APA 2014 presentation

38
Eects of Belongingness and Synchronicity on Face-to-face and Online Constructive Controversy Andy J. Saltarelli, PhD Instructional Designer Vice Provost for Online Learning Stanford University andysaltarelli.com | @ajsalts Cary J. Roseth, PhD Associate Professor College of Education Michigan State University http://croseth.educ.msu.edu/

description

Abstract: Adapting face-to-face (FTF) pedagogies to online settings raises boundary questions about the contextual conditions in which the same instructional method stimulates different outcomes. We address this issue by examining FTF and computer-mediated communication (CMC) versions of constructive controversy, a cooperative learning procedure involving dialogic argumentation and the shared goal of reaching an integrative position. One hundred seventy-one undergraduates were randomly assigned to a 3 (synchron- icity: FTF, synchronous CMC, asynchronous CMC) ﰅ 3 (belongingness: acceptance, mild rejection, control) quasi-experimental design. As predicted, FTF and synchronous CMC conditions increased cooperation, epistemic conflict regulation, motivation (interest-value), and achievement (completion rate, integrative statements), whereas asynchronous CMC increased competition and relational conflict reg- ulation and decreased motivation and achievement. Also as predicted, satisfying belongingness needs (through acceptance) increased cooperation, epistemic conflict regulation, and motivation compared with control. Unexpectedly, there was no evidence that mild rejection diminished outcomes. Results inform theory by demonstrating that FTF and CMC synchronicity represent boundary conditions in which constructive controversy stimulates different social-psychological processes and, in turn, different outcomes. Results also inform practice by showing that synchronicity and belongingness have additive effects on constructive controversy and that satisfying belongingness needs buffers but does not offset the deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC.

Transcript of APA 2014 presentation

Page 1: APA 2014 presentation

Effects of Belongingness and Synchronicity on Face-to-face and Online Constructive

Controversy

Andy J. Saltarelli, PhD Instructional Designer

Vice Provost for Online Learning Stanford University

andysaltarelli.com | @ajsalts

Cary J. Roseth, PhD Associate Professor College of Education

Michigan State University http://croseth.educ.msu.edu/

Page 2: APA 2014 presentation

Does adapting face-to-face (FTF) pedagogies to online settings raise

‘boundary questions’ about whether the same pedagogy stimulates

different psychological processes under FTF and CMC conditions?

Page 3: APA 2014 presentation

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

Page 4: APA 2014 presentation

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:

Page 5: APA 2014 presentation

Constructive Controversy40 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

Page 6: APA 2014 presentation

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.  

MED

IA  RICHN

ESS

SYNCHRONICITY

Face-­‐To-­‐Face

Vide

oAu

dio

Text

Synchronous Asynchronous

Previous StudyTest Constructive Controversy

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

Page 7: APA 2014 presentation

Previous Results

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

(Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011, Journal of Educational Psychology)

Results In Asynchronous CMC →

Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓

Page 8: APA 2014 presentation

Previous Results

In Asynchronous CMC Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓

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

Theory: What are the mechanisms by which asynchronous CMC affects constructive controversy? !Practice: Can satisfying belongingness needs ameliorate the negative effects of asynchronous CMC? !

Page 9: APA 2014 presentation

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

Belongingness

Competence

Autonomy

Innate Needs

Self-Regulation Motivation

Page 10: APA 2014 presentation

SYNCHRONICITY

BELO

NGINGNESS

Face-­‐To-­‐Face

Mild

 RejecFo

nCo

ntrol

Acceptan

ce

Synchronous Asynchronous

Current Study

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

(Saltarelli  &  Roseth,  in  press,  Journal  of  Educa-on  Psychology).

Page 11: APA 2014 presentation

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

!

Complete personality profile !

Page 12: APA 2014 presentation

Belongingness Manipulation!

Rank potential partners based on their profile !!

Page 13: APA 2014 presentation

Belongingness Manipulation!

Partner pairing

Page 14: APA 2014 presentation

Synchronous ScaffoldSynchronous CMC Scaffold:

WordPress, Google DocsTM

Integrated text-based chat !Procedure:

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

Page 15: APA 2014 presentation

Asynchronous ScaffoldAsynchronous CMC Scaffold:

WordPress, BuddyPress !Procedure:

Complete initial belongingness activity !Dyads complete activity over 6 days

Page 16: APA 2014 presentation

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)

DV

Page 17: APA 2014 presentation

Explanation

1. CMC TheoriesWhy should we test multiple theories?

!!1) Explanation for why CMC affects constructive controversy is likely multiply determined. !2) May reveal ‘boundary conditions’ between extant theories. 3) May reveal how theories relate to each other and can be integrated. !!!

