Top Banner
1 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh
23

0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

Dec 21, 2015

Download

Documents

Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

1

Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research

James Greeno

University of Pittsburgh

Page 2: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

2

Strategies/methods at two levels of research activity

• 2. Analyzing episodes of activity: Interaction analysis, including subject-matter content.

• 1. Developing and evaluating hypotheses: Progressive refinement.

Page 3: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

3

1. Developing and evaluating

hypotheses: Two (extreme) strategies • Experimental (strict form): Hypothesizing must

precede empirical testing, which gives binary answers.Hypotheses are modified, but only between experiments

• Ethnographic (strict form); Minimize hypotheses in advance of empirical study (= avoid preconceptions); hypotheses emerge in experience of field work; evaluate with field notes. Hypotheses happen, at least in the form of organizing concepts, but they are kept general

Page 4: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

4

Examples of Ethnographic Research

• A classic: Jean Lave’s study of math in grocery shopping. JPF shoppers nearly always picked the product with the lowest unit price, although their performance on paper-and-pencil math tests was much poorer.

• Nunez, Schliemann, & Carraher, and Saxe, studied young Brazilian street merchants. They managed the math of wholesale purchases and setting prices, and didn’t do as well on paper-and-pencil tests.

• Current research at the LIFE Learning Sciences Center is studying family math and activities involving science at home, finding capabilities that exceed performance in school, e.g., a girl who successfully mixes chemicals for cosmetics at home, but is low-performing student in school science.

Page 5: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

5

Combining these complementary strategies

• Progressive refinement; enabled by video records.• Start with a general issue or type of process; select

and analyze some relevant episodes; formulate hypotheses; reconsider analyses and consider more episodes; reformulate hypotheses, usually more specific, toward (hopefully until) convergence.

• (e.g., Engle, Conant & Greeno, 2007)

Page 6: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

6

2. Analyzing dynamics and contents of subject-matter discourse

• Method of information-processing analysis —> hypothetical information structures, attributed to individual mental activity.

• Method of interactional discourse analysis —> hypothetical patterns of participation and coordination, attributed to groups, with material and informational resources (activity systems).

Page 7: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

7

Combining these complementary methods

• Interaction analysis, including participation structures (e.g., distribution of agency), and construction of information structures in common ground.

Page 8: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

8

An Example

• Analysis by Carla van de Sande of videos recorded by Melissa Gresalfi, Victoria Hand, and Greeno (supported by the Spencer Foundation)

• Setting: an 8th-grade algebra class; the teacher emphasized cooperative problem solving and sense making.

Page 9: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

9

Some hypotheses we carried into this analysis

• General topic: growth in conceptual understanding through discourse interaction (since 1991)

• Analytical scheme: Information structures constructed as contributions to discourse (Clark & Schaefer)

• Hypotheses of supporting conditions: ° distribution of authority, authorship, accountability and ° practices of problematizing, resolving subject-matter issues (Engle & Conant; Engle); ° dispositions toward collaboraative mathematical engagement (Gresalfi)

Page 10: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

10

Selecting episodes for analysis

• From field notes (by Gresalfi) we chose episodes in which a solution or method initially was not mutually understood, but came to be.

Page 11: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

11

Two findings to be explained

• Episodes in which new understanding was achieved had a characteristic structure, with one (or more) of the participants providing an explanation to the other(s).

• The process of reaching mutual understanding can be difficult, requiring sustained attention and effort.

Page 12: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

12

Hypotheses we have developed in this study

• Participant functions of inquirer and explainer organize interactions of (effortful) constructive listening. This need not correspond to who leads the conversation.

• Cognition is fundamentally perspectival (from MacWhinney, Fauconnier)

• Success in communication requires alignment of perspectives, and reorganizing a perspective can be very hard (cf. gestalt theorists)

Page 13: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

13

Our questions, then, in studying an episode:

• Does the episode provide evidence supporting or disconfirming these new hypotheses? (That is, do the hypotheses support an interpretation of the episode that accounts for important aspects of the interaction)?

• Do our current more general hypotheses provide a useful framework for analyzing this episode?

Page 14: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

14

Specifically:

• Look for evidence of the explainer/inquirer participant structure in constructing contributions

• In cases of difficulty in reaching mutual understanding, formulate and evaluate hypotheses involving perspectives that differed initially, with eventual alignment.

Page 15: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

15

A scheme for summarizing contributions:

• Cognitive function (what they accomplished, or got into common ground)

• Participation (positioning in the interaction)

• Task information (contents of information structure in the interaction)

Page 16: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

16

4:07 - 5:13

• Cognitive function: Settle that the answer to S10 for Function 1 is 21

• Participation: D enacted her solution, G and J followed and accepted D’s enactment and the result, the G and D corrected their earlier answers

• Task information: D counted the segments of S5, then iteratively enacted adding 2 for each member of the sequence from S6 6o S10.

Page 17: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

17

>5:13 - 5:59

• Cognitive function: Determine that the formula 2n+1 is correct

• Participation: G’s presentation was not picked up; J’s presentation was responded to negatively by G, but J did not accept G’s objection and they did not resolve their difference. D took the lead in the interaction to present her support for 2n+1

• Task information: Candidate patterns were presented … 2n+1 was verified in examples by D, agreement was given by G

Page 18: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

18

>6:10 - 6:38

• Cognitive function: Complete the work sheet for Function 1 (graph, answer for S17) and reconfirm the formula 2n+1sd

• Participation: Interaction between D and G. G presented tentative answers, D provided candidate answers, G accepted.

• Task information: D and G attended to graphing Function 1 by points (3, 5, …) and to the answer for S17 (34? No, 35) and wrote 2n+1 as the pattern

Page 19: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

19

7:34 - 8:42

• Cognitive function: Settle that both 3n+2 and 5+3(n-1) “work.”

• Participation: D and G presented different patterns (again); D didn’t disagree with G but repeated her pattern with examples. G presented and explained her pattern again and D accepted it with stronger evidence.

• Task information: D presented 3n+2, G presented 5+3(n-1) D demonstrated 3n+2 for S1, S2, and S3. G presented 5+3(n-1) again demonstrating it for S3.

Page 20: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

20

Evidence for perspectives?

• Task information: D presented 3n+2, G presented 5+3(n-1)

• D’s perspective: pattern of numerical progression; G’s perspective = pattern of change in diagrams?

• D demonstrated 3n+2 for S1, S2, and S3. G presented 5+3(n-1) again demonstrating it for S3.

• G shifted perspective to numerical evaluation of the formula?

Page 21: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

21

8:48 - 8:52

• Cognitive function: determine that S10 - 32

• Participation: D and G participated jointly

• Task information: Evaluated 3(n-1)+5 for S10.

Page 22: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

22

A couple of summary notes

• Aspects of positioning interacted with aspects of information content throughout. For example, J’s proposal to solve for S10 in Function 1 (2 times 11) could have been resolved, but J was reticent and D took over the conversation

• The adjustment of perspective we hypothesize for G in Function 3 might indicate a stronger commitment by G to achieving mutual understanding than D had.

Page 23: 0 Combining Methods at Two Levels in Learning Research James Greeno University of Pittsburgh.

23

Something that didn’t happen

• Reconciling the two patterns (cf. Bass & Ball)