pod 2013 presentation

40
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

Upload: andy-saltarelli

Post on 29-Nov-2014

370 views

Category:

Technology


1 download

DESCRIPTION

 

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Pod 2013 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

Page 2: Pod 2013 presentation
Page 3: Pod 2013 presentation

Game Plan

Talk a Little Theory-Research-Practice !

Share Results of Two Studies !

Make Some Preliminary Applications !

Share What’s Next

Page 4: Pod 2013 presentation

Theory-Research-Practice (i.e., Managing Expectations)

Design-based Research

Basic Research

Practice

FutureCurrent

Page 5: Pod 2013 presentation

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:

Page 6: Pod 2013 presentation

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

Page 7: Pod 2013 presentation

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)

Page 8: Pod 2013 presentation

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)  

Page 9: Pod 2013 presentation

Why Belongingness? (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008)

Belongingness

Competence

Autonomy

Innate Needs

Self-Regulation Intrinsic Motivation

Page 10: Pod 2013 presentation

Why Belongingness? !

Feeling for an answer

Page 11: Pod 2013 presentation

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)

Page 12: Pod 2013 presentation

Belongingness Manipulation (Romero-Canyas et al., 2010)

!

Complete personality profile !

Page 13: Pod 2013 presentation

Belongingness Manipulation!

Rank potential partners based on their profile !!

Page 14: Pod 2013 presentation

Belongingness Manipulation!

Get paired with partner !!

Page 15: Pod 2013 presentation

Synchronous ScaffoldSynchronous CMC Scaffold:

WordPress, Google DocsTM

Integrated text-based chat !Procedure:

Complete initial belongingness activity !Dyads complete activity over 70 min. class period

Page 16: Pod 2013 presentation

Asynchronous ScaffoldAsynchronous CMC Scaffold:

WordPress, BuddyPress !Procedure:

Complete initial belongingness activity !Dyads complete activity over 6 days

Page 17: Pod 2013 presentation

Tracking

Page 18: Pod 2013 presentation

Tracking

Page 19: Pod 2013 presentation

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

Page 20: Pod 2013 presentation

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

Page 21: Pod 2013 presentation

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

Page 22: Pod 2013 presentation

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

Page 23: Pod 2013 presentation

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

Page 24: Pod 2013 presentation

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

Page 25: Pod 2013 presentation

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

1.7

2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

Acceptance Mild Rejection Control

AsyncFTFSync

Mul

tiple

Cho

ice

Scor

e

Page 26: Pod 2013 presentation

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

Page 27: Pod 2013 presentation

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

Page 28: Pod 2013 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

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 !

2. Social Interdependence

3. Conflict Elaboration

4. Belongingness & Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Technology Acceptance

Results

IVDV

Page 29: Pod 2013 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

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

!

2. Social Interdependence

3. Conflict Elaboration

4. Belongingness & Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Technology Acceptance

Results

IVDV

Page 30: Pod 2013 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

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

!!

!!

2. Social Interdependence

3. Conflict Elaboration

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Technology Acceptance

Results

IVDV

Page 31: Pod 2013 presentation

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

Page 32: Pod 2013 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

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

!

2. Social Interdependence

3. Conflict Elaboration

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Technology Acceptance

Results

IVDV

Page 33: Pod 2013 presentation

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

Page 34: Pod 2013 presentation

Belongingness Synchronicity

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 !

2. Social Interdependence

3. Conflict Elaboration

4. Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Summary of Findings

IVDV

Page 35: Pod 2013 presentation

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

Page 36: Pod 2013 presentation

Looking Forward

Page 37: Pod 2013 presentation

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

Page 38: Pod 2013 presentation
Page 39: Pod 2013 presentation

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 !!

Page 40: Pod 2013 presentation

Thank You

Andy Saltarelli [email protected]

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