Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

CMC, Cooperative Learning, Motivation, & Achievement

903 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

×