Research Trends: Qualitative Analysis in CSCL_Heisawn


Published on

Research Trends: Qualitative Analysis in CSCL

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 2008 is added.
  • Coding categories were initially generated top-down (e.g., using categories drawn from the submission descriptors of the 2005 CSCL conference) and then later refined bottom-up through multiple iterations of coding. Results are preliminary! In a few controversial cases, we followed a more conventional approach so that ‘near synchronous’ interaction was coded as asynchronous interaction and that an ‘experiment’ without any mention of treatment conditions were coded as a descriptive study. Multiple coding was allowed when more than one coding categories were applicable.
  • Experimental, (2) Descriptive, or (3) Design-based method Experimental design refers to studies where variables are manipulated and was further divided into (a) randomized, (b) quasi-experimental, and (c) pre-post design. Once a study was coded as design-based method, the design of individual iterations which can be either experimental and/or descriptive was not coded separately
  • Laboratory means that learning occurred in lab or lab-like controlled settings where the task occurred isolated by itself outside the context of classroom or other authentic learning situations. Classroom setting means that learning occurred as part of classroom/curricular activities, which could involve not only physical classroom but also other settings (e.g., field trips). Other settings (e.g., informal learning environments or workplaces).
  • More interested in learning processes than in the learning outcomes. Up to 6 different data in a single study.
  • When papers reported on both video and audio data (e.g., Li et al., 2006), they were coded only as the video data unless they were analyzed separately
  • other (e.g., course registration information).
  • other miscellaneous quantitative analysis (e.g., comparison with simulated data). A notable trend was a development of new quantitative methodologies such as social network analyses (Cho et al., 2007) and multi-level analyses (de Wever et al., 2006) that aimed to analyze collaborative processes quantitatively.
  • Research Trends: Qualitative Analysis in CSCL_Heisawn

    1. 1. Research Trends: Qualitative Analysis in CSCL <ul><li>Heisawn Jeong, PhD </li></ul><ul><li>Hallym University, S. Korea </li></ul>
    2. 2. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social networking, blogs, wiki, video sharing, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Web environment/technology that enables interactions among users </li></ul><ul><li>User creates contents as well as receives. </li></ul>
    3. 3. Collaboration and learning <ul><li>Effectiveness of collaboration as a tool for learning and knowledge building </li></ul><ul><li>Increased use of technology to support learning </li></ul><ul><li>CSCL: Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-disciplinary and multi-method research approaches </li></ul>
    4. 4. Goals of the talk <ul><li>Methodological trends in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Mixed-Method approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Methodological issues and challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Disclaimer: Speaker’s methodological backgrounds (cognitive psychology, verbal data analysis) </li></ul>
    5. 5. Methodological trends <ul><li>Meta content-analysis of CSCL empirical research papers </li></ul><ul><li>On-going research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2010). An overview of CSCL methodologies. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Chicago. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2011). A portrait of CSCL methodologies. Paper to be presented at the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Hong Kong. </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Method of analysis <ul><li>7 leading journals of the field </li></ul><ul><li>4 years of publication (2005-2008)* (N=1,423) </li></ul><ul><li>Empirical papers (N=315*) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Results are based on N=265 (Coding is still in progress) </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Journals <ul><li>International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL) </li></ul><ul><li>Journal of the Learning Sciences </li></ul><ul><li>Learning and Instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Computers and Education </li></ul><ul><li>Journal of Computer Assisted Learning </li></ul><ul><li>International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education </li></ul><ul><li>Computers in Human Behavior. </li></ul>
    8. 8. Paper selection <ul><li>Papers published during 2005~2008 (exception: 2006~2007 for ijCSCL) </li></ul><ul><li>Empirical CSCL papers: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Report on data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborative learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of computers or other technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>315* empirical CSCL papers (out of 1,423 papers). </li></ul>
    9. 9. Coding categories <ul><li>Design </li></ul><ul><li>Study settings </li></ul><ul><li>Data </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Research questions </li></ul><ul><li>Theoretical framework </li></ul><ul><li>Learner level </li></ul><ul><li>Domain </li></ul><ul><li>Pedagogical approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Type of collaboration </li></ul>
    10. 10. Research design <ul><li>Majority of the studies are descriptive (e.g., survey, observations, ethnographic studies). </li></ul>
    11. 11. Research settings <ul><li>Majority of the studies were carried out in classrooms. </li></ul>
    12. 12. Data types <ul><li>Multiple types of data are collected in a given study (M=2.72) </li></ul>
    13. 13. <ul><li>Data on learning processes are: </li></ul>
    14. 14. <ul><li>Data on learning outcomes are: </li></ul>
    15. 15. <ul><li>Other data sources include: </li></ul>
    16. 16. Analyses <ul><li>Quantitative analyses are dominant throughout, but substantial proportion of the studies use qualitative analyses </li></ul>
    17. 17. <ul><li>Popular quantitative analyses are: </li></ul>
    18. 18. <ul><li>Qualitative analyses are getting more popular, but they are not clearly defined. </li></ul>
    19. 19. Summary of trends <ul><li>Increase of field (i.e., classroom) research </li></ul><ul><li>Increase of design-based research </li></ul><ul><li>Increase of mixed-methods or multi-methods research </li></ul>
    20. 20. Types of mixed-approaches <ul><ul><li>Collect qualitative data in addition to quantitative data. Contextualize quantitative analysis with qualitative analyses. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collect qualitative data, but analyze them to allow quantitative analyses (e.g., verbal analysis, quantitative content analysis) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use quantitative and qualitative analysis to address different research questions </li></ul></ul>
    21. 24. Methodological challenges <ul><li>Shallow application of methodologies </li></ul><ul><li>Increase of qualitative methods, but often lack clear definition and rigor of application </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of more sophisticated methodological vocabularies </li></ul><ul><li>Epistemological incompatibility: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reality vs. Interpretation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Procedure vs. Meaningfulness </li></ul></ul>
    22. 25. Presented at the Asia-Pacific conference on Qualitative Research in Web 2.0 22 & 23 Feb 2011, Macau SAR For more information Please visit: