0
Effects of Belongingness and Synchronicity on Face-To-Face              and Online Cooperative Learning                   ...
The Problem   Constructive Controversy: a cooperative learning procedure in which   individuals argue incompatible views a...
Previous Study                         Test Constructive Controversy     1 FTF x 2 Synchronicity (Sync, Async) x 3 Media (...
Previous Study Results       (Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011)        Test Constructive Controversy     FTF vs. Sync CMC...
Previous Study Results                              (Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011)                                   ...
Theory                                           ExplanationTheory1. CMC                         Why should we test multip...
Current Study Design                                      Test Constructive Controversy3 Synchronicity (FTF, Sync, Async) ...
BelongingnessInitial Belongingness Activity:Prior to constructive controversyComplete personality profileRank potential pa...
Synchronicity - SyncSynchronous CMC Scaffold:WordPress, Google DocsTMIntegrated text-based chatProcedure:Complete initial ...
Synchronicity - AsyncAsynchronous CMC Scaffold:WordPress, BuddyPressProcedure:Complete initial belongingnessactivityDyads ...
Method2 Independent Variables:3 (synchronicity: FTF, synchronous CMC, asynchronous CMC) x 3(initialbelongingness: acceptan...
Dependent Variables   DV                                           Operationalization1. Time           Time spent? (1-item...
Sample                                          Overall:                          Final n = 171 (11 Sections of TE 150)   ...
Results              IV        Initial Belongingness                 Synchronicity DV1. Time                   → Acceptanc...
Results              IV        Initial Belongingness                 Synchronicity DV1. Time                   → Acceptanc...
Results              IV        Initial Belongingness                 Synchronicity DV1. Time                   → Acceptanc...
Results              IV        Initial Belongingness                 Synchronicity DV1. Time                   → Acceptanc...
Results              IV        Initial Belongingness                               Synchronicity DV1. Time            → Un...
Results              IV        Initial Belongingness                  Synchronicity DV1. Time                   → Acceptan...
Results              IV        Initial Belongingness                 Synchronicity DV1. Time                   → Asynchron...
Results              IV        Initial Belongingness                  Synchronicity DV1. Time                   → Cooperat...
Results              IV        Initial Belongingness                 Synchronicity DV1. Time                   → Epistemic...
Results              IV        Initial Belongingness                 Synchronicity DV1. Time                   → Post-cont...
Results              IV         Initial Belongingness                 Synchronicity DV1. Time                   → Completi...
Results              IV        Initial Belongingness                 Synchronicity DV1. Time                   → Evidence ...
Results              IV        Initial Belongingness                   Synchronicity DV1. Time                   → Technol...
Summary of Findings              IV          Initial Belongingness              Synchronicity DV1. Time                   ...
Implications for Practice              IV          Initial Belongingness           Synchronicity DV1. Time                ...
Thank You  Andy Saltarellisaltarel@msu.eduandysaltarelli.com   Chris Glasscrglass@msu.edu
Limitations           IV             Initial Belongingness                Synchronicity DV1. Time                    → Pre...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

CMC, Cooperative Learning, Motivation, & Achievement

544

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
544
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Austin Trivia Trivia!!
