1. Effects of Belongingness and Synchronicity on Face-To-Face
and Online Cooperative Learning
Andy J. Saltarelli
Cary J. Roseth
Chris R. Glass
College of Education
2. The Problem
Constructive Controversy: a cooperative learning procedure in which
individuals argue incompatible views and together seek an agreement
integrating the best evidence and reasoning from both positions (Johnson &
Johnson, 2007)
5-step Procedure:
40 Years of research: Increased
Constructive Controversy in Face-
achievement, motivation, student
to-Face Settings
well-being, and relationships.
3. Previous Study
Test Constructive Controversy
1 FTF x 2 Synchronicity (Sync, Async) x 3 Media (Audio, Video, Text)
SYNCHRONICITY
Synchronous Asynchronous
Video
Face-To-Face
MEDIA RICHNESS
Audio
Text
Roseth, C. J., Saltarelli, A. J., & Glass, C. R. (2011). Effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated constructive
controversy on social interdependence, motivation, and achievement. J ournalof EducationalPsychology.
4. Previous Study Results
(Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011)
Test Constructive Controversy
FTF vs. Sync CMC vs. Async CMC
Video vs. Audio vs. Text
Results
In Asynchronous CMC →
Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Relatedness↓
5. Previous Study Results
(Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011)
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?
Approach #1 Approach #2
Induction: Answer Deduction:
Test particulars with Multiply Determined Test theory with basic
design-based research and research and move down
move up to theory to the particulars
6. Theory
Explanation
Theory
1. CMC Why should we test multiple theories?
Theories
2. Social 1) Explanation for why CMC affects constructive controversy is
Interdependence likely multiply determined.
Theory
2) May reveal ‘boundary conditions’ between extant theories.
3. Conflict
Elaboration 3) May reveal how theories relate to each other and can be
Theory integrated.
4. Belongingness
Theories
7. Current Study Design
Test Constructive Controversy
3 Synchronicity (FTF, Sync, Async) x 3 Belongingness (Acceptance, Control, Mild
Rejection)
SYNCHRONICITY
Face-To-Face Synchronous Asynchronous
Mild Rejection
BELONGINGNESS
Control
Acceptance
8. Belongingness
Initial Belongingness Activity:
Prior to constructive controversy
Complete personality profile
Rank potential partners based on
their profile
Receive feedback and partner
pairing
Modified from Romero-Canyas et
al., 2010
9. Synchronicity - Sync
Synchronous CMC Scaffold:
WordPress, Google DocsTM
Integrated text-based chat
Procedure:
Complete initial belongingness
activity
Dyads complete activity over
70 min. class period
10. Synchronicity - Async
Asynchronous CMC Scaffold:
WordPress, BuddyPress
Procedure:
Complete initial belongingness
activity
Dyads complete activity over 6
days
11. Method
2 Independent Variables:
3 (synchronicity: FTF, synchronous CMC, asynchronous CMC) x 3(initial
belongingness: acceptance, mild rejection, control) randomized
experimental-control design
7 Dependent Variables:
Time, Social Interdependence, Conflict Regulation, Motivation, Post
Belongingness, Achievement, Perceptions of Technology
Randoms Assignment:
Synchronicity - 11 Course sections of TE150
Initial Belongingness - 171 undergraduates (125 females)
Constructive Controversy:
“Should Schools Decrease Class Size to Improve Student Outcomes?
