Pod 2013 presentation

transcript

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.

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

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

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, n2= 0.03 !

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, n2= 0.04

!Post Hoc:

Cooperative → Acceptance > Control !

5. Achievement

Results

1. Time !→ Acceptance increased epistemic regulation

!Main Effects:

F(4, 274) = 2.51, p = .04, n2= 0.03 !

Post Hoc: Epistemic → Acceptance > Control

5. Achievement

Results

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

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, n2= 0.07

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, n2= 0.07

!Acceptance > Control

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

Results

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

5. Achievement

Results

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 !

5. Achievement

Results

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

5. Achievement

Results

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

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

Results

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] !

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

Results

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

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

Results

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

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

Results

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 !

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

Summary of Findings

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 !!!

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

Implications for Practice

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 !!

Thank You

Andy Saltarelli saltarel@stanford.edu

Slides: http://bit.ly/cc-pod-2013 andysaltarelli.com