  • Cary ’ s story of doing CC online for the first time. Both studies are informed by the broad question of “ How to effectively integrate pedagogy with online technologies? ” Previous study tested 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 cooperative perceptions (e.g., sharing a common goal) tend to promote the constructive resolution of controversy by encouraging more open-minded inquiry, greater helpfulness and motivation, more accurate understanding of opposing positions, and higher-level reasoning - consistent results in increased achievement, motivation, relational outcomes 1) participants are first randomly assigned to pro- and con-sides of a controversial issue 2) Develop the best argument for their assigned position 3) Each student then takes a turn presenting their best case to their opposite-side partner 4) Finally they together develop a written statement integrating the best information from both sides of the controversy
  • My dissertation is built upon a previous study completed two years ago and recently published. Both studies are informed by the broad question of “ How to effectively integrate pedagogy with online technologies? ” Previous study tested 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 cooperative perceptions (e.g., sharing a common goal) tend to promote the constructive resolution of controversy by encouraging more open-minded inquiry, greater helpfulness and motivation, more accurate understanding of opposing positions, and higher-level reasoning - consistent results in increased achievement, motivation, relational outcomes 1) participants are first randomly assigned to pro- and con-sides of a controversial issue 2) Develop the best argument for their assigned position 3) Each student then takes a turn presenting their best case to their opposite-side partner 4) Finally they together develop a written statement integrating the best information from both sides of the controversy
  • Both studies are informed by the broad question of “ How to effectively integrate pedagogy with online technologies? ” [Think/Pair/Share] What do you think about the role of belongingness (relatedness) in education? Social Interdependence Theory - Cooperative Learning says that relationships are incredibly important to the learning process. Developing interdependent relationships between students leads to effect sizes of .5 and .6 on achievement, motivation, Wicked Problem: The answer is likely multiply determined and involves the interaction of multiple factors, that may or may not apply across contexts and cases Tracks: #1 Induction - Move from the particulars of asynchronous constructive controversy and then move to generalizable principles and answers to this question. For example, we could change website characteristics, content areas, student characteristics #2 Deduction - Move from the theory and general principles to the particulars by testing different theoretical explanations through basic research This study approaches this problem from track #2 by testing 4 theories ’ accounts for why CMC may affect constructive controversy.
  • There are three main reasons why we should test different theories ? Multiply determined - multiple factors contribute to the outcome boundary conditions - because most are based on the assumption of FTF interaction Integration of theories (how they relate to each other)
  • Before starting the constructive controversy procedure, initial belongingness was manipulated by using a partner pairing activity. First, students completely a personality profile and were told results would be sent to potential partners to rank on whom they would like to work with on the constructive controversy. Second, students were presented with bogus results from other students and ranked who they wanted to work with. Students then were give bogus feedback on why their partner chose them. Some received a message saying they were their partner ’ s first choice ( acceptance ), others that they were their partner ’ s last choice ( mild rejection ), and final some were give a simple message saying they ’ d been paired with a partner ( control ).
  • Synchronous constructive controversy mirrored exactly the FTF procedure except students where in separate classrooms and interacted via a co-editable Google Docs activity scaffold and communicated via the integrated text-based CMC chat in Google Docs.
  • Synchronous constructive controversy mirrored exactly the synchronous procedure except students completed the 5 steps over 6 days and used the a modified WordPress web scaffold with a BuddyPress plugin and custom PHP to interact with their partner. You can see in this picture that there were boxes for each student to share their response each day of the activity.
  • I want to direct your attention to #1 time which was assessed with two questions: 1) time spent, 2) time preferred. And also #6 achievement which was assessed with 4 multiple choice questions, and then an evaluation of the integrative statements (# arguments, use of evidence, integrative statements)
  • Supports belongingness theories that belongingness is an important precondition for positive motivational outcomes, that is if spending more time on the activity reflects increased motivation
  • There was a main effect of initial belongingness on social interdependence. 1) Acceptance increased cooperative perceptions 2) Supports belongingness theories that belongingness is an important precondition for positive motivational outcomes 3) Suggests a modification of social interdependence theory in that initial belongingness is an important precondition of cooperative perceptions.
  • There was a main effect of initial belongingness on conflict elaboration. Suggests a modification of CET that belongingness is an important precondition for conflict regulation
  • 1) Supports belongingness theory that initial belongingness is an important precondition for motivation
  • Unexpectedly, under mild rejection multiple-choice scores increased more under asynchronous CMC than FTF and synchronous CMC. You can see this in the middle of the red bar. One explanation for this finding is that asynchronous CMC may amplify mild rejection to the extent that students employ “ compensatory actions ” , perhaps to ingratiate themselves to their partner, to amend for belongingness needs and they may do this by focusing on achievement efforts.
