Constructive Controversy: Effects of Computermediated Communication and Belongingness on Social Interdependence, Conflict Regulation, Motivation, and Achievement

Andy J. Saltarelli College of Education Dissertation Defense

Introduction
Human Development Developmental Psychology

Educational Psychology & Educational Technology

Information Technology Instructional Technology

Previous Study
How to effectively integrate pedagogy with online technologies?

Previous Study: Test Constructive Controversy FTF vs. Sync CMC vs. Async CMC Video vs. Audio vs. Text

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:

Current Study
Results of Previous Study: Asynchronous CMC Achievement Motivation
(Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011)

My Dissertation: 1) Why does asynchronous CMC affect constructive controversy? 2) How does initial belongingness affect constructive controversy?

Track #1
Induction: Test particulars with design-based Research and move up to theory Wicked Problem Multiply determined
4

Track #2
Deduction: Test theory with basic research and move down to the particulars

Theory
Theory
1. CMC Theories

Explanation
Why should we test multiple theories?

1) May provide the explanation for why CMC affects 2. Social Interdependenc constructive controversy is likely multiply determined. e 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
5

Theory
Theory
1. CMC Theories 2. Social Interdependenc e Theory 3. Conflict Elaboration Theory 4. Belongingness Theories

Explanation
Social Information Processing (Walther, 1992; 2005): Given sufficient time, communicators adapt their language, style, and other cues to whatever form of CMC they are using FTF=Sync=Async Media Richness (Baltes et al., 2002; Short et al., 1976) Greater media richness produces higher quality communication and is more conducive to positive interpersonal relationships FTF>Sync>Async
6

Theory
Theory
1. CMC Theories

Explanation
Social Interdependence Theory (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson & Johnson, 2005):

The way in which social interdependence is structured 2. Social Interdependenc determines how individuals interact which, in turn, determines outcomes e Theory 3. Conflict Elaboration Theory Cooperative perceptions promotive interactions goal achievement relationships, motivation Competitive perceptions oppositional interaction achievement motivation, relationships 4. Belongingness Individualistic perceptions no interdependence 7

Theory
Theory
1. CMC Theories

Explanation
Conflict Elaboration Theory (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson & Johnson, 2005):

Cooperative perceptions first promote adaptive social2. Social Interdependenc cognitive responses to the experience of arguing conflicting points of view e Theory 3. Conflict Elaboration Theory Cooperative conditions epistemic regulation (uncertainty about correct response) achievement, motivation, relationships

4.

Competitive conditions relational regulation (uncertainty about ones competence) achievement, motivation, relationships 8

Theory
Theory
1. CMC Theories

Explanation
Belongingness Theory (Baumeister & Leary, 1995):

Innate need for, and drive to develop lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships, thwarting this need leads 2. Social Interdependenc to negative outcomes such as decreased motivation e Theory 3. Conflict Elaboration Theory Self-determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000): Three innate needs (belongingness, competence, autonomy) seen as preconditions of motivational outcomes

4. Belongingness

Design - 3x3
IV
Theory
1. CMC Theories 2. Social Interdependenc e Theory 3. Conflict Elaboration Theory Initial Belongingness (Acceptance, Mild Rejection, Control) Synchronicity (FTF, Sync, Async)

4. Belongingness Theories
10

Design - 3x3
IV
Theory
1. CMC Theories Initial Belongingness Synchronicity (Acceptance, Mild Rejection, (FTF, Sync, Async) Control) Initial Belongingness: 3 Conditions Acceptance, Mild Rejection, Control

2. Social Interdependenc Does belongingness interact with synchronicity in CMC conditions. e Theory Does belongingness buffer or ameliorate negative outcomes 3. Conflict of asynchronous CMC constructive controversy? Elaboration Theory

4. Belongingness Theories
11

Design - 3x3
IV
Theory
1. CMC Theories Initial Belongingness Synchronicity (Acceptance, Mild Rejection, (FTF, Sync, Async) Control) Synchronicity: 3 Conditions FTF, Synchronous CMC, Asynchronous CMC

2. Social Interdependenc Replicate previous study and test different theories that may explain why asynchronous CMC affects constructive e Theory controversy. 3. Conflict Elaboration Theory

4. Belongingness Theories
12

IV - 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
13

IV - Synchronicity
Synchronous CMC Scaffold: WordPress, Google DocsTM Integrated text-based chat Procedure: Complete initial belongingness activity Dyads complete activity over 70 min. class period

14

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

15

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?
16

Dependent Variables
DV

Operationalization
Time spent? (1-item), Time preferred?(1-item) Cooperation (7-items, =.89), Competition (7-items, =.93), Individualism (7-items, =.86

1. Time

2. Social Interdependenc e 3. Conflict Regulation

Relational Regulation (3-items, =.80), Epistemic Regulation (3-items, =.82) Relatedness (8-items, =.88), Interest (7-items, =.92), Value 4. Motivation (7-items, =.93) 5. Post-activity Belongingness (3-items, =.86), Interpersonal Attraction (3Belongingness items, =.91), Relatedness (8-items, =.88) Multiple-choice questions (4-items, =.41), Integrative 6. Achievement statement: # of arguments (=.95), use of evidence (=.90), integrative (=.87) 17

