Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

A Walk Around Pasteur's Quadrant

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad

Check these out next

1 of 45 Ad

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to A Walk Around Pasteur's Quadrant (20)

Advertisement

More from Andy Saltarelli (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

A Walk Around Pasteur's Quadrant

  1. 1. Andy J. Saltarelli, PhD andysaltarelli.com A Walk Around Pasteur’s Quadrant: Diverse Approaches to Investigating the Effects of Social Context on Educational Outcomes
  2. 2. Background
  3. 3. Human Development Educational Psychology Educational Technology
  4. 4. “It seems clear to me that we are well past the quantitative– qualitative debate and more concerned with issues of providing good, valid, and reliable evidence to support our inferences and conceptual models, regardless of the nature of the general methodology.” ~ Pintrich, 2000, p. 223
  5. 5. Goal of Usefulness Goal of Scientific Understanding YesNo Yes No Basic Research (Bohr) Use-inspired basic research (Pasteur) Pure applied research (Edison) Pasteur’s Quadrant (Pintrich, 2000; Stokes, 1997)
  6. 6. Goal of Usefulness Goal of Scientific Understanding YesNo Yes No Lost Boys Online Cooperatio n Multimedia Learning MOOC Faculty MOOC Learners
  7. 7. Research
  8. 8. Research Lost Boys of Sudan
  9. 9. Existential-phenomenological inquiry (Gilgun, 2005; Giorgi & Giorgi, 2003) Followed 19 youth over 7 years after being resettled in US Multiple semi-structured interviews with youth, foster parents, and social workers Lost Boys of Sudan
  10. 10. Cultural creation combining the good parts of American culture with the good parts of native Sudanese culture “I’ve become like a hybrid between here, two cultures you know and these two cultures make me, I’m making good thing out of it.” Lost Boys of Sudan (Qin, Saltarelli, et al., 2014, Journal of Adolescent Research) “Cultural appropriation”, integrative adaptation
  11. 11. 19 HS diplomas, 7 bachelor’s, 10 community college, 4 master’s “Every single one of us has to go to college because we need to go back and help.” “Education is my mother and education is my father” (Chanoff, 2005) Lost Boys of Sudan (Rana…Saltarelli, 2011, Teachers College Record) Educational resilience
  12. 12. Research Effects of Belongingness and Synchronicity on Face-to-face and Online Cooperative Learning
  13. 13. 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 online conditions?
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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:
  16. 16. Constructive Controversy 40 Years 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
  17. 17. MEDIARICHNESS SYNCHRONICITY Face-To-Face VideoAudioText Synchronous Asynchronous Online Constructive Controversy Test Constructive Controversy 1 FTF x 2 Synchronicity (Sync, Async) x 3 Media (Audio, Video, Text) (Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass 2011, Journal of Education Psychology).
  18. 18. Previous Results (Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011; Journal of Educational Psychology) In Asynchronous CMC Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Belongingness↓ Theory: What are the mechanisms by which asynchronous CMC affects constructive controversy? Practice: Can satisfying belongingness needs ameliorate the negative effects of asynchronous CMC?
  19. 19. Belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Walton et al., 2012) Innate Needs Competence Belongingness Autonomy Self-Regulation Motivation
  20. 20. SYNCHRONICITY Face-To-Face Synchronous Asynchronous Belongingness Test Constructive Controversy 3 Synchronicity (FTF, Sync, Async) x 3 Belongingness (Acceptance, Control, Mild Rejection) (Saltarelli & Roseth, 2014, Journal of Education Psychology).
  21. 21. Belongingness Manipulation (Romero-Canyas et al., 2010) Complete personality profile
  22. 22. Belongingness Manipulation Rank potential partners based on profile
  23. 23. Belongingness Manipulation Partner pairing
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. Asynchronous Scaffold Asynchronous CMC Scaffold: - Custom WordPress, BuddyPress Procedure: - Complete initial belongingness activity - Dyads complete activity over 6 days
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. Summary of Findings Async CMC FTF and Sync CMC ▲ Cooperative perceptions ▲ Epistemic conflict Led to… ▲ Motiv ▲ Achievement ▲ Competitive perceptions ▲ Relational conflict Led to… ▼Motivation
