INTERACTION ANALYSIS AT ULLERN HIGH SCHOOL TOOL5100 – CSCL

1. INTERACTION ANALYSISATULLERN 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.