Download - 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

http://vpol.stanford.edu

http://andysaltarelli.com

The Shoulders of Giants

Cary J. Roseth, PhD Associate Professor

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


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.

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

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

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


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, 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

IVDV


1. Time!

→ Acceptance increased cooperative perceptions !

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

!Post Hoc:

Cooperative → Acceptance > Control !

!




5. Achievement


Results

IVDV


1. Time !→ Acceptance increased epistemic regulation

!Main Effects:

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

Post Hoc: Epistemic → Acceptance > Control

!!




5. Achievement


Results

IVDV


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

IVDV


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

IVDV

1.7

2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

Acceptance Mild Rejection Control

AsyncFTFSync

Mul

tiple

Cho

ice

Scor

e


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

IVDV


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

IVDV


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

IVDV


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

IVDV


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

IVDV


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

IVDV


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

IVDV


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

IVDV

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 [email protected]

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

mailto:[email protected]

http://andysaltarelli.com