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/

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?

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

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:

Constructive Controversy40 Years 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

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.  

MED

IA  RICHN

ESS

SYNCHRONICITY

Face-­‐To-­‐Face

Vide

oAu

dio

Text

Synchronous Asynchronous

Previous StudyTest Constructive Controversy

1 FTF x 2 Synchronicity (Sync, Async) x 3 Media (Audio, Video, Text)

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↓

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? !

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

Belongingness

Competence

Autonomy

Innate Needs

Self-Regulation Motivation

SYNCHRONICITY

BELO

NGINGNESS

Face-­‐To-­‐Face

Mild

 RejecFo

nCo

ntrol

Acceptan

ce

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).

Belongingness Manipulation (Romero-Canyas et al., 2010)

!

Complete personality profile !

Belongingness Manipulation!

Rank potential partners based on their profile !!

Belongingness Manipulation!

Partner pairing

Synchronous ScaffoldSynchronous CMC Scaffold:

WordPress, Google DocsTM

Integrated text-based chat !Procedure:

Complete initial belongingness activity !Dyads complete activity over 70 min. class period

Asynchronous ScaffoldAsynchronous CMC Scaffold:

WordPress, BuddyPress !Procedure:

Complete initial belongingness activity !Dyads complete activity over 6 days

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. AchievementMultiple-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

Explanation

1. CMC TheoriesWhy 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

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

AcceptanceMild

RejectionControl Acceptance

Mild Rejection

Control AcceptanceMild

RejectionControl

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. Sociocognitive Conflict

4. Belongingness & Motivation

5. Achievement

6. Perceptions of Technology

Results

IVDV

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

IVDV

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

IVDV

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

IVDV

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

IVDV

1.7

2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

Acceptance Mild Rejection Control

AsyncFTFSync

Mul

tiple

Cho

ice

Scor

e

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

IVDV

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

IVDV

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

IVDV

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

IVDV

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

IVDV

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

IVDV

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

IVDV

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

IVDV

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

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

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

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

Looking Forward

Looking Forward

Thank You

Cary J. Roseth, PhD http://croseth.educ.msu.edu/

croseth@msu.edu

Andy Saltarelli, PhD andysaltarelli.com

saltarel@stanford.edu @ajsalts