Pod 2013 presentation

374 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
374
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
109
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Pod 2013 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
  2. 2. Game Plan Talk a Little Theory-Research-Practice ! Share Results of Two Studies ! Make Some Preliminary Applications ! Share What’s Next
  3. 3. Theory-Research-Practice (i.e., Managing Expectations) Basic Research Design-based Research Current Practice Future
  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 5-step Procedure: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Learn & Prepare Opening Argument Open Discussion Reverse Positions Integrative Agreement
  5. 5. Why Constructive Controversy? 40 Years of Research — Meta-Analysis (Johnson & Johnson, 2009) ! In face-to-face settings (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
  6. 6. Previous Study Test Constructive Controversy 1 FTF x 2 Synchronicity (Sync, Async) x 3 Media (Audio,Video, Text) SYNCHRONICITY Audio Text MEDIA  RICHNESS Face-­‐To-­‐Face Asynchronous Video Synchronous 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.  
  7. 7. Previous Results (Roseth,  Saltarelli,  &  Glass,  2011;  Journal  of  EducaConal  Psychology)   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?
  8. 8. Why Belongingness? (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008) Innate Needs Belongingness Competence Autonomy Self-Regulation Intrinsic Motivation
  9. 9. Why Belongingness? ! Feeling for an answer
  10. 10. Current Study Design Test Constructive Controversy 3 Synchronicity (FTF, Sync, Async) x 3 Belongingness (Acceptance, Control, Mild Rejection) SYNCHRONICITY Mild  RejecFon Control Acceptance BELONGINGNESS Face-­‐To-­‐Face Synchronous Asynchronous
  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 ! Get paired with partner ! !
  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. Tracking
  17. 17. Tracking
  18. 18. Dependent Variables DV 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 (7items, 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 (2items, α=.94)
  19. 19. 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 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
  20. 20. Results DV IV 1. Time 2. Social Interdependence 3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5. Achievement 6. Technology Acceptance Belongingness Synchronicity ! → Acceptance spent and preferred more time on the activity ! Main Effect: F(4, 322) = 2.82, p = .02, n2= 0.03 ! Post Hoc: Time Spent →Acceptance > Mild Rejection, Control ! Time Preferred → Acceptance > Mild Rejection, Control
  21. 21. Results DV IV 1. Time Belongingness ! → Acceptance increased cooperative perceptions 2. Social Interdependence 3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation ! 5. Achievement 6. Technology Acceptance Synchronicity ! Main Effects: F(6, 320) = 2.46, p = .02, n2= 0.04 ! Post Hoc: Cooperative → Acceptance > Control !
  22. 22. Results DV IV 1. Time 2. Social Interdependence Belongingness ! → Acceptance increased epistemic regulation ! Main Effects: F(4, 274) = 2.51, p = .04, n2= 0.03 3. Conflict Elaboration ! Post Hoc: Epistemic → Acceptance > Control 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5. Achievement 6. Technology Acceptance Synchronicity ! !
  23. 23. Results DV IV 1. Time Belongingness ! → Acceptance increased intrinsic motivation 2. Social Interdependence ! ! Main Effects: F(4, 318) = 3.19, p = .01, n2= 0.03 3. Conflict Elaboration ! Post Hoc: Relatedness →Acceptance > Control, Mild Rejection Interest-Value → Acceptance > Control 4. Motivation 5. Achievement ! 6. Technology Acceptance Synchronicity !
  24. 24. Results 1. Time 2. Social Interdependence 3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation 5. Achievement 6. Technology Acceptance Belongingness Synchronicity → Under mild rejection multiple-choice scores increased more under asynchronous compared to FTF and synchronous Interaction Effect: F(2,162) = 3.19, p =.01, n2= 0.07 ! 2.8 Multiple Choice Score DV IV Async FTF Sync 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.7 Acceptance Mild Rejection Control
  25. 25. Results DV IV 1. Time Belongingness Synchronicity ! → Acceptance increased task-technology fit ! 2. Social Interdependence 3. Conflict Elaboration ! Technology Acceptance: No Effect ! ! 4. Motivation 5. Achievement ! 6. Perceptions of Technology ! ! Task-Technology Fit: F(2,83) = 3.11, p = .05, n2= 0.07 Acceptance > Control !
