A framework for conceptualizing, representing, and analyzing distributed interaction

Abstract

Abstract:The relationship between interaction and learning is a central concern of the learning sciences, and analysis of interaction has emerged as a major theme within the current literature on computersupported collaborative learning. The nature of technology-mediated interaction poses analytic challenges. Interaction may be distributed across actors, space, and time, and vary from synchronous, quasi-synchronous, and asynchronous, even within one data set. Often multiple media are involved and the data comes in a variety of formats. As a consequence, there are multiple analytic artifacts to inspect and the interaction may not be apparent upon inspection, being distributed across these artifacts. To address these problems as they were encountered in several studies in our own laboratory, we developed a framework for conceptualizing and representing distributed interaction. The framework assumes an analytic concern with uncovering or characterizing the organization of interaction in sequential records of events. The framework includes a media independent characterization of the most fundamental unit of interaction, which we call uptake. Uptake is present when a participant takes aspects of prior events as having relevance for ongoing activity. Uptake can be refined into interactional relationships of argumentation, information sharing, transactivity, and so forth. for specific analytic objectives. Faced with the myriad of ways in which uptake can manifest in practice, we represent data using graphs of relationships between events that capture the potential ways in which one act can be contingent upon another. These contingency graphs serve as abstract transcripts that document in one representation interaction that is distributed across multiple media. This paper summarizes the requirements that motivate the framework, and discusses the theoretical foundations on which it is based. It then presents the framework and its application in detail, with examples from our work to illustrate how we have used it to support both ideographic and nomothetic research, using qualitative and quantitative methods. The paper concludes with a discussion of the framework's potential role in supporting dialogue between various analytic concerns and methods represented in CSCL.

Interaction, Mediation, and Ties: An Analytic Hierarchy for Socio-Technical Systems

“…Examples of contingency types we have used are listed in Table 2. A detailed presentation of the motivations and theory behind contingency graphs may be found in [21].…”

“…Analytic work is required to sort out the significance of contingencies and identify relationships between events that are not merely circumstantial, but reflect intentional acts. An act of uptake is one in which an actor takes traces of one or more prior events as having certain significance for an ongoing activity [21]. For example, a speaker takes up some aspect of the prior speaker's utterance, or a message poster in a discussion forum can take up some aspect of the message being replied to.…”

“…Contingency and uptake graphs are described more fully in [21]. We have used contingency and uptake graphs to provide interactional accounts of specific accomplishments of participants [11,12], to trace out information sharing [23], and to detect roles of participants not visible in the final media trace [22].…”

“…Contingency and Uptake Graphs (contextualized action model and interaction model, respectively) are more unique contributions, so are described in more detail here-see also [21] for extensive discussion. The most attention will be given to Associograms (mediation models) and their relationships to the other layers, as this layer has not been described in detail elsewhere.…”

Conceptualizing the intersubjective group

“…Subsequently, Koschmann (2002) defined CSCL in terms of "joint meaning making"-the focus of the opening article in this issue. The centrality of intersubjective meaning making to the concerns of CSCL as a research field have been stressed programmatically in scattered proposals and examples, for instance in (Arnseth and Ludvigsen 2006;Çakir et al 2009;Suthers 2006;Suthers et al 2010). Multiple attempts to define new methods corresponding to this agenda of group-level analysis were also proposed, as in several ijCSCL articles (Cress 2008;Cress and Kimmerle 2008;Damsa 2014;Furberg et al 2013;Noroozi et al 2013;Öner 2013;Overdijk et al 2014;Zemel and Koschmann 2013;Zhao and Chan 2014).…”