Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Research-concept Michele Notari At Phbern Ch

830 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Description of research concept

Veröffentlicht in: Bildung, Technologie
  • Login to see the comments

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

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 : michele.notari@phbern.ch 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 : michele.notari@phbern.ch 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 : michele.notari@phbern.ch
  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 : michele.notari@phbern.ch Characters in the textbody Keys pressed Time in seconds Amount of keys / characers
  16. 16. Visualizing typing speed 16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch
  17. 17. Visualizing typing behaviour 16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch
  18. 18. Eliciting ‚ Content quality ‘ 16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch
  19. 19. Coding all mails 16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch
  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 : michele.notari@phbern.ch
  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 : michele.notari@phbern.ch
  22. 22. Reassembling the two factors: ‚Typing efficiency‘ and ‚Content quality‘ 16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch
  23. 23. First testings: some results and discussion 16.02.10 Michele Notari : michele.notari@phbern.ch <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 : michele.notari@phbern.ch
  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 : michele.notari@phbern.ch
  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

×