  26. 26. Results DV IV 1. Time 2. Social Interdependence 3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5. Achievement 6. Technology Acceptance Belongingness Synchronicity ! → Asynchronous CMC spent more and wanted less time ! Main Effect: F(4, 322) = 26.21, p < .01, n2= 0.24 ! Post Hoc: Spent → Async > FTF, Sync ! Preferred → Sync > Async, FTF !
  27. 27. Results DV IV 1. Time 2. Social Interdependence 3. Conflict Elaboration Belongingness ! → Cooperation was greater in FTF → Competitive & individualistic increased in asynchronous CMC ! Main Effects: F(6, 320) = 6.80, p < .01, n2= 0.11 4. Belongingness & Motivation ! Post Hoc: Cooperative → FTF > Async Competitive → Async > FTF Individualistic →Async > FTF, Sync 5. Achievement 6. Technology Acceptance Synchronicity !
  28. 28. Results DV IV 1. Time Belongingness ! → Epistemic was greater in FTF → Relational increased in asynchronous CMC 2. Social Interdependence ! 3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5. Achievement 6. Technology Acceptance Synchronicity ! Main Effects: F(4, 274) = 5.08, p < .01, n2= 0.06 ! Post Hoc: Epistemic → FTF > Async Relational → Async > FTF !
  29. 29. Results DV IV 1. Time Belongingness ! → Interest & value was greater in synchronous versus asynchronous CMC 2. Social Interdependence ! 3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation 5. Achievement ! 6. Technology Acceptance Synchronicity Main Effects: F(4, 318) = 11.1, p < .001, n2= .12 ! Post Hoc: Post-controversy Belongingness → FTF, Sync > Async Interest-Value → Sync > Async ! ! !
  30. 30. Results DV IV 1. Time 2. Social Interdependence 3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation Belongingness ! → Completion rates were greater in FTF and synchronous CMC 6. Technology Acceptance ! ! Completion Rate: FTF & Sync (100%) → Async (59.7%) [Fisher’s exact test; p < .01] ! 5. Achievement Synchronicity
  31. 31. Results DV IV 1. Time 2. Social Interdependence Belongingness ! → Integrative statements were greater in FTF versus asynchronous CMC ! ! 3. Conflict Elaboration Main Effects: F(6, 152) = 3.54, p < .01, n2= 0.12 ! 4. Motivation Post Hoc: Evidence → Sync > FTF Integrative Statements → FTF > Async 5. Achievement 6. Technology Acceptance Synchronicity !
  32. 32. Results DV IV 1. Time Belongingness Synchronicity ! → Technology acceptance was greater in synchronous CMC 2. Social Interdependence ! ! 3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation Technology Acceptance: F(1,102) = 8.31, p <.01, n2= 0.07) ! Sync > Async ! 5. Achievement ! 6. Perceptions of Technology Task-Technology Fit: No Effect !
  33. 33. Summary of Findings DV IV 1. Time 2. Social Interdependence 3. Conflict Elaboration Belongingness Synchronicity ! → Positive main effects of belongingness on cooperative perceptions, epistemic regulation, intrinsic motivation, & perceptions of technology ! →Belongingness buffers but does not offset the deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC 4. Motivation ! 5. Achievement → Asynchronous CMC had deleterious effects on constructive controversy outcomes 6. Perceptions of Technology !
  34. 34. Implications for Practice DV IV 1. Time 2. Social Interdependence 3. Conflict Elaboration Belongingness Synchronicity ! → Developing belongingness between students is an important precondition for promoting cooperation and motivation ! → Instructors may be able to monitor and enhance students’ cooperative perceptions and epistemic regulation 4. Motivation ! 5. Achievement → Varying synchronicity to match the different task demands of constructive controversy may maximize the affordances and minimize the constraints of each 6. Perceptions of Technology ! !
  35. 35. Looking Forward
  36. 36. Bonus! How to leverage belongingness at scale? ! Mere belonging - “a minimal social connection” (Walton et al., 2011) Perception that course will have collaborative social interactions Shared birthday with peer role model Shared esoteric preferences (e.g., music) with a peer learner Motivation & Persistence
  37. 37. 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 ! !
  38. 38. Thank You Andy Saltarelli saltarel@stanford.edu Slides: http://bit.ly/cc-pod-2013 andysaltarelli.com

×