooperation was greater in FTF than async → Competitive & individualistic increased in async

!Main Effects:

F(6, 320) = 6.80, p < .01, n!

Post Hoc: Cooperative → FTF > Async Competitive → Async > FTF

Individualistic →Async > FTF, Sync !

5. Achievement

Results

1. Time!

→ Epistemic decreased in async → Relational increased in async !

!Main Effects:

F(4, 274) = 5.08, p < .01, n!

Post Hoc: Epistemic → FTF > Async Relational → Async > FTF

5. Achievement

Results

1. Time!

→ Interest & value were greater in sync versus async !

Main Effects: F(4, 318) = 11.1, p < .001, n

!Post Hoc:

Post-controversy Belongingness → FTF, Sync > Async Interest-Value → Sync > Async

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

Results

1. Time!→ Completion rates were greater in FTF and sync !

!Completion Rate:

FTF & Sync (100%) → Async (59.7%) [Fisher’s exact test; p < .01] !

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

Results

1. Time!→ Integrative statements were greater in FTF versus async

Main Effects: F(6, 152) = 3.54, p < .01, n

!Post Hoc:

Evidence → Sync > FTF Integrative Statements → FTF > Async

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

Results

1. Time!

→ Technology acceptance was greater in sync !!

Technology Acceptance: F(1,102) = 8.31, p <.01, n

!Sync > Async

Task-Technology Fit: No Effect

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

Results

Summary of Findings

Belongingness Met

+ Cooperative perceptions + Epistemic regulation + Intrinsic motivation + Perceptions of technology

Practical Implications

Developing belongingness between students is an important precondition for promoting cooperation and motivation

Summary of Findings

Belongingness Met

Buffers but does not offset the deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC

Instructors may be able to monitor and enhance students’ belongingness, cooperative perceptions, epistemic regulation

Summary of Findings

Belongingness Thwarted

Not always deleterious of educational outcomes

Compensatory actions may be at play, increasing salience of other may prime deeper cognitive effort

Instructors should mess with students and ostracize them

Summary of Findings

Async CMC

Had deleterious effects on constructive controversy outcomes

Need continual, more robust belongingness interventions !

Varying synchronicity to match the different task demands

Looking Forward

Bonus! - Social psychological interventions that scale

- Mere belonging (Walton, Cohen et al) - Stereotype Threat (Steele, Aronson et al) -Mindset (Dweck et al) -Purpose (Yeager et al) -Value (Eccles, Hulleman, et al) -Self-control and Self-regulation (Duckworth, Raver et al) -Stanford PERTS

ReferencesBaumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-497. !Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self- determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. !Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–152. !Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1992). Positive interdependence: Key to effective cooperation. In R. Hertz- Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. !Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper. !Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Reddy, K. S., Rodriguez, S., Cavanaugh, T. J., & Pelayo, R. (2010). Paying to belong: When does rejection trigger ingratiation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 802-823. !Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Cwir, D., & Spencer, S. J. (2011). Mere belonging: The power of social connections. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2011-24226-001 !!

Thank You

Andy Saltarelli saltarel@stanford.edu

Slides: http://bit.ly/ET4-2014-Belong andysaltarelli.com

ET4Online 2014 presentation

Education

Transcript of ET4Online 2014 presentation

MARCH 2014 RESULTS PRESENTATION Madrid, 2014

Presentation 2014

JGI Presentation 2014

Whitman Presentation 2014

Adam Croom - et4online Presentation

2Q 2014 Presentation

Presentation Budget 2014-1 2014-155

2014 06-04-presentation-mdn-2014

VAASL Presentation 2014

Herdsa 2014 Presentation

Presentation - June 2014

Aucfan Presentation @Redherring Asia 2014 Presentation

Investor Investor Presentation Presentation Q4 2014 Q2 2014

July 2014 Presentation

2014 Budget Presentation

Research presentation 2014

2014 vienadom-presentation

PRESENTATION –MONZA APRIL 2014 ACHIEVEMENTS · presentation –monza april 2014 2014 achievements 2014 total 24hours of spa team presentation

#ET4Online 2014 #ugstSTORY Workshop

Amee 2014-presentation-