Transcript Troubles of Understanding in Virtual Math Teams

Troubles of Understanding
in Virtual Math Teams
Nan Zhou
PhD Candidate
iSchool @ Drexel University
Outline






Introduction
Research Questions
Theoretical Framework
Methodology
Findings
Q&A
Information Behavior Research
 “the totality of human behavior in relation to
sources and channels of information, including
both active and passive information seeking,
and information use” (Wilson, 2000)
 Triggered by problem situation (Belkin, Seeger, &
Wersig, 1983); knowledge deficiency (Belkin,
1980); gap in understanding (Dervin, 1983a; Itoga,
1992; Dervin & Nilan, 1986); uncertainty
(Kuhlthau,1993; Wilson, 1999)
 Dominated by cognitive viewpoint focused on
individuals
A model of information behavior
(Adapted from Wilson 1999: Models in Information Behaviour Research, Journal of Documentation, 55(3))
The Virtual Math Teams Project
 Joint research project between IST and the Math Forum
 Investigates the innovative use of online collaborative
environments to support effective K-12 mathematics discourse.
 Design-based research approach (Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992;
Design-based Research Collective, 2003)
 Addresses complexities in investigating designed artifacts contribute
to learning in naturalistic settings
 Involves progressive improvement of instructional and technological
interventions and the theory informing their design
 Explores the nature of collaborative learning and small-group
interactions
The VMT Chat Environment
(Illustration by courtesy of Murat Cakir)
Troubles of Understanding in
Virtual Math Teams
 In respect to mathematical concepts, reasoning
procedures or problem solving
 Ground for studying constructs in information behavior
 Important mechanism for collaboration and learning
 Social and situated views of learning (Piaget, 1932; Vygotsky,
1930/1978; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Suchman, 1987;
Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991)
 Shared understanding or meaning (Koschmann, 2002; Stahl,
2006b; Suthers, 2006)
 Collaboration (Roschelle, 1992; 1996; Barron, 2003; Stahl,
2003, 2006b)
Research Questions
 RQ1: How are troubles of understanding with
respect to mathematical concepts, reasoning
procedures or problem solving introduced and
made relevant to the ongoing interaction in the
group?
 RQ2: How are the introduced troubles dealt
with in the group and how is shared
understanding co-constructed?
Theoretical Framework: Studies on
Information Behavior
 Focus on individuals (Taylor,1968; Belkin, 1982;
Wilson, 1981, 1996; Krikelas, 1983; Bates, 1989; Kuhlthau,
1993; Savolanein, 1995)
 Collaborative Information Behavior (Maltz &
Ehrlich, 1995; Twidale, Nicholas, & Paice, 1997; Sonnenwald
and Pierce, 2000; Bruce et al, 2002; Prekop, 2002; Hyldegard,
2006)
 Dervin’s Sense-Making
 Constructionism (Talja, Tuominen, and
Savolainen): linguistic turns and discourse
Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning (CSCL)
 “meaning and the practices of meaning-making in the context of
joint activity, and the ways in which these practices are mediated
through designed artifacts” (Koschmann, 2002b)
 Interaction Paradigm calls for studying practices and
processes (Roschelle, 1996; Roschelle & Teasley, 1995; Barron, 2003; Stahl,
2006b; Koschmann, Stahl & Zemel, 2007; Koschmann & Zemel, 2006)
 Resolving troubles:




