Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Pod 2013 presentation

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

Check these out next

1 of 40 Ad
Advertisement

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Pod 2013 presentation (20)

Advertisement

More from Andy Saltarelli (16)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

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

×