cmc, cooperative learning, motivation, & achievement

Effects of Belongingness and Synchronicity on Face-To-Face and Online Cooperative Learning

Andy J. SaltarelliCary J. RosethChris R. Glass

College of Education

The Problem

Constructive Controversy in Constructive Controversy in Face-to-Face SettingsFace-to-Face Settings

Constructive Controversy in Constructive Controversy in Face-to-Face SettingsFace-to-Face Settings

Constructive Controversy: a cooperative learning procedure in which individuals argue incompatible views and together seek an agreement integrating the best evidence and reasoning from both positions (Johnson & Johnson, 2007)

5-step Procedure:

40 Years of research: 40 Years of research: Increased achievement, Increased achievement, motivation, student well-motivation, student well-being, and relationships.being, and relationships.

40 Years of research: 40 Years of research: Increased achievement, Increased achievement, motivation, student well-motivation, student well-being, and relationships.being, and relationships.

Roseth, C. J., Saltarelli, A. J., & Glass, C. R. (2011). Effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated constructive controversy on social interdependence, motivation, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology.

MED

IA R

ICH

NESS

SYNCHRONICITY

Face-To-Face

Vid

eo

Au

dio

Text

Synchronous Asynchronous

Previous StudyTest Test Constructive ControversyConstructive Controversy

1 FTF x 2 Synchronicity (Sync, Async) x 3 Media (Audio, 1 FTF x 2 Synchronicity (Sync, Async) x 3 Media (Audio, Video, Text)Video, Text)

Previous Study ResultsTest Test Constructive Constructive

ControversyControversy FTF vs. Sync CMC vs. Async FTF vs. Sync CMC vs. Async

CMCCMCVideo vs. Audio vs. TextVideo vs. Audio vs. Text

Test Test Constructive Constructive ControversyControversy

FTF vs. Sync CMC vs. Async FTF vs. Sync CMC vs. Async CMCCMC

Video vs. Audio vs. TextVideo vs. Audio vs. Text

(Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011)

ResultsResultsIn Asynchronous CMC In Asynchronous CMC →

Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓



Previous Study Results(Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011)





Current Research Questions:Current Research Questions:1) Why does asynchronous CMC affect constructive 1) Why does asynchronous CMC affect constructive

controversy?controversy?2) Can initial belongingness ameliorate the negative 2) Can initial belongingness ameliorate the negative

effects of asynchronous CMC?effects of asynchronous CMC?

Current Research Questions:Current Research Questions:1) Why does asynchronous CMC affect constructive 1) Why does asynchronous CMC affect constructive

controversy?controversy?2) Can initial belongingness ameliorate the negative 2) Can initial belongingness ameliorate the negative

effects of asynchronous CMC?effects of asynchronous CMC?

Induction: Induction: Test particulars with Test particulars with

design-based design-based researchresearch and move and move

up to theoryup to theory

Induction: Induction: Test particulars with Test particulars with

design-based design-based researchresearch and move and move

up to theoryup to theory

Approach #1AnswerAnswerMultiply Multiply

DeterminedDetermined

AnswerAnswerMultiply Multiply

DeterminedDetermined

Deduction: Deduction: Test theory with Test theory with basic basic

researchresearch and move and move down to the down to the particularsparticulars

Deduction: Deduction: Test theory with Test theory with basic basic

researchresearch and move and move down to the down to the particularsparticulars

Approach #2

Explanation

1. CMC Theories

Why 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. Conflict Elaboration Theory

4. Belongingness Theories

Theory

Theory

SYNCHRONICITY

BELO

NG

ING

NES

S

Face-To-Face

Mild

Reje

ctio

nC

on

trol

Acc

ep

tance

Synchronous

Asynchronous

Current Study DesignTest Test Constructive ControversyConstructive Controversy

3 Synchronicity (FTF, Sync, Async) x 3 Belongingness (Acceptance, 3 Synchronicity (FTF, Sync, Async) x 3 Belongingness (Acceptance, Control, Mild Rejection)Control, Mild Rejection)

BelongingnessInitial Belongingness Activity:Prior to constructive controversy

Complete personality profile

Rank potential partners based on their profile

Receive feedback and partner pairing

Modified from Romero-Canyas et al., 2010

Synchronicity - SyncSynchronous CMC Scaffold:WordPress, Google DocsTM

Integrated text-based chat

Procedure:Complete initial belongingness activity

Dyads complete activity over 70 min. class period

Synchronicity - Async Asynchronous CMC Scaffold:WordPress, BuddyPress

Procedure:Complete initial belongingness activity

Dyads complete activity over 6 days

Method2 Independent Variables: 3 (synchronicity: FTF, synchronous CMC, asynchronous CMC) x 3(initial belongingness: acceptance, mild rejection, control) randomized experimental-control design

7 Dependent Variables: Time, Social Interdependence, Conflict Regulation, Motivation, Post Belongingness, Achievement, Perceptions of Technology

Randoms Assignment:Synchronicity - 11 Course sections of TE150Initial Belongingness - 171 undergraduates (125 females)

Constructive Controversy: “Should Schools Decrease Class Size to Improve Student Outcomes?

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. MotivationRelatedness (8-items, α=.88), Interest (7-items, α=.92), Value (7-items, α=.93)

5. Post-activity Belongingness

Belongingness (3-items, α=.86), Interpersonal Attraction (3-items, α=.91), Relatedness (8-items, α=.88)

6. Achievement

Multiple-choice questions (4-items, α=.41), Integrative statement: # of arguments (κ=.95), use of evidence (κ=.90), integrative (κ=.87)

7. 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 = 125Mean Age = 19.48 (SD = 2.89, 18-24)

Sample

FTF Sync Async

Acceptance

Mild Rejection

ControlAcceptance

Mild Rejection

ControlAcceptance

Mild Rejection

Control

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

Initial 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

IVDV


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

IVDV


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

IVDV


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

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, n2= 0.07



4. Motivation

5. Achievement


Results

IVDV

Mult

iple

Choic

e S

core


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

IVDV


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

IVDV


1. Time

→ Cooperation increased in FTF and competitive and individualistic increased in asynchronous CMC

Main Effects:F(6, 320) = 6.80, p < .01, n2= 0.11

Post Hoc:Cooperative → FTF > AsyncCompetitive → Async > FTF

Individualistic →Async > FTF, Sync




5. Achievement


Results

IVDV


1. Time→ Epistemic increased in FTF and relational increased in asynchronous CMC

Main Effects:F(4, 274) = 5.08, p < .01, n2= 0.06

Post Hoc:Epistemic → FTF > AsyncRelational → Async > FTF




5. Achievement


Results

IVDV


1. Time→ Post-controversy belongingness increased in FTF and interest-value increased in synchronous 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

IVDV


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

IVDV


1. Time→ Evidence was greater in synchronous CMC while integrative statements were greater in FTF

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

IVDV


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

IVDV


1. Time→ Initial belongingness had additive effects on constructive controversy outcomes

→ Initial 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

IVDV


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

IVDV

Thank You

Andy [email protected]

Chris [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


1. Time→ Preponderance of women in the sample (73%)

→ Generalizability of constructive controversy to other cooperative learning procedures

→ Time, frequency of steps

→ Reliability of achievement measure (α=.41)



4. Motivation

5. Achievement


Limitations

IVDV