Abstract
This is an analysis of data from initial attempts to combine (a) technology from the Virtual Math Teams (VMT) Project, (b) helping agents, (c) collaborative small groups, and (d) accountable-talk prompting in order to scaffold biology student online chats about videotaped results of a biology experiment. Analysis of the response structure of the chat log of a student group reveals characteristics of their interactions in terms of building collaborative knowledge. In particular, the mediation by the VMT technology, helping agents, and accountable-talk training is analyzed to determine their influences in promoting productive learning-oriented interaction. A design-based-research analytic perspective provides suggestions for redesign of the socio-technical approach based on the findings from the interaction analysis. Redesign in response to the analysis results in clear improvement, as seen in analysis of the response structure of a chat log from a second test cycle.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Çakır, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 4(2), 115–149. Retrieved from http://GerryStahl.net/pub/ijCSCL_4_2_1.pdf
Charles, E. S., & Shumar, W. (2009). Student and team agency in VMT. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 207–224). New York, NY: Springer. Chapter 11.
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open University of the Netherlands.
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2006). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer–Springer.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 4(1), 39–103. Retrieved from http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/c-merkel/document4.HTM
Sacks, H. (1962/1995). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, G. (2006a). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stahl, G. (2006b). Scripting group cognition: The problem of guiding situated collaboration. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. (pp. 327–335). Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer–Springer. Retrieved from http://GerryStahl.net/pub/scripting.pdf
Stahl, G. (2006c). Sustaining group cognition in a math chat environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning (RPTEL). 1(2), 85–113. Retrieved from http://GerryStahl.net/pub/rptel.pdf
Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer.
Stahl, G. (2011). The structure of collaborative problem solving in a virtual math team. Paper presented at the Conference 2011. Seattle, WA. Retrieved from http://GerryStahl.net/pub/iconf2011.pdf
Stahl, G. (2012). Theories of cognition in collaborative learning. In C. Hmelo-Silver, A. O’Donnell, C. Chan & C. Chinn (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from http://GerryStahl.net/pub/clhandbook.pdf
Stahl, G., Rosé, C. P., O’Hara, K., & Powell, A. B. (2010). Supporting group math cognition in virtual math teams with software conversational agents. Paper presented at the First North American GeoGebra Conference. Ithaca, NY. Retrieved from http://GerryStahl.net/pub/geogebrana 2010a.pdf
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix A: Chat Log of Group C01 from Cycle One
Appendix B: Chat Log of Group F01 from Cycle Two
No. | Time | Tutor | 539CN5 | 504CN1 | 550CN5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 13.57 | Hi, my name is Sage. I’ll be working with you in this activity. Take a minute to introduce yourselves | |||
2 | 14.42 | I won’t tell you if you’re right or wrong, but I’ll give feedback as you discuss things as a team | |||
3 | 14.49 | Hi dajha! | |||
4 | 14.58 | Let’s look at a setup which is the opposite of the one we saw earlier—the iodine is now inside and the starch is outside | |||
5 | 15.24 | On the whiteboard, you can see a picture of this new setup | |||
6 | 15.29 | Vinny<3 | |||
7 | 15.38 | Here’s what happened in this setup over time | |||
8 | 15.59 | Notice how the inside and outside environments changed. Why did these changes happen? | |||
9 | 16.26 | The iodine left the bag | |||
10 | 16.31 | Okay, 504CN1—why would how we use indicators be relevant? | |||
11 | 17.39 | The iodine was never in the bag the iodine went into the bag | |||
12 | 17.48 | ||||
13 | 17.51 | The weight is decreasing and the starch water changed colors | |||
14 | 17.54 | Any input from 539CN5? | |||
15 | 18.59 | If you look at the diagram it shows the big getting liter because the iodine left the bag | |||
16 | 19.21 | Agreed… | |||
17 | 19.26 | Agreed… | |||
18 | 19.32 | Okay, team—in a moment we’ll move to another set of experiments | |||
19 | 19.56 | For these experiments, we’ll use the same membrane, but with pure water on the outside and a glucose solution on the inside | |||
20 | 20.27 | Discuss the differences between glucose and starch molecules | |||
21 | 20.46 | Glucose molecules weigh less | |||
22 | 21.19 | We’ll use the tube weight as an indicator for water movement | |||
23 | 21.23 | We’ll also use glucose test strips to detect glucose in both environments | |||
24 | 21.37 | On the whiteboard, you can see what happened in this setup over time | |||
25 | 22.01 | The results with glucose are different than what you saw with starch—as a team, discuss and agree upon an explanation for these results | |||
26 | 22.50 | The weight of the glucose solution increased over the time period | |||
27 | 22.59 | The water has no sugar in it so the strip will stay yellow. the glucose solution has sugar so the strip will turn green | |||
28 | 23.03 | I think the glucose molecules left the bag and went into the water in the process of that water molecules entered the bag | |||
29 | 23.41 | Once again......agreed with dajha … haha backslash | |||
30 | 24.00 | Always a smart thing to do | |||
31 | 24.41 | But also i agree with vicky too | |||
32 | 24.50 | ||||
33 | 25.32 | And over time glucose cane out of the bag and got into the water and that is why after 1 and 24 h the strip that was in the water started to change | |||
34 | 25.38 | Okay, everyone—let’s move on to the last experiment | |||
35 | 26.00 | In this setup we have glucose solution on the outside, pure water on the inside | |||
36 | 26.23 | What changes do you think you’ll see in this condition? Agree on a prediction for what you’ll observe over time, and an explanation that everyone understands | |||
37 | 26.50 | The water has not sugar so the strip is yellow | |||
38 | 27.36 | and the glucose has sugar and the strip is green | |||
39 | 27.41 | So is 539CN5 saying “a glucose test strip changes color when glucose is there?” | |||
40 | 27.51 | Yes | |||
41 | 28.06 | I think the glucose test strip will slowly change to a bright yellow color it is on the weighing scale. also i think the bag of distilled water will weigh more because over time of sitting in the glucose you will get some glucose molecules in the | |||
42 | 28.06 | I don’t think the sugar molecules will get in side the membrane i think they will be to big i think the water molecules will come out of the membrane and go into a concentrated equal environment | |||
43 | 28.13 | Would another way to say that be “molecules will move to the area of lower concentration if they can?” | |||
44 | 28.38 | Yes | |||
45 | 29.41 | Agreed........with dajha again! | |||
46 | 29.51 | I agree to | |||
47 | 30.02 | Make sure each of you is clear on your team’s prediction and explanation, and write it in your worksheet | |||
48 | 30.09 | We all agree! | |||
49 | 30.45 | All right, we’re wrapping up. Thanks, team! | |||
50 | 30.53 | Just to restate… the sugar molecules will not go into the membrane the distilled water will come out and the test strip will turn yellow |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stahl, G. (2013). Interaction Analysis of a Biology Chat. In: Suthers, D., Lund, K., Rosé, C., Teplovs, C., Law, N. (eds) Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 15. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8960-3_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8960-3_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8959-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8960-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)