Download - A Walk Around Pasteur's Quadrant
Andy J. Saltarelli, PhDandysaltarelli.com
A Walk Around Pasteur’s
Quadrant: Diverse Approaches to
Investigating the Effects of Social
Context on Educational
Outcomes
“It seems clear to me that we are
well past the quantitative–
qualitative debate and more
concerned with issues of providing
good, valid, and reliable evidence
to support our inferences and
conceptual models, regardless of
the nature of the general
methodology.” ~ Pintrich, 2000, p.
223
Goal of Usefulness
Goal of
Scientific
Understanding
YesNo
Yes
No
Basic
Research
(Bohr)
Use-inspired
basic
research
(Pasteur)
Pure applied
research
(Edison)
Pasteur’s
Quadrant (Pintrich, 2000; Stokes, 1997)
Goal of Usefulness
Goal of
Scientific
Understanding
YesNoYes
No
Lost Boys
Online
Cooperatio
nMultimedia
Learning
MOOC
Faculty
MOOC
Learners
Existential-phenomenological inquiry
(Gilgun, 2005; Giorgi & Giorgi, 2003)
Followed 19 youth over 7 years after being
resettled in US
Multiple semi-structured interviews with
youth, foster parents, and social workers
Lost Boys of Sudan
Cultural creation combining the good parts of American culture with the good parts of native Sudanese culture
“I’ve become like a hybrid between here, two cultures you know and these two cultures make me, I’m making good thing out of it.”
Lost Boys of Sudan(Qin, Saltarelli, et al., 2014, Journal of Adolescent
Research)
“Cultural appropriation”, integrative
adaptation
19 HS diplomas, 7 bachelor’s, 10
community college, 4 master’s
“Every single one of us has to go to
college because we need to go
back and help.”
“Education is my mother and education is my father” (Chanoff, 2005)
Lost Boys of Sudan(Rana…Saltarelli, 2011, Teachers College
Record)
Educational resilience
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 online 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
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
MED
IA R
ICH
NES
S
SYNCHRONICITY
Face-To-Face
Vid
eoA
ud
ioTe
xt
Synchronous Asynchronous
Online Constructive Controversy
Test Constructive Controversy1 FTF x 2 Synchronicity (Sync, Async) x 3 Media (Audio, Video, Text)
(Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass 2011, Journal of Education Psychology).
Previous Results(Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011; Journal of Educational Psychology)
In Asynchronous CMC Achievement↓ Motivation↓ Belongingness↓
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)
Innate
Needs
Competence
Belongingness
Autonomy
Self-Regulation
Motivation
SYNCHRONICITY
Face-To-Face Synchronous Asynchronous
Belongingness
Test Constructive Controversy3 Synchronicity (FTF, Sync, Async) x 3 Belongingness (Acceptance, Control, Mild
Rejection)
(Saltarelli & Roseth, 2014, Journal of Education Psychology).
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
Asynchronous ScaffoldAsynchronous CMC
Scaffold:
- Custom 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. MotivationRelatedness (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
Summary of Findings
AsyncCMC
FTF and Sync CMC
▲ Cooperative perceptions
▲ Epistemic conflict
Led to…
▲ Motivation
▲Achievement
▲ Competitive perceptions
▲ Relational conflict
Led to…
▼Motivation
▼Achievement
Summary of Findings
Belongingnes
s
Met
▲Cooperative perceptions
▲ Epistemic regulation
▲ Intrinsic motivation
▲ Perceptions of
technology
Buffers but does not offset the deleterious effects of asynchronous CMC
Implications for Practice
▲ Satisfying belongingness needs can promote cooperation and motivation in online contexts
▲ Instructors may be able to monitor and enhance cooperative perceptions and epistemic regulation
▲ Varying synchronicity to match task demands may maximize affordances and minimize constraints
Reasoning
together
http://lytics.stanford.edu/
Computer
Science
Learning
Science
EDM
LAK L@SSociology
Social
PsychologySociology
Design
“We engage in use-driven research and data-driven design
Data does not speak for itself. Rather,
people must actively make meaning of
the data… interpretation is a central part
of the data use process…noticing,
interpreting, and constructing
implications for action— are shaped by
individual beliefs, knowledge, and
motivation and are influenced by the
nature and patterns of social interaction
~ Coburn & Turner, 2011
MOCs may eye the world market, but
does the world want them?
Global Participation Gap
16 MOOCs (N~ 67,000):
- 50% less persistence (Kizilcec & Halawa, in press )
Previous run of course (N= 41,186):
- 50% less video lectures watched
- 40% less likely to take assessments
Current self-paced version (N = 60,000 enrolled, 4,562 did intervention)
- 75% less video lectures watched
- 82% less likely to take assessments
Why?
- Language Barriers
- Access to Technology
(Kizilcec, Saltarelli, & Cohen, Under Review,
PNAS)Western (Europe, Oceania, and Northern America) v. Non-
Western (Africa, Asia, and Latin America)
Social Belonging & Identity
Threat to belongingness (Walton et al., 2014)
Threat to identity (Cohen et al., 2006, 2009, 2014; Steele, 1988)
Cultural mismatch (Harackiewicz et al., 2014; Stephens et al.,
2012)
Social Belonging & Identity
"I didn’t go to a very good university, and I
worried that my previous courses had not
prepared me well for this online course.
Honestly, when I first enrolled, I thought the
instructor was a bit scary. I thought the
grading was critical and hard, and I worried
about whether other students would
respect me. I was nervous about writing on
the discussion forum and I didn’t want to
ask people for help with quizzes. ~ Tom
Psychological Interventions
Intervention embedded in course survey
N = 4,562
Study Tips Self-Affirmation Social Belonging
1. Read Quotes2. Write reflection3. Write letter
1. Choose key values2. Write reflection3. Write letter
1. Read Quotes2. Write reflection3. Write letter
Perceived Beneficiary
Self Other Self Other Self Other
Results
Gaps completely closed by…
- Belongingness intervention if peer recipient
▲ 73% videos watched (gap: z = 0.98, P = 0.33)
- Self-affirmation intervention if self recipient
▲ 55% videos watch (gap: z = 0.85, P = 0.39)
▲ 100% assessments taken (gap: z = -0.72, P = 0.47)
No statistically significant effect on Western
learners
Research
“My Goal Is To Surf It, Not Just
Stand There”: Professors’
Sensemaking Strategies in
University Open Online
Learning Initiatives
Method
▲ Three-part semi-structured interviews with 16 MOOC
faculty
▲ Grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 1994, 2007,
2014)
▲Emotion and metaphorical language codes (Plutchik,
2011)
Sensemaking explores the social contexts in which
meaning is constructed; it is grounded in multiple
dimensions of a person’s identity; it emphasizes
retrospective meaning-making of events, choices, and
decisions; and it recognizes that people are in medias
Preliminary Results
▲ Incredible diversity of motivations, 13 distinct codes
▲ Role soft infrastructure – institutional values,
affirmations, ethos of intellectual generosity
▲ Expressions of agency and joy, cf. rhetoric of
disruption and unbunlding (Carey, 2015; Christensen &
Weise, 2014)
“And that is so empowering. It's such a great feeling to
be in a place where you can have a new idea and
somebody will support you in the exploration of that
idea.”
▲ Lost Boys – give voice to and understand lived experience, qualitative phenomenology
▲ Online Cooperation – theory testing and design-based research in authentic setting, quantitative experimental-control
▲MOOC Learners/Gaps – leverage big-er data, experimental-control, scale “wise” interventions
▲MOOC Faculty – give voice to, action research, program evaluation, qualitative grounded theory
Summary