  • Could talk about
  • 1) Cooperative increased in FTF and comp & ind. increased in async 2) Support previous findings and social interdependence theories ’ explanation for why CMC affects constructive controversy
  • 1) Epistemic increased in FTF and relational increased in asynchronous 2) Provides an alternate explanation to the previous studys ’ and social interdependence theories ’ explanation for why CMC affects constructive controversy. CMC moderate social-cognitive reactions to conflict.
  • 1) CMC synchronicity moderates conflict regulation 2) Support previous findings that motivation decreased in asynchronous CMC
  • 1) CMC synchronicity moderates completion rates 2) Support previous findings and even though we attempted to increase interaction this time with automatic emails when asynchronous partners did their part, completion rate was actually lower in this study.
  • 1) CMC synchronicity moderates critical thinking on the joint essay 2) Contradicts previous finding that there was a marginal increase in “ knowledge ” ratings in asynchronous CMC.
  • 1) Technology acceptance was greater in synchronous CMC
  • → instructors should consider increasing the salience of goal achievement by celebrating achievement and interpersonal processing gains by students M & M: Most Meaningful Point for your own practice
  • → instructors should consider increasing the salience of goal achievement by celebrating achievement and interpersonal processing gains by students
  • → instructors should consider increasing the salience of goal achievement by celebrating achievement and interpersonal processing gains by students
  • Transcript of "CMC, Cooperative Learning, Motivation, & Achievement"

    1. 1. Effects of Belongingness and Synchronicity on Face-To-Face and Online Cooperative Learning Andy J. Saltarelli Cary J. Roseth Chris R. Glass College of Education
    2. 2. The Problem 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: IncreasedConstructive Controversy in Face- achievement, motivation, student to-Face Settings well-being, and relationships.
    3. 3. Previous Study Test Constructive Controversy 1 FTF x 2 Synchronicity (Sync, Async) x 3 Media (Audio, Video, Text) SYNCHRONICITY Synchronous Asynchronous Video Face-To-Face MEDIA RICHNESS Audio TextRoseth, C. J., Saltarelli, A. J., & Glass, C. R. (2011). Effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated constructivecontroversy on social interdependence, motivation, and achievement. J ournalof EducationalPsychology.
    4. 4. Previous Study Results (Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011) Test Constructive Controversy FTF vs. Sync CMC vs. Async CMC Video vs. Audio vs. Text Results In Asynchronous CMC → Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓
    5. 5. Previous Study Results (Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011) 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?Approach #1 Approach #2 Induction: Answer Deduction: Test particulars with Multiply Determined Test theory with basicdesign-based research and research and move down move up to theory to the particulars
    6. 6. Theory ExplanationTheory1. CMC Why should we test multiple theories?Theories2. Social 1) Explanation for why CMC affects constructive controversy isInterdependence likely multiply determined.Theory 2) May reveal ‘boundary conditions’ between extant theories.3. ConflictElaboration 3) May reveal how theories relate to each other and can beTheory integrated.4. BelongingnessTheories
    7. 7. Current Study Design Test Constructive Controversy3 Synchronicity (FTF, Sync, Async) x 3 Belongingness (Acceptance, Control, Mild Rejection) SYNCHRONICITY Face-To-Face Synchronous Asynchronous Mild RejectionBELONGINGNESS Control Acceptance
    8. 8. BelongingnessInitial Belongingness Activity:Prior to constructive controversyComplete personality profileRank potential partners based ontheir profileReceive feedback and partnerpairingModified from Romero-Canyas etal., 2010
    9. 9. Synchronicity - SyncSynchronous CMC Scaffold:WordPress, Google DocsTMIntegrated text-based chatProcedure:Complete initial belongingnessactivityDyads complete activity over70 min. class period
    10. 10. Synchronicity - AsyncAsynchronous CMC Scaffold:WordPress, BuddyPressProcedure:Complete initial belongingnessactivityDyads complete activity over 6days
    11. 11. Method2 Independent Variables:3 (synchronicity: FTF, synchronous CMC, asynchronous CMC) x 3(initialbelongingness: acceptance, mild rejection, control) randomizedexperimental-control design7 Dependent Variables:Time, Social Interdependence, Conflict Regulation, Motivation, PostBelongingness, Achievement, Perceptions of TechnologyRandoms Assignment:Synchronicity - 11 Course sections of TE150Initial Belongingness - 171 undergraduates (125 females)Constructive Controversy:“Should Schools Decrease Class Size to Improve Student Outcomes?
