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
The Shoulders of Giants
Cary J. Roseth, PhD Associate Professor
College of Education | Michigan State University http://croseth.educ.msu.edu/
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
The Shoulders of Giants
Lewin Johnson Deutsch Roseth
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
Theory-Research-Practice (Pintrich, 2000; Stokes, 1997)
Pasteur’s Quad DBR
Bohr’s Quad Pure Basic
Edison’s Quad Pure Applied
Current Future
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
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:
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
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
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
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
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
Constructive Controversy (Deutsch 1949; Lewin, 1948; Johnson & Johnson, 1998; 2009)
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
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
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
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)
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
Why Belongingness? (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Walton et al., 2012)
Belongingness
Competence
Autonomy
Innate Needs
Self-Regulation Intrinsic Motivation
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
Why Belongingness? !
Feeling for an answer
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
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
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
Tracking
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
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
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
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. 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, n
!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, n!
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, n
!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,
!
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, n
!Acceptance > Control
!!!
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
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. Conflict Elaboration
4. Belongingness & Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
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. Conflict Elaboration
4. Belongingness & Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Belongingness Synchronicity
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
!
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Belongingness & Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
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. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
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. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
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. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
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. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Perceptions of Technology
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
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
Summary of Findings
Belongingness Met
Buffers but does not offset the deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC
Practical Implications
Instructors may be able to monitor and enhance students’ belongingness, cooperative perceptions, epistemic regulation
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
Summary of Findings
Belongingness Thwarted
Not always deleterious of educational outcomes
Practical Implications
Compensatory actions may be at play, increasing salience of other may prime deeper cognitive effort
Instructors should mess with students and ostracize them
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
Summary of Findings
Async CMC
Had deleterious effects on constructive controversy outcomes
Practical Implications
Need continual, more robust belongingness interventions !
Varying synchronicity to match the different task demands
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
Looking Forward
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
#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
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
Top Related