Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

Research-concept Michele Notari At Phbern Ch

853 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Description of research concept

Publicado en: Educación, Tecnología
  • Inicia sesión para ver los comentarios

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

Research-concept Michele Notari At Phbern Ch

  1. 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]
  2. 2. Writing to communicate , communicating to collaborate, collaborating to learn PHD- concept and first ‘results’ 16.02.10
  3. 3. <ul><li>CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) research approach <->‘Another approach’ </li></ul><ul><li>Preliminary investigation for Computer Supported Written Communication (CMWC)- and CSCL – Studies </li></ul><ul><li>Analyzing CMWC in a project based learning environment (PBL) </li></ul>16.02.10 Michele Notari : Menu
  4. 4. Research: CSCL - Approach 16.02.10 Michele Notari <ul><li>Theoretical Background : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>collaborative learning takes place… </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>negociation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>conflict resolution </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>argumentation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>… . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Implementation in computer supported Learning environments </li></ul>
  5. 5. A different approach: User centered ‚design ‘ 16.02.10 Michele Notari The green ‚button‘ : Xerox-Park
  6. 6. Analysis of learners needs / learners behaviour: focus on ‚computer supported written communication‘ 16.02.10 Michele Notari In a Project based Learning setting
  7. 7. Research structure 16.02.10 Michele Notari
  8. 8. Why analyzing C S Written C ? 16.02.10 Michele Notari
  9. 9. Why project based learning? <ul><li>Commun didactical method for collaboration </li></ul><ul><ul><li>At school (K12 education) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>At University </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In companies -> projects </li></ul></ul>16.02.10 Michele Notari
  10. 10. <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><ul><li>Measuring typing speed and behaviour </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Measuring message ‚quality‘ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>First testings of the method </li></ul></ul>16.02.10 Michele Notari : Preliminary investigation for CMWC- and CSCL – Studies -> Introduction
  11. 11. Capability to write messages (thoughts) with a keyboard based interface… are all participants of the study comparable? <ul><li>Eighty-two college students enrolled in six sections of introductory college writing classes… </li></ul><ul><li>Joanne Wolfe 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Joachim Kimmerle & Ulrike Cress 2008 </li></ul>16.02.10 Michele Notari :
  12. 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. 13. Measuring typing efficiency : - speed and - behaviour 16.02.10
  14. 14. Measuring typing speed and behaviour 16.02.10
  15. 15. Visualizing typing speed 16.02.10 Michele Notari : Characters in the textbody Keys pressed Time in seconds Amount of keys / characers
  16. 16. Visualizing typing speed 16.02.10 Michele Notari :
  17. 17. Visualizing typing behaviour 16.02.10 Michele Notari :
  18. 18. Eliciting ‚ Content quality ‘ 16.02.10 Michele Notari :
  19. 19. Coding all mails 16.02.10 Michele Notari :
  20. 20. Calculating typing efficiency <ul><li>Typing Efficiency = (C / K) + (W * S) </li></ul><ul><li>  </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 >=3sec). </li></ul>16.02.10 Michele Notari :
  21. 21. Calculating ‚ Content quality ‘ <ul><li>Content quality = A + (W*B) - C - D </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>A: Number of un ambiguous threads of low complexity </li></ul><ul><li>B: Number of un ambiguous threads of high complexity </li></ul><ul><li>C: Number of am biguous threads of low complexity </li></ul><ul><li>D: Number of am biguous threads of high complexity </li></ul><ul><li>W: weighing factor for unambiguous threads of high complexity, in this study W=2; </li></ul>16.02.10 Michele Notari :
  22. 22. Reassembling the two factors: ‚Typing efficiency‘ and ‚Content quality‘ 16.02.10 Michele Notari :
  23. 23. First testings: some results and discussion 16.02.10 Michele Notari : <ul><li>Typing efficiency and </li></ul><ul><li>Content quality as indicators of ‘communication capabilities’ </li></ul>N=60 a) b)
  24. 24. First testings: discussion <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>16.02.10 Michele Notari :
  25. 25. <ul><li>CSCL research approach </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Another approach’ </li></ul><ul><li>Preliminary investigation for CMWC- and CSCL – Studies -> Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Content analyses of mail –in a Project Based Learning (PBL) environment </li></ul><ul><li>Questionnaire about communication habits / needs before and after the project </li></ul>16.02.10 Michele Notari :
  26. 26. Sample Group <ul><li>100 Students (School of Teacher Education) performing a normal curricular module about Media pedagogy. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One part of the Module consists of a project lasting about 2 month </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students work in groups of two or three </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students have to fulfil a task. </li></ul></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>16.02.10 Michele Notari
  27. 27. Criteria for content analyses: Communicative Model of Collaborative Learning (CMCL) Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. and Webb, C. (2000) <ul><li>Collaborative learning is primarily mediated by language. </li></ul><ul><li>Different types of linguistic acts to constitute collaborative learning: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>explore and deal with claims related to subject matter </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>regulate the conduct of interactions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>express themselves </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Different types of student‘s orientation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Orientation to learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Orientation to achieving an end </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Orientation to self-representation </li></ul></ul>16.02.10 Michele Notari
  28. 28. Coding propositions following CMCL Matrix of ‚linguistic acts‘ and ‚student‘s orientation (Work in progress..) 16.02.10 Michele Notari Linguistic acts Students orientation claims related to subject matter <ul><ul><li>regulate the interactions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>express themselves </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Orientation to learning </li></ul></ul>Coding 1 … … <ul><ul><li>Orientation to achieving an end </li></ul></ul>… … … <ul><ul><li>Orientation to self-representation </li></ul></ul>… … Coding 9
  29. 29. Kodierungssystem für eine Multi-Ebenen-Analyse der gemeinsamen Wissenskonstruktion Weinberger Fischer 2002 <ul><li>1. Ebene der epistemischen Aktivität </li></ul><ul><li>2. Ebene des sozialen Ko-konstruktionsmodus </li></ul><ul><li>3. Ebene der Argumentation </li></ul><ul><li>Weitere Erläuterungen siehe Word -Dokument </li></ul>16.02.10 Vorname Name Autor/-in
  30. 30. Goal of the study? 16.02.10 Michele Notari
  31. 31. Goal of the study? <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>16.02.10 Michele Notari
  32. 32. How can you help  Forschungsprakti? <ul><li>Mitarbeit an der codierung der Mail-Texte? </li></ul><ul><li>Kritische Auseinandersetzung mit den Inhalten </li></ul><ul><li>Formulierung für weiterführende Forschungsideen </li></ul>16.02.10 Michele Notari
  33. 33. Thanks for your attention <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>16.02.10