    12. 12. Dependent Variables DV Operationalization1. Time Time spent? (1-item), Time preferred?(1-item)2. Social Cooperation (7-items, α=.89), Competition (7-items, α=.93),Interdependence Individualism (7-items, α=.863. Conflict Relational Regulation (3-items, α=.80), Epistemic Regulation (3-Regulation items, α=.82) Relatedness (8-items, α=.88), Interest (7-items, α=.92), Value (7-4. Motivation items, α=.93)5. Post-activity Belongingness (3-items, α=.86), Interpersonal Attraction (3-items,Belongingness α=.91), Relatedness (8-items, α=.88) Multiple-choice questions (4-items, α=.41), Integrative statement: #6. Achievement of arguments (κ=.95), use of evidence (κ=.90), integrative (κ=.87)7. Perceptions of Technology Acceptance (4-items, α=.90), Task-technology Fit (2-Technology items, α=.94)
    13. 13. Sample Overall: Final n = 171 (11 Sections of TE 150) Male = 46, Female = 125 Mean Age = 19.48 (SD = 2.89, 18-24) FTF Sync Async Mild Mild Mild Acceptance Control Acceptance Control Acceptance Control Rejection Rejection RejectionEligible n 24 24 24 24 24 22 40 40 38Enrolled n 22 21 19 24 21 19 32 32 28Analyzed n 22 20 19 22 21 17 18 16 16
    14. 14. Results IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Acceptance spent and preferred more time on the2. Social activityInterdependence3. Conflict Main Effect:Elaboration F(4, 322) = 2.82, p = .02, n2= 0.034. Belongingness Post Hoc:& Motivation Time Spent →Acceptance > Mild Rejection, Control5. Achievement Time Preferred → Acceptance > Mild Rejection, Control6. TechnologyAcceptance
    15. 15. Results IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Acceptance increased cooperative perceptions2. SocialInterdependence Main Effects: F(6, 320) = 2.46, p = .02, n2= 0.043. ConflictElaboration Post Hoc:4. Belongingness Cooperative → Acceptance > Control& Motivation5. Achievement6. TechnologyAcceptance
    16. 16. Results IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Acceptance increased epistemic regulation2. SocialInterdependence Main Effects:3. Conflict F(4, 274) = 2.51, p = .04, n2= 0.03Elaboration Post Hoc:4. Belongingness Epistemic → Acceptance > Control& Motivation5. Achievement6. TechnologyAcceptance
    17. 17. Results IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Acceptance increased intrinsic motivation2. SocialInterdependence Main Effects:3. Conflict F(4, 318) = 3.19, p = .01, n2= 0.03Elaboration4. Motivation Post Hoc: Relatedness →Acceptance > Control, Mild Rejection Interest-Value → Acceptance > Control5. Achievement6. TechnologyAcceptance
    18. 18. Results IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Under mild rejection multiple-choice scores increased more under asynchronous compared to FTF and2. Social synchronousInterdependence Interaction Effect:3. Conflict F(2,162) = 3.19, p =.01, n2= 0.07Elaboration Multiple Choice Score4. Motivation5. Achievement6. TechnologyAcceptance
    19. 19. Results IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Acceptance increased task-technology fit2. SocialInterdependence Technology Acceptance:3. Conflict No EffectElaboration4. Motivation Task-Technology Fit: F(2,83) = 3.11, p = .05, n2= 0.075. Achievement Acceptance > Control
    20. 20. Results IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Asynchronous CMC spent more and wanted less time2. SocialInterdependence Main Effect: F(4, 322) = 26.21, p < .01, n2= 0.243. ConflictElaboration Post Hoc:4. Belongingness Spent → Async > FTF, Sync& Motivation Preferred → Sync > Async, FTF5. Achievement6. TechnologyAcceptance
