1

INTERACTION ANALYSISAT

ULLERN HIGH SCHOOLTOOL5100 – CSCL

JAN ARE OTNES / IFI

LYNDY SIEGA BAGARES / IFI

VERONICA ANDERSEN / IFI

2

INTRODUCTION

• Our project is about:– CSCL– Interaction Analysis– Project Overview– Process Documentation– Analysis / Results

• Video Segments

– Critical evaluation– Conclusion

3

CSCL

• CSCL is new emerging research paradigm that focuses in education software.

• Different methods is used to support in evaluating and studying new ways of course design and delivery using the technology.

4

Interaction Analysis

• IA is a empirical investigation of the interaction between human being with each other and with the objects in their environment (Jordan & Henderson)

• Our main methods used is Video-based interaction analysis to be able to do in-depth micro-level analysis

5

Project Overview

• The project theme for our group was empirical study and interaction analysis.

• We were to select a specific collaboration learning environment for witch we had to have access to users.

• Video record a session where a specific system was in use.

• Perform an interaction analysis on the data, while trying to connect it with appropriate theories from the literature.

• Write a report where we also should document the whole process

6

Research Question

• “How much can we learn by using the method “learning by doing” and how reliable is our findings?”

7

Process documentation

• How we work as a group– Email, Confluence, Meeting room

• Preparation– Finding a learning environment research

setting– Establishing contact and schedule– Preparation done before video recording

• Doing the fieldwork• Video Transcription and Analysis

8

Context / Setting

• Ethical issues– Confidentiality, permission, age

• Class description– Ullern Highschool, 17 years old, English

class, preparing for an oral group exam

• Challenges– Class: Resistance, skeptical; – Technical: room layout, setting up the

equipment

9

Classroom setting

10

Real Life

11

Real Life 2

12

Analysis document

• Six sequences was transcribed in detail– Seq1: Use of MSN– Seq2: Explanation of pie chart– Seq3: Find the write term– Seq4: Collaboration and Interaction– Seq5: Sharing Information– Seq6: Making contact

13

Results

The result were based on the literature given on the lecture, from some other researches, and based on experience during the project work.

14

Results – KB

• There are little KB, but some as shown in seq2 and 3– Little discussion/argumentation– Given a group task but divided it into

individual tasks– No encouraging from the teacher

(Scardemalia)

15

Results – KB2

16

Results – Gender difference

• Female are more social interactive than the male– Uses more verbal and non-verbal communication– More observant on what is going on the classroom

• Male is focusing more on working with the computer

This pattern are also shown in the article written by Hakkarainen,K & Palonen, T (2003) and other researches.

17

Results – Communication with the use of artefacts

• Less verbal communication –seq1 and 4– Pointing at the screen– Half sentences, letting the PC do the “talk”

18

Results – Data quality

• Trusting the information from the internet without evidence, seq2 and 5– Use Wikipedia as a source of information

• Copy and pasting the information without understanding

• No further discussion on the information retrieved from the internet

• More use of information than knowledge

19

Results – “My own little world”

• Attention get drawn to the screen, seq3, 6– Little awareness of what is going on around

you– Easily distracted by the potentials of the

computer– Focus on the computer where the activity

takes place

20

Critical evaluation

• Camera– Students may act differently– Students felt they are kept under surveillance?– The right position for filming the group?

• We are new to the field– What should we look for?– Some problem regarding the sound– Would the result be different in another setting?

21

Critical evaluation2

• Transcription– The right segments?– Translation from Norwegian to English– Did we biased the transcriptions?

• Confluence/Email– Did we loose an advantage not using

Confluence?

22

Conclusion

• Made a in-depth micro analysis of the students interaction with one another and the artefacts in their environment– We did find patterns in the students behaviour– Were able to link the patterns to existing

research

23

Conclusion

• “How much can we learn by using the method “learning by doing” and how reliable is our findings?” – We have learned a lot! Both regarding

practical and theoretical matters.– Believe the method “learning by doing” is the

best method for a project like this– We think our findings are just as reliable

compared to other existing research.

24