  28. 28. Summary of Findings Belongingnes s Met ▲Cooperative perceptions ▲ Epistemic regulation ▲ Intrinsic motivation ▲ Perceptions of technology Buffers but does not offset the deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC
  29. 29. Implications for Practice ▲ Satisfying belongingness needs can promote cooperation and motivation in online contexts ▲ Instructors may be able to monitor and enhance cooperative perceptions and epistemic regulation ▲ Varying synchronicity to match task demands may maximize affordances and minimize constraints
  30. 30. Looking Forward & DBR
  31. 31. Looking Forward & DBR
  32. 32. Looking Forward & DBR
  33. 33. Research Psychological Interventions Close Global Participation Gaps in Online Learning
  34. 34. Reasoning together http://lytics.stanford.edu/ Computer Science Learning Science EDM LAK L@S Sociology Social Psychology Sociology Design “We engage in use-driven research and data-driven de
  35. 35. Data does not speak for itself. Rather, people must actively make meaning of the data… interpretation is a central part of the data use process…noticing, interpreting, and constructing implications for action— are shaped by individual beliefs, knowledge, and motivation and are influenced by the nature and patterns of social interaction
  36. 36. MOCs may eye the world market, but does the world want them? Global Participation Gap 16 MOOCs (N~ 67,000): - 50% less persistence (Kizilcec & Halawa, in press ) Previous run of course (N= 41,186): - 50% less video lectures watched - 40% less likely to take assessments Current self-paced version (N = 60,000 enrolled, 4,562 did intervention) - 75% less video lectures watched - 82% less likely to take assessments Why? - Language Barriers - Access to Technology (Kizilcec, Saltarelli, & Cohen, Under Review, PNAS) Western (Europe, Oceania, and Northern America) v. Non- Western (Africa, Asia, and Latin America)
  37. 37. MOOCs may eye the world market, but does the world want them?
  38. 38. Social Belonging & Identity Threat to belongingness (Walton et al., 2014) Threat to identity (Cohen et al., 2006, 2009, 2014; Steele, 1988) Cultural mismatch (Harackiewicz et al., 2014; Stephens et al.,
  39. 39. Social Belonging & Identity "I didn’t go to a very good university, and I worried that my previous courses had not prepared me well for this online course. Honestly, when I first enrolled, I thought the instructor was a bit scary. I thought the grading was critical and hard, and I worried about whether other students would respect me. I was nervous about writing on the discussion forum and I didn’t want to ask people for help with quizzes. ~ Tom
  40. 40. Psychological Interventions Intervention embedded in course survey N = 4,562 Study Tips Self-Affirmation Social Belonging 1. Read Quotes 2. Write reflection 3. Write letter 1. Choose key values 2. Write reflection 3. Write letter 1. Read Quotes 2. Write reflection 3. Write letter Perceived Beneficiary Self Other Self Other Self Other
  41. 41. Results Gaps completely closed by… - Belongingness intervention if peer recipient ▲ 73% videos watched (gap: z = 0.98, P = 0.33) - Self-affirmation intervention if self recipient ▲ 55% videos watch (gap: z = 0.85, P = 0.39) ▲ 100% assessments taken (gap: z = -0.72, P = 0.47) No statistically significant effect on Western learners
  42. 42. Research “My Goal Is To Surf It, Not Just Stand There”: Professors’ Sensemaking Strategies in University Open Online Learning Initiatives
  43. 43. Method ▲ Three-part semi-structured interviews with 16 MOOC faculty ▲ Grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 1994, 2007, 2014) ▲Emotion and metaphorical language codes (Plutchik, 2011) Sensemaking explores the social contexts in which meaning is constructed; it is grounded in multiple dimensions of a person’s identity; it emphasizes retrospective meaning-making of events, choices, and
  44. 44. Preliminary Results ▲ Incredible diversity of motivations, 13 distinct codes ▲ Role soft infrastructure – institutional values, affirmations, ethos of intellectual generosity ▲ Expressions of agency and joy, cf. rhetoric of disruption and unbunlding (Carey, 2015; Christensen & Weise, 2014) “And that is so empowering. It's such a great feeling to be in a place where you can have a new idea and somebody will support you in the exploration of that
  45. 45. ▲ Lost Boys – give voice to and understand lived experience, qualitative phenomenology ▲ Online Cooperation – theory testing and design- based research in authentic setting, quantitative experimental-control ▲MOOC Learners/Gaps – leverage big-er data, experimental-control, scale “wise” interventions ▲MOOC Faculty – give voice to, action research, program evaluation, qualitative grounded theory Summary

