ET4Online 2014 presentation

510 views

Published on

ET4 Online Session: "Effects of Belongingness and Synchronicity on Face-to-face and Online Cooperative Learning"

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
510
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
259
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

ET4Online 2014 presentation

  1. 1. 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 #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  2. 2. The Shoulders of Giants Cary J. Roseth, PhD Associate Professor College of Education | Michigan State University http://croseth.educ.msu.edu/ #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  3. 3. The Shoulders of Giants Lewin JohnsonDeutsch Roseth #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  4. 4. Theory-Research-Practice (Pintrich, 2000; Stokes, 1997) Pasteur’s Quad DBR Bohr’s Quad Pure Basic Edison’s Quad Pure Applied Current Future #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  5. 5. 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: #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  6. 6. 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 #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  7. 7. Why 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 #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  8. 8. Constructive Controversy (Deutsch 1949; Lewin, 1948; Johnson & Johnson, 1998; 2009) #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  9. 9. Are MOOCs a fad? NoYes -Sebastian Thrun is a clairvoyant cyborg from the future, follow or get left behind -They’re giving the whole world access to education, democratizing education -They save universities & students money, accelerate time-to-degree, & foster authentic learning -They’re commercials for elite Western institutions and ideals, educational neocolonialism -They’re expensive time sinks, distracting from the real problems of higher ed -They’re a Silicon Valley play thing…Valleywag, VCs, IPOs, hipsters, elitist cyclists, oh my *barf* -They’ve co-opted and perverted distributed, connected, authentic learning methods -They’re a more efficient way to learn - modular, self-directed alternative credentialing, etc #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  10. 10. 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)
  11. 11. Previous Results In Asynchronous CMC Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓ 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  Educa-onal  Psychology)   #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  12. 12. Why Belongingness? (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Walton et al., 2012) Belongingness Competence Autonomy Innate Needs Self-Regulation Intrinsic Motivation #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  13. 13. Why Belongingness? ! Feeling for an answer #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  14. 14. SYNCHRONICITY BELONGINGNESS Face-­‐To-­‐Face Mild  RejecFonControlAcceptance Synchronous Asynchronous Current Study Design Test Constructive Controversy 3 Synchronicity (FTF, Sync, Async) x 3 Belongingness (Acceptance, Control, Mild Rejection)
  15. 15. Belongingness Manipulation (Romero-Canyas et al., 2010) ! Complete personality profile !
  16. 16. Belongingness Manipulation ! Rank potential partners based on their profile ! !
  17. 17. Belongingness Manipulation! Get paired with partner ! !
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. Asynchronous Scaffold Asynchronous CMC Scaffold: WordPress, BuddyPress ! Procedure: Complete initial belongingness activity ! Dyads complete activity over 6 days
  20. 20. Tracking #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  21. 21. Tracking #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 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 #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  24. 24. 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. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5.Achievement 6.Technology Acceptance Results IV DV
  25. 25. 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. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5.Achievement 6.Technology Acceptance Results IV DV
  26. 26. 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. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5.Achievement 6.Technology Acceptance Results IV DV
  27. 27. 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. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation 5.Achievement 6.Technology Acceptance Results IV DV
  28. 28. 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. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation 5.Achievement 6.Technology Acceptance Results IV DV 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 Acceptance Mild Rejection Control Async FTF Sync MultipleChoiceScore
  29. 29. 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. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV
  30. 30. 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. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5.Achievement 6.Technology Acceptance Results IV DV
  31. 31. 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. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5.Achievement 6.Technology Acceptance Results IV DV
  32. 32. Belongingness Synchronicity 1.Time ! → Epistemic decreased in async → 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. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5.Achievement 6.Technology Acceptance Results IV DV
  33. 33. 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. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation 5.Achievement 6.Technology Acceptance Results IV DV
  34. 34. 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. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation 5.Achievement 6.Technology Acceptance Results IV DV
  35. 35. 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. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation 5.Achievement 6.Technology Acceptance Results IV DV
  36. 36. 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. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation 5.Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology Results IV DV
  37. 37. Summary of Findings Belongingness Met + Cooperative perceptions + Epistemic regulation + Intrinsic motivation + Perceptions of technology Practical Implications Developing belongingness between students is an important precondition for promoting cooperation and motivation #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  38. 38. Summary of Findings Belongingness Met Buffers but does not offset the deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC Practical Implications Instructors may be able to monitor and enhance students’ belongingness, cooperative perceptions, epistemic regulation #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  39. 39. Summary of Findings Belongingness Thwarted Not always deleterious of educational outcomes Practical Implications Compensatory actions may be at play, increasing salience of other may prime deeper cognitive effort Instructors should mess with students and ostracize them #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  40. 40. Summary of Findings Async CMC Had deleterious effects on constructive controversy outcomes Practical Implications Need continual, more robust belongingness interventions ! Varying synchronicity to match the different task demands #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  41. 41. Looking Forward
  42. 42. Looking Forward
  43. 43. Bonus! - Social psychological interventions that scale - Mere belonging (Walton, Cohen et al) - Stereotype Threat (Steele, Aronson et al) -Mindset (Dweck et al) -Purpose (Yeager et al) -Value (Eccles, Hulleman, et al) -Self-control and Self-regulation (Duckworth, Raver et al) -Stanford PERTS #et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong
  44. 44. 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 ! !
  45. 45. Thank You Andy Saltarelli saltarel@stanford.edu Slides: http://bit.ly/ET4-2014-Belong andysaltarelli.com

×