Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

APA 2014 presentation

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Upcoming SlideShare
ET4Online 2014 presentation
ET4Online 2014 presentation
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 38 Ad

APA 2014 presentation

Download to read offline

Abstract: Adapting face-to-face (FTF) pedagogies to online settings raises boundary questions about the contextual conditions in which the same instructional method stimulates different outcomes. We address this issue by examining FTF and computer-mediated communication (CMC) versions of constructive controversy, a cooperative learning procedure involving dialogic argumentation and the shared goal of reaching an integrative position. One hundred seventy-one undergraduates were randomly assigned to a 3 (synchron- icity: FTF, synchronous CMC, asynchronous CMC) ﰅ 3 (belongingness: acceptance, mild rejection, control) quasi-experimental design. As predicted, FTF and synchronous CMC conditions increased cooperation, epistemic conflict regulation, motivation (interest-value), and achievement (completion rate, integrative statements), whereas asynchronous CMC increased competition and relational conflict reg- ulation and decreased motivation and achievement. Also as predicted, satisfying belongingness needs (through acceptance) increased cooperation, epistemic conflict regulation, and motivation compared with control. Unexpectedly, there was no evidence that mild rejection diminished outcomes. Results inform theory by demonstrating that FTF and CMC synchronicity represent boundary conditions in which constructive controversy stimulates different social-psychological processes and, in turn, different outcomes. Results also inform practice by showing that synchronicity and belongingness have additive effects on constructive controversy and that satisfying belongingness needs buffers but does not offset the deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC.

Abstract: Adapting face-to-face (FTF) pedagogies to online settings raises boundary questions about the contextual conditions in which the same instructional method stimulates different outcomes. We address this issue by examining FTF and computer-mediated communication (CMC) versions of constructive controversy, a cooperative learning procedure involving dialogic argumentation and the shared goal of reaching an integrative position. One hundred seventy-one undergraduates were randomly assigned to a 3 (synchron- icity: FTF, synchronous CMC, asynchronous CMC) ﰅ 3 (belongingness: acceptance, mild rejection, control) quasi-experimental design. As predicted, FTF and synchronous CMC conditions increased cooperation, epistemic conflict regulation, motivation (interest-value), and achievement (completion rate, integrative statements), whereas asynchronous CMC increased competition and relational conflict reg- ulation and decreased motivation and achievement. Also as predicted, satisfying belongingness needs (through acceptance) increased cooperation, epistemic conflict regulation, and motivation compared with control. Unexpectedly, there was no evidence that mild rejection diminished outcomes. Results inform theory by demonstrating that FTF and CMC synchronicity represent boundary conditions in which constructive controversy stimulates different social-psychological processes and, in turn, different outcomes. Results also inform practice by showing that synchronicity and belongingness have additive effects on constructive controversy and that satisfying belongingness needs buffers but does not offset the deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC.

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to APA 2014 presentation (20)

Advertisement
Advertisement

APA 2014 presentation

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 9. Belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Walton et al., 2012) Belongingness Competence Autonomy Innate Needs Self-Regulation Motivation
  10. 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. 11. Belongingness Manipulation (Romero-Canyas et al., 2010) ! Complete personality profile !
  12. 12. Belongingness Manipulation ! Rank potential partners based on their profile ! !
  13. 13. Belongingness Manipulation! Partner pairing
  14. 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. 15. Asynchronous Scaffold Asynchronous CMC Scaffold: WordPress, BuddyPress ! Procedure: Complete initial belongingness activity ! Dyads complete activity over 6 days
  16. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 36. Looking Forward
  37. 37. Looking Forward
  38. 38. Thank You Cary J. Roseth, PhD http://croseth.educ.msu.edu/ croseth@msu.edu Andy Saltarelli, PhD andysaltarelli.com saltarel@stanford.edu @ajsalts

×