Abstract
This chapter presents a reflection on the whole productive multivocality project in the form of a dialog between two researchers in the CSCL field who come from different analytic perspectives. The reflections include comparisons of the project with other attempts to bring to bear different analytic methods on common data, as well as other attempts to aggregate findings over multiple datasets. The chapter also reflects upon the successes and challenges of the productive multivocality project as measured against the five overarching questions that they set themselves at the outset of the project.
Prepared for inclusion in Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions (Edited by Dan Suthers, Kristine Lund, Carolyn Rosé, Chris Teplovs, and Nancy Law).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
But see Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) for one attempt to provide a formal account.
- 6.
My choice of term is admittedly one that invites confusion. ‘Discourse analysis’ is used in a wide variety of ways in the literature (cf., Brown & Yule, 1983; Cicourel, 1980; Gee, 1999; Fairclough, Mulderrig, & Wodak, 2011; Potter, 2004; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). Here I am using it specifically to denote those methods for studying interaction that apply categorization reductionistically.
References
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cicourel, A. V. (1980). Three models of discourse analysis: The role of social structure. Discourse Processes, 3, 101–130.
Cobb, P. (1995). Mathematical learning and small-group interaction: Four case studies. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 25–130). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Denzin, N. K. (1970). Triangulation: A case for methodological and combination evaluation. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Sociological methods: A sourcebook (pp. 471–475). Chicago: Aldine.
Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed., pp. 357–378). London: Sage Publications.
Garcia, A., & Jacobs, J. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 337–368.
Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingston, E. (1981). The work of discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of Social Science, 11, 131–158.
Gee, J. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
Hall, R. (2000). Videorecording as theory. In E. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 647–664). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jonson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Koschmann, T. (1999). The edge of many circles: Making meaning of meaning making. Discourse Processes, 27, 103–117.
Koschmann, T. (2011). Theorizing practice. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp. 3–17). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lerner, G. (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 225–256). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Maher, C. A. (2011). The longitudinal study. In C. A. Maher, A. B. Powell, & E. B. Uptegrove (Eds.), Combinatorics and reasoning: Representing, justifying and building isomorphisms (pp. 3–8). Dordrecht: Springer.
McDermott, R., Gospodinoff, K., & Aron, J. (1978). Criteria for an ethnographically adequate description of concerted activities and their contexts. Semiotica, 24, 245–275.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York: Academic.
Potter, J. (2004). Discourse analysis. In M. A. Hardy & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis (pp. 607–624). London: Sage Publications.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). The simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Sfard, A., & McClain, K. (2002). Analyzing tools: Perspectives on the role of designed artifacts in mathematics learning. Journal of Learning Sciences, 11(2/3), 153–138.
Sinclair, J. M. H., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Stahl, G. (Ed.). (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York: Springer.
Symonds, J. E., & Gorard, S. (2010). Death of mixed methods? Or the rebirth of research as a craft. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23, 121–136.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koschmann, T., O’Malley, C. (2013). A Dialog on Productive Multivocality. 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_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8960-3_36
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)