This study examined the effects of belongingness and synchronicity on cooperative learning. 171 students participated in constructive controversy discussions either face-to-face, synchronously online, or asynchronously online. They also received manipulations of belongingness (acceptance, mild rejection, control). Results showed that initial belongingness had positive effects on cooperation, motivation and technology perceptions. However, belongingness did not fully offset the negative effects of asynchronous discussions, which had poorer outcomes than face-to-face or synchronous discussions. The findings suggest belongingness is important but synchronicity also significantly impacts cooperative learning.

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

3. Game Plan
Talk a Little Theory-Research-Practice
!
Share Results of Two Studies
!
Make Some Preliminary Applications
!
Share What’s Next

4. Theory-Research-Practice
(i.e., Managing Expectations)
Basic
Research
Design-based
Research
Current
Practice
Future

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

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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?

9. Why Belongingness?
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008)
Innate Needs
Belongingness
Competence
Autonomy
Self-Regulation
Intrinsic Motivation

10. Why Belongingness?
!
Feeling for an answer

11. 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

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

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

14. Belongingness Manipulation
!
Get paired with partner
!
!

15. 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

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

17. Tracking

18. Tracking

19. 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)

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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
!

23. 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
!
!

24. 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
!

25. 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

26. 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
!

27. 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
!

28. 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
!

29. 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
!

30. 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
!
!
!

31. 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

32. 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
!

33. 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
!

34. 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
!

35. 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
!
!

36. Looking Forward

37. 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

39. 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
!
!

40. Thank You
Andy Saltarelli
saltarel@stanford.edu
Slides: http://bit.ly/cc-pod-2013
andysaltarelli.com