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