ET4Online 2014 presentation

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

#et4online56527 #et4onlinebelong

The Shoulders of Giants
Cary J. Roseth, PhD

Associate Professor

College of Education | Michigan State University

http://croseth.educ.msu.edu/

The Shoulders of Giants
Lewin JohnsonDeutsch Roseth

Theory-Research-Practice
(Pintrich, 2000; Stokes, 1997)
Pasteur’s Quad
DBR
Bohr’s Quad
Pure Basic
Edison’s Quad
Pure Applied
Current Future

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:

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

Why Constructive Controversy?
40Years of Research — Meta-Analysis

(Johnson & Johnson, 2009)
(ES = Mean Effect
Sizes)
v. Debate
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

(Deutsch 1949; Lewin, 1948; Johnson & Johnson, 1998; 2009)

Are MOOCs a fad?
NoYes
-Sebastian Thrun is a clairvoyant
cyborg from the future, follow or
get left behind
-They’re giving the whole world
access to education,
democratizing education
-They save universities & students
money, accelerate time-to-degree,
& foster authentic learning
-They’re commercials for elite
Western institutions and ideals,
educational neocolonialism
-They’re expensive time sinks,
distracting from the real problems
of higher ed
-They’re a Silicon Valley play
thing…Valleywag, VCs, IPOs,
hipsters, elitist cyclists, oh my
*barf*
-They’ve co-opted and perverted
distributed, connected, authentic
learning methods
-They’re a more eﬀicient way to
learn - modular, self-directed
alternative credentialing, etc

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)

Previous Results
In Asynchronous CMC

Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓
1) Why does asynchronous CMC affect constructive
controversy?

2) Can initial belongingness ameliorate the negative effects
of asynchronous CMC?

(Roseth,
Saltarelli,
&
Glass,
2011;
Journal
of
Educa-onal
Psychology)


Why Belongingness?
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Walton et al., 2012)
Belongingness

Competence

Autonomy

Innate Needs
Self-Regulation

Intrinsic Motivation


Why Belongingness?
!
Feeling for an answer

SYNCHRONICITY
BELONGINGNESS
Face-‐To-‐Face
Mild
RejecFonControlAcceptance
Synchronous Asynchronous
Current Study Design

Test Constructive Controversy

3 Synchronicity (FTF, Sync, Async) x 3 Belongingness (Acceptance, Control, Mild Rejection)

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

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

Belongingness Manipulation!
Get paired with partner
!
!

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

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

Tracking

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

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

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. Conﬂict
Elaboration
4. Belongingness
& Motivation
5.Achievement
6.Technology
Acceptance
Results
IV
DV

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. Conﬂict
Elaboration
4. Belongingness
& Motivation
5.Achievement
6.Technology
Acceptance
Results
IV
DV

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. Conﬂict
Elaboration
4. Belongingness
& Motivation
5.Achievement
6.Technology
Acceptance
Results
IV
DV

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. Conﬂict
Elaboration
4. Motivation
5.Achievement
6.Technology
Acceptance
Results
IV
DV

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

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

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. Conﬂict
Elaboration
4. Belongingness
& Motivation
5.Achievement
6.Technology
Acceptance
Results
IV
DV

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. Conﬂict
Elaboration
4. Belongingness
& Motivation
5.Achievement
6.Technology
Acceptance
Results
IV
DV

1.Time
!
→ Epistemic decreased in async

→ 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. Conﬂict
Elaboration
4. Belongingness
& Motivation
5.Achievement
6.Technology
Acceptance
Results
IV
DV

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. Conﬂict
Elaboration
4. Motivation
5.Achievement
6.Technology
Acceptance
Results
IV
DV

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. Conﬂict
Elaboration
4. Motivation
5.Achievement
6.Technology
Acceptance
Results
IV
DV

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. Conﬂict
Elaboration
4. Motivation
5.Achievement
6.Technology
Acceptance
Results
IV
DV

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

Summary of Findings
Belongingness

Met
+ Cooperative perceptions

+ Epistemic regulation

+ Intrinsic motivation

+ Perceptions of technology
Practical
Implications
Developing belongingness
between students is an
important precondition for
promoting cooperation and
motivation

Summary of Findings
Belongingness

Met
Buffers but does not offset
the deleterious effects of
asynchronous CMC
Practical
Implications
Instructors may be able to
monitor and enhance
students’ belongingness,
cooperative perceptions,
epistemic regulation

Summary of Findings
Belongingness

Thwarted
Not always deleterious of
educational outcomes
Practical
Implications
Compensatory actions may
be at play, increasing salience
of other may prime deeper
cognitive effort
Instructors should mess with
students and ostracize them

Summary of Findings
Async

CMC
Had deleterious effects on
constructive controversy
outcomes
Practical
Implications
Need continual, more robust
belongingness interventions

!
Varying synchronicity to
match the different task
demands

Bonus! - Social psychological
interventions that scale
- Mere belonging (Walton, Cohen et al)
- Stereotype Threat (Steele, Aronson et al)
-Mindset (Dweck et al)
-Purpose (Yeager et al)
-Value (Eccles, Hulleman, et al)
-Self-control and Self-regulation
(Duckworth, Raver et al)
-Stanford PERTS

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
!
!

Thank You
Andy Saltarelli
saltarel@stanford.edu
Slides: http://bit.ly/ET4-2014-Belong
andysaltarelli.com

ET4Online 2014 presentation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to ET4Online 2014 presentation

Similar to ET4Online 2014 presentation (20)

More from Andy Saltarelli

More from Andy Saltarelli (13)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ET4Online 2014 presentation