12. Dependent Variables
DV
Operationalization
1. Time Time spent? (1-item), Time preferred?(1-item)
2. Social Cooperation (7-items, α=.89), Competition (7-items, α=.93),
Interdependence Individualism (7-items, α=.86
3. Conflict Relational Regulation (3-items, α=.80), Epistemic Regulation (3-
Regulation items, α=.82)
Relatedness (8-items, α=.88), Interest (7-items, α=.92), Value (7-
4. Motivation
items, α=.93)
5. Post-activity Belongingness (3-items, α=.86), Interpersonal Attraction (3-items,
Belongingness α=.91), Relatedness (8-items, α=.88)
Multiple-choice questions (4-items, α=.41), Integrative statement: #
6. Achievement
of arguments (κ=.95), use of evidence (κ=.90), integrative (κ=.87)
7. Perceptions of Technology Acceptance (4-items, α=.90), Task-technology Fit (2-
Technology items, α=.94)
13. 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
Mild Mild Mild
Acceptance Control Acceptance Control Acceptance Control
Rejection Rejection Rejection
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
14. Results
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Acceptance spent and preferred more time on the
2. Social activity
Interdependence
3. Conflict Main Effect:
Elaboration F(4, 322) = 2.82, p = .02, n2= 0.03
4. Belongingness Post Hoc:
& Motivation Time Spent →Acceptance > Mild Rejection, Control
5. Achievement
Time Preferred → Acceptance > Mild Rejection, Control
6. Technology
Acceptance
15. Results
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Acceptance increased cooperative perceptions
2. Social
Interdependence Main Effects:
F(6, 320) = 2.46, p = .02, n2= 0.04
3. Conflict
Elaboration
Post Hoc:
4. Belongingness Cooperative → Acceptance > Control
& Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology
Acceptance
16. Results
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Acceptance increased epistemic regulation
2. Social
Interdependence Main Effects:
3. Conflict F(4, 274) = 2.51, p = .04, n2= 0.03
Elaboration
Post Hoc:
4. Belongingness Epistemic → Acceptance > Control
& Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology
Acceptance
17. Results
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Acceptance increased intrinsic motivation
2. Social
Interdependence
Main Effects:
3. Conflict
F(4, 318) = 3.19, p = .01, n2= 0.03
Elaboration
4. Motivation Post Hoc:
Relatedness →Acceptance > Control, Mild Rejection
Interest-Value → Acceptance > Control
5. Achievement
6. Technology
Acceptance
18. Results
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time → Under mild rejection multiple-choice scores increased
more under asynchronous compared to FTF and
2. Social synchronous
Interdependence Interaction Effect:
3. Conflict F(2,162) = 3.19, p =.01, n2= 0.07
Elaboration
Multiple Choice Score
4. Motivation
5. Achievement
6. Technology
Acceptance
19. Results
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Acceptance increased task-technology fit
2. Social
Interdependence
Technology Acceptance:
3. Conflict
No Effect
Elaboration
4. Motivation
Task-Technology Fit:
F(2,83) = 3.11, p = .05, n2= 0.07
5. Achievement
Acceptance > Control
20. Results
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Asynchronous CMC spent more and wanted less time
2. Social
Interdependence Main Effect:
F(4, 322) = 26.21, p < .01, n2= 0.24
3. Conflict
Elaboration
Post Hoc:
4. Belongingness Spent → Async > FTF, Sync
& Motivation
Preferred → Sync > Async, FTF
5. Achievement
6. Technology
Acceptance
21. Results
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Cooperation increased in FTF and competitive and
2. Social individualistic increased in asynchronous CMC
Interdependence
3. Conflict Main Effects:
Elaboration F(6, 320) = 6.80, p < .01, n2= 0.11
4. Belongingness
Post Hoc:
& Motivation
Cooperative → FTF > Async
5. Achievement Competitive → Async > FTF
Individualistic →Async > FTF, Sync
6. Technology
Acceptance
22. Results
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Epistemic increased in FTF and relational increased in
2. Social asynchronous CMC
Interdependence
3. Conflict
Elaboration Main Effects:
F(4, 274) = 5.08, p < .01, n2= 0.06
4. Belongingness
& Motivation Post Hoc:
Epistemic → FTF > Async
5. Achievement
Relational → Async > FTF
6. Technology
Acceptance
23. Results
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Post-controversy belongingness increased in FTF and
2. Social interest-value increased in synchronous CMC
Interdependence
3. Conflict Main Effects:
Elaboration F(4, 318) = 11.1, p < .001, n2= .12
4. Motivation Post Hoc:
Post-controversy Belongingness → FTF, Sync > Async
Interest-Value → Sync > Async
5. Achievement
6. Technology
24. Results
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Completion rates were greater in FTF and