Editor's Notes

  • Positivist, post positivist, qualitative induction and experimental-control deduction
  • Human Development – Tom Luster, Bronfenbrenner, ecological systems, biopsychsocial, human services working with at-risk youth, take them out of current context see glimpses of who they really were and could become and then put them right back into a family and it all falls apart

    Ed Psy

    Online environments are entirely new contexts within which to test theory and research on person-environment interactions that affect learning, the social psychological – how online technologies affect the underlying social psychological processes that affect learning

    Ways we can intervene and help
  • Like pintrich, I take a pragmatic view

    Heart attack - 2003, age 49 while on a bike
    Epistomological beliefs – Kuhn (1999, 2000) – absolutist, multiplist, evaluativist (coordinate objective and subjective
    Dualism to relativism – Marcia

    Develop greater depth sophistication with regard to their epistomological beliefs, they way they evaluation knowledge, and truth

    Social context is by definition multidimensional, answers multidetermined, will

    Plus, education is an ill-structured domain, where preconceived


  • There is space for data miners, artificial intelligence and cognitive tutors, sociologist
  • Cary’s story of doing CC online for the first time.
  • Yes, Cal vs Stanford
  • Affective domain matters, social presence, communities of inquiry
  • Andy - 03:15 - 03:30

    Before starting the constructive controversy procedure, initial belongingness was manipulated by using a partner pairing activity.
    First, students completely a personality profile and were told results would be sent to potential partners to rank on whom they would like to work with on the constructive controversy.
    Second, students were presented with bogus results from other students and ranked who they wanted to work with.

    Students then were give bogus feedback on why their partner chose them. Some received a message saying they were their partner’s first choice (acceptance), others that they were their partner’s last choice (mild rejection), and final some were give a simple message saying they’d been paired with a partner (control).
  • Andy - 03:15 - 03:30

    Before starting the constructive controversy procedure, initial belongingness was manipulated by using a partner pairing activity.
    First, students completely a personality profile and were told results would be sent to potential partners to rank on whom they would like to work with on the constructive controversy.
    Second, students were presented with bogus results from other students and ranked who they wanted to work with.

    Students then were give bogus feedback on why their partner chose them. Some received a message saying they were their partner’s first choice (acceptance), others that they were their partner’s last choice (mild rejection), and final some were give a simple message saying they’d been paired with a partner (control).
  • Andy - 03:15 - 03:30

    Before starting the constructive controversy procedure, initial belongingness was manipulated by using a partner pairing activity.
    First, students completely a personality profile and were told results would be sent to potential partners to rank on whom they would like to work with on the constructive controversy.
    Second, students were presented with bogus results from other students and ranked who they wanted to work with.

    Students then were give bogus feedback on why their partner chose them. Some received a message saying they were their partner’s first choice (acceptance), others that they were their partner’s last choice (mild rejection), and final some were give a simple message saying they’d been paired with a partner (control).

  • Synchronous constructive controversy mirrored exactly the FTF procedure except students where in separate classrooms and interacted via a co-editable Google Docs activity scaffold and communicated via the integrated text-based CMC chat in Google Docs.
  • Andy - 03:45 - 04:00

    Synchronous constructive controversy mirrored exactly the synchronous procedure except students completed the 5 steps over 6 days and used the a modified WordPress web scaffold with a BuddyPress plugin and custom PHP to interact with their partner. You can see in this picture that there were boxes for each student to share their response each day of the activity.

  • Post activity survey
  • Design-based research… have some theory to test, but also just intuitive notions of what might enhance social presence, provide social cues like other social networks, can still manipulate these.
  • Build system, open source, offer to instructors soon
  • Different pieces of paper to show objective and then show the video video
  • Community of practice

    There is space for data miners and learning analytics, artificial intelligence and cognitive tutors, sociologists, designers/practicioners, social psychologists bring

    Let’s we’re looking at data from 30,000 forum posts
    Learning analytics person might be seeing correlations, social psychologist might say they’re just fishing in the data exhaust neglecting extant theory, computer scientist might want to apply natural language processing or develop algorithms for dropout prediction, learning scientist might go for discourse analysis or examine more closely patterns of distributed cognition or non-cognitive
  • Community of practice

    There is space for data miners and learning analytics, artificial intelligence and cognitive tutors, sociologists, designers/practicioners, social psychologists bring

    Let’s we’re looking at data from 30,000 forum posts
    Learning analytics person might be seeing correlations, social psychologist might say they’re just fishing in the data exhaust neglecting extant theory, computer scientist might want to apply natural language processing or develop algorithms for dropout prediction, learning scientist might go for discourse analysis or examine more closely patterns of distributed cognition or non-cognitive
  • Bombastic rhetoric of MOOCs to democratize education, provide access to all, completely disrupt higher education… unsurprisingly, this promise hasn’t been realized, in fact MOOCs are more likely just perpetuating gaps between haves and have nots, already privileged with access to high quality education and social mobility are the ones engaging the most and getting the most out of these courses, many have begun to look at how priviledge and the associated Western values may influence non-Western learners and affect engagement and achievement
  • Ivory tower and presumptuous to boot
  • Scale up interventions … wise interventions
  • As opposed to empirical approach, with logical steps of decision making
  • As opposed to empirical approach, with logical

×