APA 2014 presentation
-
Upload
andy-saltarelli -
Category
Education
-
view
130 -
download
3
description
Transcript of 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/
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?
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
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:
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
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)
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↓
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? !
Belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Walton et al., 2012)
Belongingness
Competence
Autonomy
Innate Needs
Self-Regulation Motivation
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).
Belongingness Manipulation (Romero-Canyas et al., 2010)
!
Complete personality profile !
Belongingness Manipulation!
Rank potential partners based on their profile !!
Belongingness Manipulation!
Partner pairing
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
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
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
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
2. Social Interdependence
3. Sociocognitive Conflict
4. Belongingness & Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Perceptions of Technology
Results
IVDV
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Looking Forward
Looking Forward
Thank You
Cary J. Roseth, PhD http://croseth.educ.msu.edu/
Andy Saltarelli, PhD andysaltarelli.com
[email protected] @ajsalts