2. Social Interdependence Theory

3. Sociocognitive Conflict Theory

4. Belongingness Theories

Theory

Theory

Page 18: APA 2014 presentation

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

Page 19: APA 2014 presentation

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

2. Social Interdependence

3. Sociocognitive Conflict

4. Belongingness & Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Results

IVDV

Page 20: APA 2014 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

1. Time!

→ Acceptance increased cooperative perceptions !

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

!Post Hoc:

Cooperative → Acceptance > Control !

!

2. Social Interdependence

3. Sociocognitive Conflict

4. Belongingness & Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Results

IVDV

Page 21: APA 2014 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

1. Time !→ Acceptance increased epistemic regulation

!Main Effects:

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

Post Hoc: Epistemic → Acceptance > Control

!!

2. Social Interdependence

3. Sociocognitive Conflict

4. Belongingness & Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Results

IVDV

Page 22: APA 2014 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

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

!!

2. Social Interdependence

3. Sociocognitive Conflict

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Results

IVDV

Page 23: APA 2014 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

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,

!

2. Social Interdependence

3. Sociocognitive Conflict

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Results

IVDV

1.7

2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

Acceptance Mild Rejection Control

AsyncFTFSync

Mul

tiple

Cho

ice

Scor

e

Page 24: APA 2014 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

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

!Technology Acceptance:

No Effect !!

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

!Acceptance > Control

!!!

2. Social Interdependence

3. Sociocognitive Conflict

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Results

IVDV

Page 25: APA 2014 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

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 !

2. Social Interdependence

3. Sociocognitive Conflict

4. Belongingness & Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Results

IVDV

Page 26: APA 2014 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

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 !

2. Social Interdependence

3. Sociocognitive Conflict

4. Belongingness & Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Results

IVDV

Page 27: APA 2014 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

1. Time!

→ Epistemic decreased and relational increased in async !

!Main Effects:

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

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

!

2. Social Interdependence

3. Sociocognitive Conflict

4. Belongingness & Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Results

IVDV

Page 28: APA 2014 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

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

!!

!!

2. Social Interdependence

3. Sociocognitive Conflict

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Results

IVDV

Page 29: APA 2014 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

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

!Completion Rate:

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

2. Social Interdependence

3. Sociocognitive Conflict

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Results

IVDV

Page 30: APA 2014 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

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

!

2. Social Interdependence

3. Sociocognitive Conflict

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Results

IVDV

Page 31: APA 2014 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

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

!!!

2. Social Interdependence

3. Sociocognitive Conflict

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Results

IVDV

Page 32: APA 2014 presentation

Summary of Findings

Async CMC

▲Competitive perceptions

▲Relational conflict

Led to… ▼Motivation ▼Achievement

FTF and Sync CMC

▲Cooperative perceptions

▲Epistemic regulation

Let to… ▼Motivation ▼Achievement

Page 33: APA 2014 presentation

Summary of Findings

Belongingness Met

▲Cooperative perceptions

▲Epistemic regulation

▲Intrinsic motivation

▲ Perceptions of technology

Buffers but does not offset the deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC

Belongingness Thwarted

Not always deleterious of educational outcomes

Page 34: APA 2014 presentation

Implications for Theory

→ Validates both SIT and SCT in identifying social psychological mechanisms that lead to constructive controversy outcomes !

→ But SIT and SCT may need may need to be integrated to the extent that each plays a functional role in the other !

→ Validates belongingness theories and is first causal evidence of acceptance on SIT and SCT

Page 35: APA 2014 presentation

Implications for Practice

→ Satisfying belongingness needs can promote cooperation and motivation (especially in online settings) !

→ Instructors may be able to monitor and enhance students’ cooperative perceptions and epistemic regulation !

→ Varying synchronicity to match the different task demands of constructive controversy may maximize the affordances and minimize the constraints of each

Page 36: APA 2014 presentation

Looking Forward

Page 37: APA 2014 presentation

Looking Forward

Page 38: APA 2014 presentation

Thank You

Cary J. Roseth, PhD http://croseth.educ.msu.edu/

[email protected]

Andy Saltarelli, PhD andysaltarelli.com

[email protected] @ajsalts