2. Social synchronous CMC
Interdependence
3. Conflict
Elaboration
Completion Rate:
4. Motivation FTF & Sync (100%) → Async (59.7%) [Fisher’s exact test; p < .01]
5. Achievement
6. Technology
Acceptance
25. Results
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Evidence was greater in synchronous CMC while
2. Social integrative statements were greater in FTF
Interdependence
3. Conflict
Elaboration Main Effects:
F(6, 152) = 3.54, p < .01, n2= 0.12
4. Motivation
Post Hoc:
Evidence → Sync > FTF
5. Achievement
Integrative Statements → FTF > Async
6. Technology
Acceptance
26. Results
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Technology acceptance was greater in synchronous
2. Social CMC
Interdependence
3. Conflict
Elaboration Technology Acceptance:
F(1,102) = 8.31, p <.01, n2= 0.07)
4. Motivation
Sync > Async
5. Achievement
Task-Technology Fit:
No Effect
27. Summary of Findings
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Initial belongingness had additive effects on constructive
2. Social controversy outcomes
Interdependence
3. Conflict → Initial belongingness buffers but does not offset the
Elaboration deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC
4. Motivation → Asynchronous CMC had deleterious effects on
constructive controversy outcomes
5. Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
28. Implications for Practice
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Developing belongingness between students is an
2. Social important precondition for promoting cooperation and
Interdependence motivation
3. Conflict
Elaboration → Instructors may be able to monitor and enhance students’
cooperative perceptions and epistemic regulation
4. Motivation
→ Varying synchronicity to match the different task demands
5. Achievement of constructive controversy may maximize the affordances
and minimize the constraints of each
6. Perceptions of
29. Thank You
Andy Saltarelli
saltarel@msu.edu
andysaltarelli.com
Chris Glass
crglass@msu.edu
30. Limitations
IV Initial Belongingness Synchronicity
DV
1. Time
→ Preponderance of women in the sample (73%)
2. Social
Interdependence → Generalizability of constructive controversy to other cooperative
learning procedures
3. Conflict
Elaboration → Time, frequency of steps
4. Motivation → Reliability of achievement measure (α=.41)
5. Achievement
6. Perceptions of
Technology
Notes de l'éditeur
Austin Trivia Trivia!!
Cary ’ s story of doing CC online for the first time. Both studies are informed by the broad question of “ How to effectively integrate pedagogy with online technologies? ” Previous study tested Constructive Controversy: a cooperative learning procedure in which individuals argue incompatible views and together seek an agreement integrating the best evidence and reasoning from both positions cooperative perceptions (e.g., sharing a common goal) tend to promote the constructive resolution of controversy by encouraging more open-minded inquiry, greater helpfulness and motivation, more accurate understanding of opposing positions, and higher-level reasoning - consistent results in increased achievement, motivation, relational outcomes 1) participants are first randomly assigned to pro- and con-sides of a controversial issue 2) Develop the best argument for their assigned position 3) Each student then takes a turn presenting their best case to their opposite-side partner 4) Finally they together develop a written statement integrating the best information from both sides of the controversy
My dissertation is built upon a previous study completed two years ago and recently published. Both studies are informed by the broad question of “ How to effectively integrate pedagogy with online technologies? ” Previous study tested Constructive Controversy: a cooperative learning procedure in which individuals argue incompatible views and together seek an agreement integrating the best evidence and reasoning from both positions cooperative perceptions (e.g., sharing a common goal) tend to promote the constructive resolution of controversy by encouraging more open-minded inquiry, greater helpfulness and motivation, more accurate understanding of opposing positions, and higher-level reasoning - consistent results in increased achievement, motivation, relational outcomes 1) participants are first randomly assigned to pro- and con-sides of a controversial issue 2) Develop the best argument for their assigned position 3) Each student then takes a turn presenting their best case to their opposite-side partner 4) Finally they together develop a written statement integrating the best information from both sides of the controversy