    21. 21. Results IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Cooperation increased in FTF and competitive and2. Social individualistic increased in asynchronous CMCInterdependence3. Conflict Main Effects:Elaboration F(6, 320) = 6.80, p < .01, n2= 0.114. Belongingness Post Hoc:& Motivation Cooperative → FTF > Async5. Achievement Competitive → Async > FTF Individualistic →Async > FTF, Sync6. TechnologyAcceptance
    22. 22. Results IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Epistemic increased in FTF and relational increased in2. Social asynchronous CMCInterdependence3. ConflictElaboration Main Effects: F(4, 274) = 5.08, p < .01, n2= 0.064. Belongingness& Motivation Post Hoc: Epistemic → FTF > Async5. Achievement Relational → Async > FTF6. TechnologyAcceptance
    23. 23. Results IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Post-controversy belongingness increased in FTF and2. Social interest-value increased in synchronous CMCInterdependence3. Conflict Main Effects:Elaboration F(4, 318) = 11.1, p < .001, n2= .124. Motivation Post Hoc: Post-controversy Belongingness → FTF, Sync > Async Interest-Value → Sync > Async5. Achievement6. Technology
    24. 24. Results IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Completion rates were greater in FTF and2. Social synchronous CMCInterdependence3. ConflictElaboration Completion Rate:4. Motivation FTF & Sync (100%) → Async (59.7%) [Fisher’s exact test; p < .01]5. Achievement6. TechnologyAcceptance
    25. 25. Results IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Evidence was greater in synchronous CMC while2. Social integrative statements were greater in FTFInterdependence3. ConflictElaboration Main Effects: F(6, 152) = 3.54, p < .01, n2= 0.124. Motivation Post Hoc: Evidence → Sync > FTF5. Achievement Integrative Statements → FTF > Async6. TechnologyAcceptance
    26. 26. Results IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Technology acceptance was greater in synchronous2. Social CMCInterdependence3. ConflictElaboration Technology Acceptance: F(1,102) = 8.31, p <.01, n2= 0.07)4. Motivation Sync > Async5. Achievement Task-Technology Fit: No Effect
    27. 27. Summary of Findings IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Initial belongingness had additive effects on constructive2. Social controversy outcomesInterdependence3. Conflict → Initial belongingness buffers but does not offset theElaboration deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC4. Motivation → Asynchronous CMC had deleterious effects on constructive controversy outcomes5. Achievement6. Perceptions ofTechnology
    28. 28. Implications for Practice IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Developing belongingness between students is an2. Social important precondition for promoting cooperation andInterdependence motivation3. ConflictElaboration → Instructors may be able to monitor and enhance students’ cooperative perceptions and epistemic regulation4. Motivation → Varying synchronicity to match the different task demands5. Achievement of constructive controversy may maximize the affordances and minimize the constraints of each6. Perceptions of
    29. 29. Thank You Andy Saltarellisaltarel@msu.eduandysaltarelli.com Chris Glasscrglass@msu.edu
    30. 30. Limitations IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity DV1. Time → Preponderance of women in the sample (73%)2. SocialInterdependence → Generalizability of constructive controversy to other cooperative learning procedures3. ConflictElaboration → Time, frequency of steps4. Motivation → Reliability of achievement measure (α=.41)5. Achievement6. Perceptions ofTechnology
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×