Cracking the nut: but which nutcracker to use? diversity in approaches to analyzing collaborative processes in technology-supported settings

Research on collaborative learning and problem-solving in technology-supported settings increasingly focuses on understanding collaborative processes, not just assessing their outcomes (learning gains or products). Developing such understanding is a prerequisite for promoting collaboration in an informed way. Different methodological approaches have been adopted for analyzing collaborative processes in technology-supported settings. As no single method is sufficient to unravel all aspects of a collaborative process, researchers must choose approaches that allow them to gain data on those aspects that are of focal interest for a given research question. This symposium will highlight aspects of the diversity of methodological approaches. The speakers of the symposium will describe the process analyses conducted as part of their research in different content domains and collaborative settings. They will discuss merits and shortcomings of these methods in revealing particular aspects of the collaborative processes. The discussion will compare and contrast the different methodological approaches, working towards the development of a "methodological toolbox" which could support informed choice of the appropriate methods of analysis.

[1]  Kris D. Gutiérrez,et al.  Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space , 1999 .

[2]  Lilian G. Katz,et al.  Third space: sharing a computer in a first-grade classroom , 2003 .

[3]  Thierry Chanier,et al.  How Social Network Analysis can help to Measure Cohesion in Collaborative Distance-Learning , 2003, CSCL.

[4]  S. Aitken,et al.  Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real-And-Imagined Places , 1998 .

[5]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Deictic Roles of External Representations in Face-to-Face and Online Collaboration , 2003, CSCL.

[6]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  An Empirical Study of the Effects of Representational Guidance on Collaborative Learning. , 2003 .

[7]  Austin Henderson,et al.  Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice , 1995 .

[8]  M. Hammersley.  What's Wrong With Ethnography? , 1991 .

[9]  Barbara Wasson,et al.  The ethnography of distributed collaborative learning , 2002, CSCL.

[10]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  The role of vision in face-to-face and mediated communication. , 1997 .

[11]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[12]  Donald W. Wortham,et al.  Nodal and matrix analyses of communication patterns in small groups , 1999, CSCL.

[13]  X. Christine Wang,et al.  Social Construction of Computer Experience in a First-Grade Classroom: Social Processes and Mediating Artifacts , 2003 .

[14]  Yasmin B. Kafai,et al.  Spaces for Change: Gender and Technology Access in Collaborative Software Design , 2000 .

[15]  Selma Leitão,et al.  The Potential of Argument in Knowledge Building , 2000, Human Development.

[16]  N. Rummel,et al.  Learning to Collaborate: An Instructional Approach to Promoting Collaborative Problem Solving in Computer-Mediated Settings , 2005 .

[17]  Angela M. O'Donnell,et al.  The Structure of Discourse in Collaborative Learning , 2000 .

[18]  P. Mayring.  Qualitative Content Analysis , 2000 .

[19]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[20]  Geoffrey B. Saxe,et al.  Culture and cognitive development , 1990 .