Research-concept Michele Notari At Phbern Ch

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Description of research concept

Text of Research-concept Michele Notari At Phbern Ch

  • 1. Writing to communicate, communicating to collaborate, collaborating to learn PHD- concept and first results 16.02.10 Michele Notari University of Teacher Education [email_address]

2. Writing to communicate ,communicating to collaborate, collaborating to learn PHD- concept and first results 16.02.10 3.

  • CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) research approach Another approach
  • Preliminary investigation for Computer Supported WrittenCommunication (CMWC)- and CSCL Studies
  • Analyzing CMWC in a project based learning environment (PBL)

16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch Menu 4. Research: CSCL - Approach 16.02.10 Michele Notari

  • Theoretical Background :
    • collaborative learning takes place
      • negociation
      • conflict resolution
      • argumentation
      • .
  • Implementation in computer supported Learning environments

5. A different approach: Usercentered design 16.02.10 Michele Notari The green button : Xerox-Park 6. Analysisoflearnersneeds / learners behaviour: focus on computer supported written communication16.02.10 Michele Notari In a Project based Learning setting 7. Research structure 16.02.10 Michele Notari 8. Why analyzing C SWritten C ?16.02.10 Michele Notari 9. Why project based learning?

  • Commun didactical method for collaboration
    • At school (K12 education)
    • At University
    • In companies -> projects

16.02.10 Michele Notari 10.

  • Electronic messaging in collaborative e-learning environments. A method to assess two key factors of communication quality: HCI and language
    • Measuring typing speed and behaviour
    • Measuring message quality
    • First testings of the method

16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch Preliminary investigation forCMWC- and CSCL Studies -> Introduction 11. Capability to write messages (thoughts) with a keyboard based interfaceare all participants of the study comparable?

  • Eighty-two college studentsenrolled in six sections of introductory college writing classes
  • Joanne Wolfe 2008
  • One hundred nineteen university studentsparticipated in the study (58.8% were women). They were informed that they would be participating in a group study using computers.
  • Joachim Kimmerle& Ulrike Cress2008

16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch 12. Need for: Preliminary investigation for CMWC- and CSCL Studies: 16.02.10 Michele Notari Two Indicators for the capability to write down thoughts with a keyboard interface: Typing efficiency Content quality and 13. Measuringtyping efficiency : - speed and - behaviour 16.02.10 14. Measuring typing speed and behaviour 16.02.10 15. Visualizing typingspeed 16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch Characters in the textbody Keys pressed Time in seconds Amount of keys/characers 16. Visualizing typingspeed 16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch 17. Visualizing typingbehaviour 16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch 18. Eliciting Content quality 16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch 19. Coding all mails 16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch 20. Calculatingtyping efficiency

  • Typing Efficiency = (C / K) + (W * S)
  • C:Characters present in the final message
  • K:Keys hit during composition
  • W:Weighing of importance of typing speed (0.03 for this investigation)
  • S:typing speed (keys hit per second during phases of typing activity; inactivity are pauses >=3sec).

16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch 21. Calculating Content quality

  • Content quality = A + (W*B) - C - D
  • A:Number ofun ambiguousthreads oflowcomplexity
  • B:Number ofun ambiguous threads ofhighcomplexity
  • C:Number ofam biguousthreads oflowcomplexity
  • D:Number ofam biguous threads ofhighcomplexity
  • W:weighing factor for unambiguous threads of high complexity, in this study W=2;

16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch 22. Reassembling the two factors: Typing efficiency and Content quality 16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch 23. First testings: some results and discussion 16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch

  • Typing efficiencyand
  • Content qualityas indicators of communication capabilities

N=60 a) b) 24. First testings: discussion

  • When the content quality measured in this study is representing the capability of the test persons to build threads, this indicator more important for the suggested co-variable than typing efficiency.

16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch 25.

  • CSCL research approach
  • Another approach
  • Preliminary investigation for CMWC- and CSCL Studies -> Introduction
  • Content analyses ofmail in a Project Based Learning (PBL) environment
  • Questionnaire about communication habits / needs before and after the project

16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch 26. Sample Group

  • 100 Students (School of Teacher Education) performing a normal curricular module about Media pedagogy.
    • One part of the Module consists of a project lasting about 2 month
    • Students work in groups of two or three
    • Students have to fulfil a task.
  • Mails interchanged between the group members are captured and analyzed.
  • 2 questionnaires are proposed (beginning and end of the curriculum)

16.02.10 Michele Notari 27. Criteria for content analyses:Communicative Model of Collaborative Learning (CMCL)Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. and Webb, C. (2000)

  • Collaborative learning is primarily mediated by language.
  • Differenttypesoflinguistic actsto constitute collaborative learning:
    • explore and deal withclaims related to subject matter
    • regulate the conduct of interactions
    • express themselves
  • Different types ofstudents orientation
    • Orientation to learning
    • Orientation to achieving an end
    • Orientation to self-representation

16.02.10 Michele Notari 28. Coding propositions following CMCL Matrix of linguistic acts and students orientation (Work in progress..) 16.02.10 Michele Notari Linguistic actsStudents orientation claims related to subject matter

    • regulate the interactions
    • expressthemselves
    • Orientation to learning

Coding 1

    • Orientation to achieving an end
    • Orientation to self-representation

Coding 9 29. Kodierungssystem fr eine Multi-Ebenen-Analyse der gemeinsamen WissenskonstruktionWeinberger Fischer 2002

  • 1. Ebene der epistemischen Aktivitt
  • 2. Ebene des sozialen Ko-konstruktionsmodus
  • 3. Ebene der Argumentation
  • Weitere Erluterungen siehe Word -Dokument

16.02.10 Vorname Name Autor/-in 30. Goal of the study? 16.02.10 Michele Notari 31. Goal of the study?

  • Describing CSWC in a real project based learning setting
  • Formulating needs to enhance CSWC in a collaborative, project orientated learning
  • Finding the green button for communication in PBL-environments

16.02.10 Michele Notari 32. How can you helpForschungsprakti?

  • Mitarbeit an der codierung der Mail-Texte?
  • Kritische Auseinandersetzung mit den Inhalten
  • Formulierung fr weiterfhrende Forschungsideen

16.02.10 Michele Notari 33. Thanks for your attention

  • Contact informations:
  • Michele Notari
  • PHBern- School of Teacher Education
  • University of Applied Sciences
  • Gertrud-Woker-Strasse 5
  • CH-3012 Bern
  • [email_address]

16.02.10