1. Suthers, D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2007). Conceptual representations enhance knowledge construction in asynchronous collaboration. Submitted to Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2007.
2. Suthers, D., Medina, R., Vatrapu, R., & Dwyer, N. (2007). Information sharing is incongruous with collaborative convergence: The case for interaction. Submitted to Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2007.
3. Suthers, D., Dwyer, N., & Vatrapu, R. (2007). A methodology and formalism for eclectic analysis of collaborative interaction.
three different approaches to the same question- different research methods
good definitions of learning, knowledge construction, and meaning-making (in CSCL)
n/a: this paper highlights research methods- different approaches to the same question
I numbered the above three articles because they are related and follow each other in succession. Dr. Suthers suggested I read them to see the differences in approaching the same problem using different research methods. In retrospect, these articles were helpful in my understanding of research approaches, they broadened my understanding of CSCL, and explained some theoretical perspectives on topics such as learning, knowledge construction, and meaning-making which will be useful for my dissertation topic.
The first article took an experimental approach, using quantitative data analysis. The second article used descriptive tools such as conversational analysis. The third article suggests a new research method called ‘uptake analysis’ which was invented because of the incongruent results between the experimental and descriptive research paradigms.
These articles cleared up some of my misunderstanding of research methods; before reading, I associated positivistic / experimental approaches with quantitative data, and descriptive approaches with qualitative data. This is not always the case- the descriptive methods used in papers 2 and 3 (conversational analysis) utilize ‘coding and counting’ which allows statistical methods to be run for analysis.
These articles will be a good reference in figuring out my research approach and methodology, as well as providing an explanation of the benefits of each approach. Experimental approaches are typically more generalizable, but can lack the situated context (which can be very important) in analyzing a situation; descriptive approaches are typically the opposite- they can gather information on the situated context, which yields non-generalizable results.
- content analysis: descriptive research method; 'code and count' some content, involving situated activity
- conversational analysis: 'content analysis' of a conversation
- uptake analysis: an 'eclectic analysis' which tries to blend experimental and descriptive techniques in order to leverage both of their benefits
see paper (circled)