Sample
Overall: Final n = 171 (11 Sections of TE 150) Male = 46, Female = 125 Mean Age = 19.48 (SD = 2.89, 1824) FTF Sync
Acceptanc e Mild Rejection Control Acceptanc e Mild Rejection Control Acceptanc e

Async
Mild Rejection Control

Eligible n Enrolled n Analyzed n

24 22 22

24 21 20

24 19 19

24 24 22

24 21 21

22 19 17

40 32 18

40 32 16

38 28 16

18

Hypotheses
IV
Theory
1. CMC Theories 2. Social Interdependenc e Theory 3. Conflict Elaboration Theory 4. Belongingness Theories
19

Initial Belongingness Additive Effect:

Synchronicity

Acceptance Outcomes Mild Rejection Outcomes

Buffering Effect:
Acceptance (Async CMC) Outcomes

Hypotheses
IV
Theory
1. CMC Theories 2. Social Interdependenc e Theory 3. Conflict Elaboration Theory 4. Belongingness Theories Initial Belongingness Synchronicity

Additive Effect:
Acceptance Cooperative Mild Rejection Individualistic Competitive

Buffering Effect: Acceptance (Async CMC) Cooperative Individualistic Competitive

20

Hypotheses
IV
Theory
1. CMC Theories 2. Social Interdependenc e Theory 3. Conflict Elaboration Theory 4. Belongingness Theories Initial Belongingness Synchronicity

Additive Effect:
Acceptance Epistemic Relational Mild Rejection Epistemic Relational

Buffering Effect:

Acceptance (Async CMC) Epistemic Relational

21

Hypotheses
IV
Theory
1. CMC Theories 2. Social Interdependenc e Theory 3. Conflict Elaboration Theory 4. Belongingness Theories Initial Belongingness Synchronicity

Additive Effect:
Post-Activity Belongingness Interest-Value Mild Rejection Post-Activity Belongingness Interest-Value Acceptance

Buffering Effect:

Acceptance (Async CMC) Post-Activity Belongingness Interest-Value

22

Hypotheses
IV
Theory
1. CMC Theories 2. Social Interdependenc e Theory 3. Conflict Elaboration Theory 4. Belongingness Theories
23

Initial Belongingness

Synchronicity

Social Info Processing: Outcomes FTF=Sync=Async

Media Richness: Outcomes FTF>Sync>Async

Hypotheses
IV
Theory
1. CMC Theories 2. Social Interdependenc e Theory 3. Conflict Elaboration Theory 4. Belongingness Theories
24

Initial Belongingness

Synchronicity

Social Info Processing:

All 3 FTF=Sync=Async

Media Richness:
Cooperative FTF>Sync>Async Competitive Async>Sync>FTF Individualistic Async>Sync>FTF

Hypotheses
IV
Theory
1. CMC Theories 2. Social Interdependenc e Theory 3. Conflict Elaboration Theory 4. Belongingness Theories
25

Initial Belongingness

Synchronicity

Social Info Processing:

Epistemic FTF=Sync=Async Relational Async=Sync=FTF

Media Richness: Epistemic FTF>Sync>Async Relational Async>Sync>FTF

Hypotheses
IV
Theory
1. CMC Theories 2. Social Interdependenc e Theory 3. Conflict Elaboration Theory 4. Belongingness Theories
26

Initial Belongingness

Synchronicity

Social Info Processing:

Post-Activity Belongingness FTF=Sync=Async Interest-Value FTF=Sync=Async

Media Richness: Post-Activity Belongingness FTF>Sync>Async Interest-Value FTF>Sync>Async

Results
DV
1. Time

IV

Initial Belongingness

Synchronicity

Findings:

Acceptance spent and preferred more time on the activity 2. Social Interdependenc Main Effect: e F(4, 322) = 2.82, p = .02, n2= 0.03 3. Conflict Elaboration Post Hoc: 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5. Achievement 6. Technology
27

Time Spent Acceptance > Mild Rejection, Control

Time Preferred Acceptance > Mild Rejection, Control

Results
DV IV
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity

Findings: 1. Time Supports Additive Hypothesis Acceptance increased cooperative perceptions 2. Social Supports belongingness theories Interdependenc Suggests modification to social interdependence theory e
3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5. Achievement 6. Technology
28

Main Effects: F(6, 320) = 2.46, p = .02, n2= 0.04 Post Hoc: Cooperative Acceptance > Control

Results
DV IV
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity

Findings: 1. Time Supports Additive Hypothesis Acceptance increased epistemic regulation 2. Social Supports belongingness theories Interdependenc Suggests a modification of conflict elaboration theory e
3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5. Achievement 6. Technology
29

Main Effects: F(4, 274) = 2.51, p = .04, n2= 0.03 Post Hoc: Epistemic Acceptance > Control