Both studies are informed by the broad question of “ How to effectively integrate pedagogy with online technologies? ” [Think/Pair/Share] What do you think about the role of belongingness (relatedness) in education? Social Interdependence Theory - Cooperative Learning says that relationships are incredibly important to the learning process. Developing interdependent relationships between students leads to effect sizes of .5 and .6 on achievement, motivation, Wicked Problem: The answer is likely multiply determined and involves the interaction of multiple factors, that may or may not apply across contexts and cases Tracks: #1 Induction - Move from the particulars of asynchronous constructive controversy and then move to generalizable principles and answers to this question. For example, we could change website characteristics, content areas, student characteristics #2 Deduction - Move from the theory and general principles to the particulars by testing different theoretical explanations through basic research This study approaches this problem from track #2 by testing 4 theories ’ accounts for why CMC may affect constructive controversy.
There are three main reasons why we should test different theories ? Multiply determined - multiple factors contribute to the outcome boundary conditions - because most are based on the assumption of FTF interaction Integration of theories (how they relate to each other)
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.
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.
I want to direct your attention to #1 time which was assessed with two questions: 1) time spent, 2) time preferred. And also #6 achievement which was assessed with 4 multiple choice questions, and then an evaluation of the integrative statements (# arguments, use of evidence, integrative statements)
Supports belongingness theories that belongingness is an important precondition for positive motivational outcomes, that is if spending more time on the activity reflects increased motivation
There was a main effect of initial belongingness on social interdependence. 1) Acceptance increased cooperative perceptions 2) Supports belongingness theories that belongingness is an important precondition for positive motivational outcomes 3) Suggests a modification of social interdependence theory in that initial belongingness is an important precondition of cooperative perceptions.
There was a main effect of initial belongingness on conflict elaboration. Suggests a modification of CET that belongingness is an important precondition for conflict regulation
1) Supports belongingness theory that initial belongingness is an important precondition for motivation
Unexpectedly, under mild rejection multiple-choice scores increased more under asynchronous CMC than FTF and synchronous CMC. You can see this in the middle of the red bar. One explanation for this finding is that asynchronous CMC may amplify mild rejection to the extent that students employ “ compensatory actions ” , perhaps to ingratiate themselves to their partner, to amend for belongingness needs and they may do this by focusing on achievement efforts.
Could talk about
1) Cooperative increased in FTF and comp & ind. increased in async 2) Support previous findings and social interdependence theories ’ explanation for why CMC affects constructive controversy
1) Epistemic increased in FTF and relational increased in asynchronous 2) Provides an alternate explanation to the previous studys ’ and social interdependence theories ’ explanation for why CMC affects constructive controversy. CMC moderate social-cognitive reactions to conflict.
1) CMC synchronicity moderates conflict regulation 2) Support previous findings that motivation decreased in asynchronous CMC
1) CMC synchronicity moderates completion rates 2) Support previous findings and even though we attempted to increase interaction this time with automatic emails when asynchronous partners did their part, completion rate was actually lower in this study.
1) CMC synchronicity moderates critical thinking on the joint essay 2) Contradicts previous finding that there was a marginal increase in “ knowledge ” ratings in asynchronous CMC.
1) Technology acceptance was greater in synchronous CMC
→ instructors should consider increasing the salience of goal achievement by celebrating achievement and interpersonal processing gains by students M & M: Most Meaningful Point for your own practice
→ instructors should consider increasing the salience of goal achievement by celebrating achievement and interpersonal processing gains by students
→ instructors should consider increasing the salience of goal achievement by celebrating achievement and interpersonal processing gains by students