Research-concept Michele Notari At Phbern Ch

  • Published on
    15-Dec-2014

  • View
    417

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Description of research concept

Transcript

<ul><li> 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]</li></ul> <p> 2. Writing to communicate ,communicating to collaborate, collaborating to learn PHD- concept and first results 16.02.10 3. </p> <ul><li>CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) research approach Another approach </li></ul> <ul><li>Preliminary investigation for Computer Supported WrittenCommunication (CMWC)- and CSCL Studies </li></ul> <ul><li>Analyzing CMWC in a project based learning environment (PBL) </li></ul> <p>16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch Menu 4. Research: CSCL - Approach 16.02.10 Michele Notari </p> <ul><li>Theoretical Background : </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>collaborative learning takes place </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>negociation </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>conflict resolution </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>argumentation </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li> . </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Implementation in computer supported Learning environments </li></ul> <p> 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? </p> <ul><li>Commun didactical method for collaboration </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>At school (K12 education) </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>At University </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>In companies -&gt; projects </li></ul></li></ul> <p>16.02.10 Michele Notari 10. </p> <ul><li>Electronic messaging in collaborative e-learning environments. A method to assess two key factors of communication quality: HCI and language </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Measuring typing speed and behaviour </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Measuring message quality </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>First testings of the method </li></ul></li></ul> <p>16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch Preliminary investigation forCMWC- and CSCL Studies -&gt; Introduction 11. Capability to write messages (thoughts) with a keyboard based interfaceare all participants of the study comparable? </p> <ul><li>Eighty-two college studentsenrolled in six sections of introductory college writing classes </li></ul> <ul><li>Joanne Wolfe 2008 </li></ul> <ul><li>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. </li></ul> <ul><li>Joachim Kimmerle&amp; Ulrike Cress2008 </li></ul> <p>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 </p> <ul><li>Typing Efficiency = (C / K) + (W * S) </li></ul> <ul><li>C:Characters present in the final message </li></ul> <ul><li>K:Keys hit during composition</li></ul> <ul><li>W:Weighing of importance of typing speed (0.03 for this investigation) </li></ul> <ul><li>S:typing speed (keys hit per second during phases of typing activity; inactivity are pauses &gt;=3sec).</li></ul> <p>16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch 21. Calculating Content quality </p> <ul><li>Content quality = A + (W*B) - C - D </li></ul> <ul><li>A:Number ofun ambiguousthreads oflowcomplexity </li></ul> <ul><li>B:Number ofun ambiguous threads ofhighcomplexity </li></ul> <ul><li>C:Number ofam biguousthreads oflowcomplexity </li></ul> <ul><li>D:Number ofam biguous threads ofhighcomplexity </li></ul> <ul><li>W:weighing factor for unambiguous threads of high complexity, in this study W=2; </li></ul> <p>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 </p> <ul><li>Typing efficiencyand</li></ul> <ul><li>Content qualityas indicators of communication capabilities </li></ul> <p>N=60 a) b) 24. First testings: discussion </p> <ul><li>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.</li></ul> <p>16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch 25. </p> <ul><li>CSCL research approach </li></ul> <ul><li> Another approach </li></ul> <ul><li>Preliminary investigation for CMWC- and CSCL Studies -&gt; Introduction </li></ul> <ul><li>Content analyses ofmail in a Project Based Learning (PBL) environment </li></ul> <ul><li>Questionnaire about communication habits / needs before and after the project </li></ul> <p>16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch 26. Sample Group </p> <ul><li>100 Students (School of Teacher Education) performing a normal curricular module about Media pedagogy. </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>One part of the Module consists of a project lasting about 2 month</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Students work in groups of two or three </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Students have to fulfil a task. </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Mails interchanged between the group members are captured and analyzed. </li></ul> <ul><li>2 questionnaires are proposed (beginning and end of the curriculum) </li></ul> <p>16.02.10 Michele Notari 27. Criteria for content analyses:Communicative Model of Collaborative Learning (CMCL)Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. and Webb, C. (2000) </p> <ul><li>Collaborative learning is primarily mediated by language. </li></ul> <ul><li>Differenttypesoflinguistic actsto constitute collaborative learning: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>explore and deal withclaims related to subject matter </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>regulate the conduct of interactions </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>express themselves </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Different types ofstudents orientation </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Orientation to learning </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Orientation to achieving an end </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Orientation to self-representation </li></ul></li></ul> <p>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 </p> <ul><li><ul><li>regulate the interactions </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>expressthemselves </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Orientation to learning </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Coding 1 </p> <ul><li><ul><li>Orientation to achieving an end </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Orientation to self-representation </li></ul></li></ul> <p> Coding 9 29. Kodierungssystem fr eine Multi-Ebenen-Analyse der gemeinsamen WissenskonstruktionWeinberger Fischer 2002 </p> <ul><li>1. Ebene der epistemischen Aktivitt </li></ul> <ul><li>2. Ebene des sozialen Ko-konstruktionsmodus </li></ul> <ul><li>3. Ebene der Argumentation </li></ul> <ul><li>Weitere Erluterungen siehe Word -Dokument </li></ul> <p>16.02.10 Vorname Name Autor/-in 30. Goal of the study? 16.02.10 Michele Notari 31. Goal of the study? </p> <ul><li>Describing CSWC in a real project based learning setting </li></ul> <ul><li>Formulating needs to enhance CSWC in a collaborative, project orientated learning </li></ul> <ul><li>Finding the green button for communication in PBL-environments </li></ul> <p>16.02.10 Michele Notari 32. How can you helpForschungsprakti? </p> <ul><li>Mitarbeit an der codierung der Mail-Texte? </li></ul> <ul><li>Kritische Auseinandersetzung mit den Inhalten</li></ul> <ul><li>Formulierung fr weiterfhrende Forschungsideen </li></ul> <p>16.02.10 Michele Notari 33. Thanks for your attention </p> <ul><li>Contact informations: </li></ul> <ul><li>Michele Notari </li></ul> <ul><li>PHBern- School of Teacher Education </li></ul> <ul><li>University of Applied Sciences </li></ul> <ul><li>Gertrud-Woker-Strasse 5 </li></ul> <ul><li>CH-3012 Bern </li></ul> <ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul> <p>16.02.10 </p>