questioning (Graesser, 1994; Webb, Nemer, & Ing, 2006 )
peer explaining (Chi, 2000; Webb, 1989, 2003)
“grounding” (Clark & Brennan, 1991; Clark & Schaefer, 1989)
argumentation (Andriessen, Baker, & Suthers, 2003; Weinberger & Fischer,
2005);
 intersubjectivie negotiation (Stahl, 2003, 2006b; Stahl & Herrmann,
1999)
 convergence of conceptual change (Roschelle, 1992)
A social and interactional model of information behavior with the sequential team interaction in the
center.
( Stahl, G. (2010) Guiding Group Cognition in CSCL . ijCSCL 5 (3). )
Methodology
- Ethnomethodological CA (EM/CA)
 EM/CA as an approach in sociology
 Explores the basic properties of practical reasoning and
practical actions in everyday activities, including talk-ininteraction
 The problem of social order was re-conceived as a practical
problem of social action, as a members’ activity, as methodic
and therefore analyzable
 Assumes meaningful conduct is produced and understood
based on shared procedures or methods
 Sequential organization of action: “here and now”
 turn-taking, adjacency pair, repair
 Detailed analysis using logs of actual group discourse
 Reliability/Validity:
 Data sessions
 Analysis subject to inter-subjective agreement
 Data is presented as part of analysis
Data
 2 teams each consists of 3 or 4
participants; 4 one-hour sessions across
2 weeks (from VMT Spring Fest 2006)
 A few excerpts from sessions held in AOL
Instant Messenger in 2004
 Upper-middle school students, recruited
via teachers through the Math Forum
 A facilitator present in each session
Task for Spring Fest 06
 How does the graphic pattern
grow? Can your group see a
pattern of growth for the number
of sticks and squares?
 What if instead of squares you
use other polygons like
triangles, hexagons, etc.?
….. What are the different
methods (induction, series,
recursion, graphing, tables, etc.)
you can use to analye these
different patterns?
The VMT Chat Environment
(Illustration by courtesy of Murat Cakir)
The VMT Replayer
Findings
1. Three types of
troubles
a) epistemic differentials
b) problems of indexicality
c) conflicting
understandings
2. Interactional
Methods
1) Pose a question
2) Make a self report
3) Make an assertion
 Certain methods are frequently associated with a particular type of
troubles
 Evolution of types of troubles
 Traverse between methods
1) Pose a question:
Question design

Demonstrate competency





Elicit an assessment of a candidate understanding
of a matter previously put forward by another actor
Solicit a “reminder” of “forgotten” knowledge
Make a request for a demonstration
Provide information on what one already knows
regarding the matter as a preface to a question
All involve designing a question for which the
response is projected to be relatively
unproblematic to produce
Procedures for question with
candidate understanding
1)
2)
3)
statement (such as proposal, idea, etc which
contains the source of trouble) (A)
candidate understanding for assessment (B)
assessment (A)
a)
b)
4)
5)
6)
if positive, uptake the proposal/idea (B) END
if negative, alternative understanding is produced (A)
assessment for the alternative/explanation (B)
demonstration of understanding (B) OR
problematizing move (B) goes to 3)
Example 1: Pose a Question
Problem of indexicality
2) Make a self report
 Elicits instructional work
 Elicits inquiries from recipients to coconstruct the question
 Escalation structure
Example 2: Make a self report
Example 3: Escalation structure
Epistemic differentials
3) Make an Assertion
 Often uses Reversed Polarity Questions
(RPQs) (Koshik, 2005)
 E.g. “Wouldn’t that not work for that one?”
 Calls for production of an account
 When a negative assessment is made
 Often comes after a question-answer
sequence as a challenging or problematizing
move
 Can result in alternative proposals
Example 4: Conflicting understandings
Make an assertion
3. Other methods when lack of
competency
 Presents what one knows
 Defers question-asking by engaging
others to “collaborate”
 Both involve positioning self as peers to
mitigate any epistemic differentials
4. Display/Demonstrate understanding
 make a self-report regarding the
achieved understanding on the matter of
concern
 apply what’s been explained to the
problem solving and performing the next
step
 reformulate what’s been explained (elicit
assessment)
Example 5: Display understandings
5. Organization of Participation
 Yours or my problem: problems of indexicality
vs. epistemic differentials
 Mark competency issue by “bracketing
relationship”
 E.g. “hope this doesnt sound too stupid, but wuts a
summation”
 Co-construction of trouble
 A self-report results in elicitation of a question
 Intervention upon “failed” question
 Prompts others to display understanding
 Collaborative nature of response
Example 6: Co-construction of an inquiry:
A “failed” question
Epistemic differentials
Problem of indexicality
6. Understanding work vs.
lack of understanding work
 Ways of dis-attending in chat
 Initiate a separate thread
 Make a dismissive comment
 Make an alternative proposal
 Evidence of good collaboration?
Conclusions
 RQ1: How are troubles of understanding with
respect to mathematical concepts, reasoning
procedures or problem solving introduced and
made relevant to the ongoing interaction in the
group?
 RQ2: How are the introduced troubles dealt
with in the group and how is shared
understanding co-constructed?
Contributions
 Contribution to information behavior research
 Offers an interactional approach using EM/CA
 Information as process of informing
 Contribution to CSCL
 Questioning
 “objectivism” and “structuralism” vs. interactional
 Collaboration and learning
 Where is shared understanding or meaning located?
– in the methods and procedures in producing them
 Contribution to Conversation Analysis
 Extends studies on repairs
Questions?