APA 2014 presentation

1. Eﬀects of Belongingness and Synchronicity on Face-to-face and Online Constructive Controversy Andy J. Saltarelli, PhD Instructional Designer Vice Provost for Online Learning Stanford University andysaltarelli.com | @ajsalts Cary J. Roseth, PhD Associate Professor College of Education Michigan State University http://croseth.educ.msu.edu/

2. Does adapting face-to-face (FTF) pedagogies to online settings raise ‘boundary questions’ about whether the same pedagogy stimulates different psychological processes under FTF and CMC conditions?

3. 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

4. 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:

5. Constructive Controversy 40Years 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

6. 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. MEDIA RICHNESS SYNCHRONICITY Face-‐To-‐Face VideoAudioText Synchronous Asynchronous Previous Study Test Constructive Controversy 1 FTF x 2 Synchronicity (Sync, Async) x 3 Media (Audio,Video,Text)

7. Previous Results Test Constructive Controversy 1 FTF x 2 Synchronicity (Sync, Async) x 3 Media (Audio,Video,Text) (Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011, Journal of Educational Psychology) Results In Asynchronous CMC → Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓

8. Previous Results In Asynchronous CMC Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓ (Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011; Journal of Educa-onal Psychology) Theory: What are the mechanisms by which asynchronous CMC affects constructive controversy? ! Practice: Can satisfying belongingness needs ameliorate the negative effects of asynchronous CMC? !

9. Belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Walton et al., 2012) Belongingness Competence Autonomy Innate Needs Self-Regulation Motivation

10. SYNCHRONICITY BELONGINGNESS Face-‐To-‐Face Mild RejecFonControlAcceptance Synchronous Asynchronous Current Study Test Constructive Controversy 3 Synchronicity (FTF, Sync, Async) x 3 Belongingness (Acceptance, Control, Mild Rejection) (Saltarelli & Roseth, in press, Journal of Educa-on Psychology).

11. Belongingness Manipulation (Romero-Canyas et al., 2010) ! Complete personality profile !

12. Belongingness Manipulation ! Rank potential partners based on their profile ! !

13. Belongingness Manipulation! Partner pairing

14. Synchronous Scaﬀold Synchronous CMC Scaﬀold: WordPress, Google DocsTM Integrated text-based chat ! Procedure: Complete initial belongingness activity ! Dyads complete activity over 70 min. class period

15. Asynchronous Scaﬀold Asynchronous CMC Scaﬀold: WordPress, BuddyPress ! Procedure: Complete initial belongingness activity ! Dyads complete activity over 6 days

16. 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.Achievement Multiple-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

17. 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. Sociocognitive Conﬂict Theory 4. Belongingness Theories Theory Theory

18. 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 Acceptance Mild Rejection Control Acceptance Mild Rejection Control Acceptance 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

19. 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. Sociocognitive Conﬂict 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV

20. 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. Sociocognitive Conﬂict 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV

21. 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. Sociocognitive Conﬂict 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV

22. 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. Sociocognitive Conﬂict 4. Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV

23. 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. Sociocognitive Conﬂict 4. Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 Acceptance Mild Rejection Control Async FTF Sync MultipleChoiceScore

24. 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. Sociocognitive Conﬂict 4. Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV

25. 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. Sociocognitive Conﬂict 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV

26. 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. Sociocognitive Conﬂict 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV

27. Belongingness Synchronicity 1.Time ! → Epistemic decreased and 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. Sociocognitive Conﬂict 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV

28. 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. Sociocognitive Conﬂict 4. Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV

29. 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. Sociocognitive Conﬂict 4. Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV

30. 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. Sociocognitive Conﬂict 4. Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV

31. 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. Sociocognitive Conﬂict 4. Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV

32. Summary of Findings Async CMC ▲Competitive perceptions ▲Relational conﬂict Led to… ▼Motivation ▼Achievement FTF and Sync CMC ▲Cooperative perceptions ▲Epistemic regulation Let to… ▼Motivation ▼Achievement

33. Summary of Findings Belongingness Met ▲Cooperative perceptions ▲Epistemic regulation ▲Intrinsic motivation ▲ Perceptions of technology Buffers but does not offset the deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC Belongingness Thwarted Not always deleterious of educational outcomes

34. Implications for Theory →Validates both SIT and SCT in identifying social psychological mechanisms that lead to constructive controversy outcomes ! → But SIT and SCT may need may need to be integrated to the extent that each plays a functional role in the other ! →Validates belongingness theories and is ﬁrst causal evidence of acceptance on SIT and SCT

35. Implications for Practice → Satisfying belongingness needs can promote cooperation and motivation (especially in online settings) ! → 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

36. Looking Forward

37. Looking Forward

38. Thank You Cary J. Roseth, PhD http://croseth.educ.msu.edu/ croseth@msu.edu Andy Saltarelli, PhD andysaltarelli.com saltarel@stanford.edu @ajsalts

APA 2014 presentation

You are reading a preview.

Check these out next

APA 2014 presentation

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to APA 2014 presentation (20)

More from Andy Saltarelli (15)

Recently uploaded (20)