Results
DV IV
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity

Findings: 1. Time Supports Additive Hypothesis Acceptance increased belongingness and interest-value 2. Social Supports belongingness theories Interdependenc e
3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation Main Effects: F(4, 318) = 3.19, p = .01, n2= 0.03

Post Hoc: Post-controversy Belongingness Acceptance > Control, Mild 5. Achievement Rejection Interest-Value Acceptance > Control 6. Technology
30

Results
DV
1. Time 2. Social Interdependenc e 3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation 5. Achievement 6. Technology Acceptance

IV

Initial Belongingness

Synchronicity

Findings: 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
Multiple Choice Score

31

Results
DV IV
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity

Findings: 1. Time Acceptance increased task-technology fit Preconditions of belongingness influences perceptions of 2. Social Interdependenc task-technology fit e Technology Acceptance: 3. Conflict No Effect Elaboration
4. Motivation 5. Achievement Acceptance > Control
32

Task-Technology Fit: F(2,83) = 3.11, p = .05, n2= 0.07

Results
DV
1. Time 2. Social Interdependenc e 3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5. Achievement 6. Technology
33

IV

Initial Belongingness

Synchronicity

Findings: 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

Results
DV IV
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity

Findings: 1. Time Cooperative increased in FTF and competitive and individualistic increased in asynchronous CMC 2. Social Interdependenc Supports Roseth et al. (2011) and social interdependence theory e
3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5. Achievement 6. Technology Main Effects: F(6, 320) = 6.80, p < .01, n2= 0.11 Post Hoc: Cooperative FTF > Async Competitive Async > FTF Individualistic Async > FTF, Sync
34

Results
DV IV
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity

Findings: 1. Time Epistemic increased in FTF and relational increased in asynchronous CMC 2. Social Interdependenc Provides an alternate mechanism to explain Roseth et al.s (2011)findings e
3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Belongingness & Motivation 5. Achievement 6. Technology Main Effects: F(4, 274) = 5.08, p < .01, n2= 0.06 Post Hoc: Epistemic FTF > Async Relational Async > FTF
35

Results
DV IV
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity

Findings: 1. Time Post-controversy belongingness increased in FTF and interest-value increased in synchronous CMC 2. Social Interdependenc Supports Roseth et al.s (2011) results e Main Effects: 3. Conflict F(4, 318) = 11.1, p < .001, n2= .12 Elaboration
4. Motivation 5. Achievement
36

Post Hoc: Post-controversy Belongingness FTF, Sync > Async Interest-Value Sync > Async

6. Technology

Results
DV IV
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity

Findings: 1. Time Completion rates were greater in FTF and synchronous CMC 2. Social Interdependenc Supports Roseth et al.s (2011) results e
3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation 5. Achievement 6. Technology Acceptance
37

Completion Rate: FTF & Sync (100%) Async (59.7%) [Fishers exact test; p < .01]

Results
DV IV
Initial Belongingness Synchronicity

Summary: 1. Time Evidence was greater in synchronous CMC while integrative statements were greater in FTF 2. Social Interdependenc Contradicts Roseth et al.s finding that there was a marginal increase in knowledge ratings in asynchronous CMC e
3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation 5. Achievement Main Effects: F(6, 152) = 3.54, p < .01, n2= 0.12

Post Hoc: Evidence Sync > FTF Integrative Statements FTF > Async
38

6. Technology Acceptance

Results
DV
1. Time 2. Social Interdependenc e 3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation 5. Achievement

IV

Initial Belongingness

Synchronicity

Summary: Technology acceptance was greater in synchronous CMC

Technology Acceptance: F(1,102) = 8.31, p <.01, n2= 0.07) Sync > Async

Task-Technology Fit: No Effect

39

6. Perceptions

Summary of Findings
DV
1. Time

IV

Initial Belongingness

Synchronicity

Initial belongingness had additive effects on constructive controversy outcomes

2. Social Interdependenc Initial belongingness buffers but does not offset the deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC e 3. Conflict Elaboration 4. Motivation 5. Achievement 6. Perceptions of Technology
40

Asynchronous CMC had deleterious effects on constructive controversy outcomes

Implications for Theory

DV
1. Time

IV

Initial Belongingness

Synchronicity

2. Social Interdependenc Belongingness satisfaction is a prerequisite condition for e constructive controversy (modify SIT & CET) 3. Conflict Elaboration Conflict elaboration theory more precisely specifies social 4. Motivation interdependence theory

Multiple theoretical perspectives may need to be integrated to fully understand why CMC affects constructive controversy

Both SIT and CET more precisely specify by why CMC 5. Achievement affects constructive controversy than the media richness view
6. Perceptions of Technology
41

Implications for Practice

DV
1. Time

IV

Initial Belongingness

Synchronicity

2. Social Interdependenc Instructors may be able to monitor and enhance students e cooperative perceptions and epistemic regulation 3. Conflict Elaboration Varying synchronicity to match the different task demands of 4. Motivation 5. Achievement constructive controversy may maximize the affordances and minimize the constraints of each

Developing belongingness between students is an important precondition for promoting cooperative and motivation

6. Perceptions of Technology

42