CMC, Cooperative Learning, Motivation, & Achievement
•Télécharger en tant que PPT, PDF•
1 j'aime•815 vues
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
En vedette
En vedette (19)
Plus de Andy Saltarelli
Plus de Andy Saltarelli (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
CMC, Cooperative Learning, Motivation, & Achievement
- 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