Vorname Name Autor/-in 07.06.22 07.06.22 1 Writing to communicate, communicating to collaborate, collaborating to learn PHD- concept and first ‘results’ Michele Notari University of Teacher Education [email protected]
Vorname Name Autor/-in 10.04.2310.04.23 1
Writing to communicate, communicating to collaborate, collaborating to learn
PHD- concept and first ‘results’
Michele Notari
University of Teacher Education
Vorname Name Autor/-in 10.04.2310.04.23 2
Writing to communicate,
communicating to collaborate, collaborating to learnPHD- concept and first ‘results’
10.04.23Michele Notari : [email protected] 3
• CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) research approach <->‘Another approach’
• Preliminary investigation for Computer Supported Written Communication (CMWC)- and CSCL – Studies
• Analyzing CMWC in a project based learning environment (PBL)
Menu
Research: CSCL - Approach
10.04.23Michele Notari 4
Theoretical Background:collaborative learning takes place…
• negociation• conflict resolution• argumentation• ….
Implementation in computer supported Learning environments
A different approach: User centered ‚design‘
10.04.23Michele Notari 5
The green ‚button‘ : Xerox-Park
Analysis of learners needs / learners behaviour: focus on ‚computer supported written communication‘
10.04.23Michele Notari 6
In a Project based Learning setting
Research structure
10.04.23Michele Notari 7
Why analyzing C S WrittenWritten C ?
10.04.23Michele Notari 8
Why project based learning?
• Commun didactical method for collaboration– At school (K12 education)– At University– In companies -> projects
10.04.23Michele Notari 9
10.04.23Michele Notari : [email protected] 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
Preliminary investigation for CMWC- and CSCL – Studies -> Introduction
10.04.23Michele Notari : [email protected] 11
Capability to write messages (thoughts) with a keyboard based interface… are all participants of the study comparable?
Eighty-two college students enrolled in six sections of introductory college writing classes…Joanne Wolfe 2008
One hundred nineteen university students participated in the study (58.8% were women). They were informed that they would be participating in a group study using computers.Joachim Kimmerle & Ulrike Cress 2008
Need for:
Preliminary investigation for CMWC- and CSCL – Studies:
10.04.23Michele Notari 12
Two Indicators for the capability to ‚write down thoughts with a keyboard interface‘:
Typing efficiency Content qualityand
10.04.23 13
Measuring typing efficiency: - speed and - behaviour
Measuring typing speed and behaviour
10.04.23 14
Visualizing typing speed
10.04.23Michele Notari : [email protected] 15
Characters inthe textbody
Keys pressed
Time in seconds
Am
ount
of
keys
/ c
hara
cers
Visualizing typing speed
10.04.23Michele Notari : [email protected] 16
Visualizing typing behaviour
10.04.23Michele Notari : [email protected] 17
Eliciting ‚Content quality‘
10.04.23Michele Notari : [email protected] 18
Coding all mails
10.04.23Michele Notari : [email protected] 19
Calculating typing 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).
10.04.23Michele Notari : [email protected] 20
Calculating ‚Content quality‘
Content quality = A + (W*B) - C - D
• A: Number of unambiguous threads of low complexity• B: Number of unambiguous threads of high complexity• C: Number of ambiguous threads of low complexity• D: Number of ambiguous threads of high complexity• W: weighing factor for unambiguous threads of high
complexity, in this study W=2;
10.04.23Michele Notari : [email protected] 21
Reassembling the two factors: ‚Typing efficiency‘ and ‚Content quality‘
10.04.23Michele Notari : [email protected] 22
Event -TrackingQualitative
Content AnalysisSynthesis
Generating a Covariable
Integrate the Covariable in the Planed Research
Preliminary Investigation for Empirical Computer Supported Written
Communication / Collaboration
First testings: some results and discussion
10.04.23Michele Notari : [email protected] 23
a) Typing efficiency and b) Content quality as
indicators of ‘communication capabilities’
N=60
a)
b)
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.
10.04.23Michele Notari : [email protected] 24
10.04.23Michele Notari : [email protected] 25
• CSCL research approach• ‘Another approach’• Preliminary investigation for CMWC- and CSCL –
Studies -> Introduction• Content analyses of mail –in a Project Based Learning
(PBL) environment• Questionnaire about communication habits / needs
before and after the project
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)
10.04.23Michele Notari 26
Criteria for content analyses: Communicative Model of Collaborative Learning (CMCL) Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. and Webb, C. (2000)
• Collaborative learning is primarily mediated by language.• Different types of linguistic acts to constitute collaborative
learning:– explore and deal with claims related to subject matter– regulate the conduct of interactions– express themselves
• Different types of student‘s orientation– Orientation to learning– Orientation to achieving an end– Orientation to self-representation
10.04.23Michele Notari 27
Coding propositions following CMCLMatrix of ‚linguistic acts‘ and ‚student‘s orientation (Work in progress..)
10.04.23Michele Notari 28
Linguistic acts Students orientation
claims related to subject matter
regulate the interactions
express themselves
Orientation to learning
Coding 1 … …
Orientation to achieving an end
… … …
Orientation to self-representation
… … Coding 9
Kodierungssystem für eine Multi-Ebenen-Analyse der gemeinsamen Wissenskonstruktion Weinberger Fischer 2002
• 1. Ebene der epistemischen Aktivität• 2. Ebene des sozialen Ko-konstruktionsmodus• 3. Ebene der Argumentation
• Weitere Erläuterungen siehe Word -Dokument
10.04.23Vorname Name Autor/-in 29
Goal of the study?
10.04.23Michele Notari 30
Goal of the study?
10.04.23Michele Notari 31
• 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
How can you help Forschungsprakti?
• Mitarbeit an der codierung der Mail-Texte?
• Kritische Auseinandersetzung mit den Inhalten
• Formulierung für weiterführende Forschungsideen
10.04.23Michele Notari 32