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↓
ResultsResultsIn Asynchronous CMC In Asynchronous CMC →
Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓
Previous Study Results(Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011)
ResultsResultsIn Asynchronous CMC In Asynchronous CMC →
Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓
ResultsResultsIn Asynchronous CMC In Asynchronous CMC →
Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓
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
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Belongingness & Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Initial 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
Initial 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
Initial 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
Initial 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
Mult
iple
Choic
e S
core
Initial 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
Initial 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
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
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
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Belongingness & Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
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
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Belongingness & Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
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
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Initial 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
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
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
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology Acceptance
Results
IVDV
Initial 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
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
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
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Perceptions of Technology
Summary of Findings
IVDV
Initial 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
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
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)
2. Social Interdependence
3. Conflict Elaboration
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Perceptions of Technology
Limitations
IVDV