Later on in Week 2....

I was reading postings in the H809 TGF and found that there are some aspects/terminology that I was just not sure about; for example, ‘Web 2.0’ – checked online and found - http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Perhaps I should reconsider what are blogs and wikkis; why do people use them; what benefits are there? But have I time to carry out research on this now – maybe I should have looked at this more fully before the course started.
Thoughts on reading 2: Wegerif and Mercer (1997) Using computer-based text analysis to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in research on collaborative learning
· The key research question was if computer-based text analysis would be of great value in research on child talk and knowledge construction in the classroom
· The setting is formal ‘taught’ learning, within primary school education
· Theories and concepts – collaborative learning; discourse analysis; coding
· Methods – use of small groups; pre and post questionnaires; analysis of word use
· Findings – inconclusive?
· Limitations – once groups have received ‘talk lessons’ how would future experiments be measured?; threads difficult to follow; likely to depend on intelligence level; prior skills in problem solving likely to impact on results for specific groups
· Ethics – should young children be used as ‘guinea pigs’? Specific ‘brands’ of the software was used; was this the researcher’s selection or was the research dependent on the funding from manufacturers?
· Implications – need investment in technology and interpretative skills; further research may still not provide ‘evidence’
Considered positivist versus interpretive research methods in reading the text and reflected that strengths were – using coding as a method of dealing with a large amount of data and discourse analysis to gain a depth of insight; weaknesses were that in coding the construction thread of the knowledge creation was not evident or visible and for data analysis, much would be dependent on the interpreter (‘intuitive understanding’ (Barnes), would raise concerns).
Further reflections on reading
1. The transcript data would be preferable, as it would be easier to ‘count’ and make comparisons of both volume and time; whereas in video data, replays may become unmanageable to create useful, relevant data
2. The assumption of preconceived categories rather than letting findings ‘emerge’ from the data was evident through the comment that ‘…much of their talk is off-task…’; this talk is being dismissed as unimportant to the construction of the problem-solving knowledge, but how can this be judged? It would probably not be possible to avoid the use of preconceived categories when analysing this data, but this does not mean that categories may still not be constructed through the emerging data; for example, if all talk had to be categorised and a rule created that any words classified as ‘other’ was not allowed to be greater than x% of the total transcript, then new categories would likely be necessary, which would re-focus the researchers on the talk content.
3. Evidence that might support the claim ‘In the context of John’s vocal objections to previous assertions made by his two partners his silence at this point implies a tacit agreement with their decision.’ – John was happy to voice his opinion and was unafraid of ‘being wrong’, so the lack of disagreement could be viewed as agreement, otherwise he would have voiced another disagreement.
4. Re the claim of the increase in group scores, I did not ask myself if the researchers had looked at this in relation to the control group. I had made an assumption that the researchers would have done so; why, I am not sure.
5. In the post-intervention talk it is plausible that John is giving a reason. This may be where video evidence might show a clearer understanding of what John is stating as ‘fact’, rather than the questioning statements provided by others, who perhaps do not feel their ‘evidence’ is strong enough. The video data may help substantiate this claim.
6. I am not convinced that the study effectively demonstrates that using PC methods on the study of talk necessarily ‘combines strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods of discourse analysis while overcoming some of their main weaknesses’. There still seems to be much ‘…but if…’ and dependence on the interpretation of the qualitative data.
7. The computer may add to the analysis in terms of visible trends and ease of manipulation of data.
This week is passing so fast - need to move on to the next reading.