Pod 2013 presentation
-
Upload
andy-saltarelli -
Category
Technology
-
view
366 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Pod 2013 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
Game Plan
Talk a Little Theory-Research-Practice !
Share Results of Two Studies !
Make Some Preliminary Applications !
Share What’s Next
Theory-Research-Practice (i.e., Managing Expectations)
Design-based Research
Basic Research
Practice
FutureCurrent
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:
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
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
Results In Asynchronous CMC →
Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓
Current Research Questions: 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 EducaConal Psychology)
Why Belongingness? (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008)
Belongingness
Competence
Autonomy
Innate Needs
Self-Regulation Intrinsic Motivation
Why Belongingness? !
Feeling for an answer
SYNCHRONICITY
BELO
NGINGNESS
Face-‐To-‐Face
Mild
RejecFo
nCo
ntrol
Acceptan
ce
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
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)
DV
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, n2= 0.03 !
Post Hoc: Time Spent →Acceptance > Mild Rejection, Control
!Time Preferred → Acceptance > Mild Rejection, Control
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Belongingness & Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Belongingness Synchronicity
1. Time!
→ Acceptance increased cooperative perceptions !
Main Effects: F(6, 320) = 2.46, p = .02, n2= 0.04
!Post Hoc:
Cooperative → Acceptance > Control !
!
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Belongingness & Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Belongingness Synchronicity
1. Time !→ Acceptance increased epistemic regulation
!Main Effects:
F(4, 274) = 2.51, p = .04, n2= 0.03 !
Post Hoc: Epistemic → Acceptance > Control
!!
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Belongingness & Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Belongingness Synchronicity
1. Time!
→ Acceptance increased intrinsic motivation !!
Main Effects: F(4, 318) = 3.19, p = .01, n2= 0.03
!Post Hoc:
Relatedness →Acceptance > Control, Mild Rejection Interest-Value → Acceptance > Control
!!
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
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, n2= 0.07
!
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
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, n2= 0.07
!Acceptance > Control
!!!
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Perceptions of Technology
Results
IVDV
Belongingness Synchronicity
1. Time!
→ Asynchronous CMC spent more and wanted less time
!Main Effect:
F(4, 322) = 26.21, p < .01, n2= 0.24 !
Post Hoc: Spent → Async > FTF, Sync
!Preferred → Sync > Async, FTF
!
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Belongingness & Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Belongingness Synchronicity
1. Time !→ Cooperation was greater in FTF → Competitive & individualistic increased in asynchronous CMC
!Main Effects:
F(6, 320) = 6.80, p < .01, n2= 0.11 !
Post Hoc: Cooperative → FTF > Async Competitive → Async > FTF
Individualistic →Async > FTF, Sync !
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Belongingness & Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Belongingness Synchronicity
1. Time!
→ Epistemic was greater in FTF → Relational increased in asynchronous CMC !
!Main Effects:
F(4, 274) = 5.08, p < .01, n2= 0.06 !
Post Hoc: Epistemic → FTF > Async Relational → Async > FTF
!
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Belongingness & Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Belongingness Synchronicity
1. Time!
→ Interest & value was greater in synchronous versus asynchronous CMC !
Main Effects: F(4, 318) = 11.1, p < .001, n2= .12
!Post Hoc:
Post-controversy Belongingness → FTF, Sync > Async Interest-Value → Sync > Async
!!
!!
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Belongingness Synchronicity
1. Time!→ Completion rates were greater in FTF and synchronous CMC !
!Completion Rate:
FTF & Sync (100%) → Async (59.7%) [Fisher’s exact test; p < .01] !
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Belongingness Synchronicity
1. Time!→ Integrative statements were greater in FTF versus asynchronous CMC
!!
Main Effects: F(6, 152) = 3.54, p < .01, n2= 0.12
!Post Hoc:
Evidence → Sync > FTF Integrative Statements → FTF > Async
!
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Belongingness Synchronicity
1. Time!
→ Technology acceptance was greater in synchronous CMC !!
Technology Acceptance: F(1,102) = 8.31, p <.01, n2= 0.07)
!Sync > Async
!!
Task-Technology Fit: No Effect
!!
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Perceptions of Technology
Results
IVDV
Belongingness Synchronicity
1. Time !→ Positive main effects of belongingness on cooperative perceptions, epistemic regulation, intrinsic motivation, &
perceptions of technology !
→Belongingness buffers but does not offset the deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC
!→ Asynchronous CMC had deleterious effects on
constructive controversy outcomes !
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Perceptions of Technology
Summary of Findings
IVDV
Belongingness Synchronicity
1. Time !→ Developing belongingness between students is an
important precondition for promoting cooperation and motivation
!→ 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 !!!
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Perceptions of Technology
Implications for Practice
IVDV
Looking Forward
Bonus!How to leverage belongingness at scale?
!
Mere belonging - “a minimal social connection” (Walton et al., 2011)
Perception that course will have collaborative social
interactions
Shared birthday with peer role model
Shared esoteric preferences (e.g., music) with a peer
learner
Motivation & Persistence
References
Baumeister, 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 !!