Abstract: Adapting face-to-face (FTF) pedagogies to online settings raises boundary questions about the contextual conditions in which the same instructional method stimulates different outcomes. We address this issue by examining FTF and computer-mediated communication (CMC) versions of constructive controversy, a cooperative learning procedure involving dialogic argumentation and the shared goal of reaching an integrative position. One hundred seventy-one undergraduates were randomly assigned to a 3 (synchron- icity: FTF, synchronous CMC, asynchronous CMC) ﰅ 3 (belongingness: acceptance, mild rejection, control) quasi-experimental design. As predicted, FTF and synchronous CMC conditions increased cooperation, epistemic conflict regulation, motivation (interest-value), and achievement (completion rate, integrative statements), whereas asynchronous CMC increased competition and relational conflict reg- ulation and decreased motivation and achievement. Also as predicted, satisfying belongingness needs (through acceptance) increased cooperation, epistemic conflict regulation, and motivation compared with control. Unexpectedly, there was no evidence that mild rejection diminished outcomes. Results inform theory by demonstrating that FTF and CMC synchronicity represent boundary conditions in which constructive controversy stimulates different social-psychological processes and, in turn, different outcomes. Results also inform practice by showing that synchronicity and belongingness have additive effects on constructive controversy and that satisfying belongingness needs buffers but does not offset the deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC.

1. Effects of Belongingness and Synchronicity on
Face-to-face and Online Constructive
Controversy
Andy J. Saltarelli, PhD
Instructional Designer
Vice Provost for Online Learning
Stanford University
andysaltarelli.com | @ajsalts
Cary J. Roseth, PhD
Associate Professor
College of Education
Michigan State University
http://croseth.educ.msu.edu/

2. 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 CMC conditions?

3. 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

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
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Learn &
Prepare
Opening
Argument
Open
Discussion
Reverse
Positions
Integrative
Agreement
5-step Procedure:

5. 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

6. 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)

7. Previous Results
Test Constructive Controversy
1 FTF x 2 Synchronicity (Sync, Async) x 3 Media (Audio,Video,Text)
(Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011, Journal of Educational Psychology)
Results
In Asynchronous CMC →
Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓

8. Previous Results
In Asynchronous CMC
Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓
(Roseth,
Saltarelli,
&
Glass,
2011;
Journal
of
Educa-onal
Psychology)
Theory: What are the mechanisms by which
asynchronous CMC affects constructive controversy?
!
Practice: Can satisfying belongingness needs ameliorate
the negative effects of asynchronous CMC?
!

9. Belongingness
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Walton et al., 2012)
Belongingness
Competence
Autonomy
Innate Needs
Self-Regulation
Motivation

10. SYNCHRONICITY
BELONGINGNESS
Face-­‐To-­‐Face
Mild
RejecFonControlAcceptance
Synchronous Asynchronous
Current Study
Test Constructive Controversy
3 Synchronicity (FTF, Sync, Async) x 3 Belongingness (Acceptance, Control, Mild Rejection)
(Saltarelli
&
Roseth,
in
press,
Journal
of
Educa-on
Psychology).

11. Belongingness Manipulation
(Romero-Canyas et al., 2010)
!
Complete personality profile
!

12. Belongingness Manipulation
!
Rank potential partners based on their profile
!
!

13. Belongingness Manipulation!
Partner pairing

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. Asynchronous Scaffold
Asynchronous CMC Scaffold:
WordPress, BuddyPress
!
Procedure:
Complete initial
belongingness activity
!
Dyads complete activity
over 6 days

16. 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

17. Explanation
1. CMC Theories
Why should we test multiple theories?
!
!
1) Explanation for why CMC affects constructive controversy is likely
multiply determined.
!
2) May reveal ‘boundary conditions’ between extant theories.
3) May reveal how theories relate to each other and can be
integrated.
!
!
!
2. Social
Interdependence
Theory
3. Sociocognitive
Conflict Theory
4. Belongingness
Theories
Theory
Theory

18. 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

19. 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. Sociocognitive
Conflict
4. Belongingness
& Motivation
5.Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
Results
IV
DV

20. 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. Sociocognitive
Conflict
4. Belongingness
& Motivation
5.Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
Results
IV
DV

21. 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. Sociocognitive
Conflict
4. Belongingness
& Motivation
5.Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
Results
IV
DV

22. 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. Sociocognitive
Conflict
4. Motivation
5.Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
Results
IV
DV

23. 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. Sociocognitive
Conflict
4. Motivation
5.Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
Results
IV
DV
1.7
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
Acceptance Mild Rejection Control
Async
FTF
Sync
MultipleChoiceScore

24. 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. Sociocognitive
Conflict
4. Motivation
5.Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
Results
IV
DV

25. 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. Sociocognitive
Conflict
4. Belongingness
& Motivation
5.Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
Results
IV
DV

26. 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. Sociocognitive
Conflict
4. Belongingness
& Motivation
5.Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
Results
IV
DV

27. Belongingness Synchronicity
1.Time
!
→ Epistemic decreased and 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. Sociocognitive
Conflict
4. Belongingness
& Motivation
5.Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
Results
IV
DV

28. 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. Sociocognitive
Conflict
4. Motivation
5.Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
Results
IV
DV

29. 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. Sociocognitive
Conflict
4. Motivation
5.Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
Results
IV
DV

30. 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. Sociocognitive
Conflict
4. Motivation
5.Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
Results
IV
DV

31. 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. Sociocognitive
Conflict
4. Motivation
5.Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
Results
IV
DV

32. Summary of Findings
Async
CMC
▲Competitive perceptions
▲Relational conflict
Led to…
▼Motivation
▼Achievement
FTF and Sync
CMC
▲Cooperative perceptions
▲Epistemic regulation
Let to…
▼Motivation
▼Achievement

33. Summary of Findings
Belongingness
Met
▲Cooperative perceptions
▲Epistemic regulation
▲Intrinsic motivation
▲ Perceptions of technology
Buffers but does not offset
the deleterious effects of
asynchronous CMC
Belongingness
Thwarted
Not always deleterious of
educational outcomes

34. Implications for Theory
→Validates both SIT and SCT in identifying social psychological
mechanisms that lead to constructive controversy outcomes
!
→ But SIT and SCT may need may need to be integrated to
the extent that each plays a functional role in the other
!
→Validates belongingness theories and is first causal evidence
of acceptance on SIT and SCT

35. Implications for Practice
→ Satisfying belongingness needs can promote cooperation
and motivation (especially in online settings)
!
→ Instructors may be able to monitor and enhance students’
cooperative perceptions and epistemic regulation
!
→Varying synchronicity to match the different task demands
of constructive controversy may maximize the affordances
and minimize the constraints of each

36. Looking Forward

37. Looking Forward

38. Thank You
Cary J. Roseth, PhD
http://croseth.educ.msu.edu/
croseth@msu.edu
Andy Saltarelli, PhD
andysaltarelli.com
saltarel@stanford.edu
@ajsalts