Proposal view
| Proposal Type: | Individual Paper |
|---|---|
| Domain: | Lifelong Learning and Professional Development |
| SIG: | Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Learning and Instruction |
| Equipment |
Overhead projector PC and projector |
| Paper Details |
|---|
| Title | A mixed methods design for a training on conversational coherence in video-conferences |
|---|---|
| Abstract | From former investigations (Schweizer, Paechter, & Weidenmann, 2003) it is known that conversational coherence in video conferences is lower than in face-to-face settings. It is also known that there are several coordination mechanisms that enable group members to maintain conversational coherence in face-to-face settings which are restricted in video-conferences. Therefore, in the present study a training for the participants of desktop video conferences was developed. The experimental design comprised four conditions. We trained groups of three participants in (a) conversational coherence, (b) problem solving, (c) conversational coherence and problem solving or (d) we skipped the training at all (= control group) (in the present paper, however, the focus lies on the coherence training). The results show a relationship between the type of training and the enhancement of conversational coherence. The coherence coefficient was higher for the coherence training group than for the control group. Other training conditions show different results. Qualitative data further show that special patterns do develop with special types of training. The results yield useful implications for the design of group work in online courses. They give recommendations how to support knowledge communication. |
| Summary | Aims: From former investigations (Schweizer, Paechter, & Weidenmann, 2003) it is known that conversational coherence in video conferences is lower than in face-to-face settings. It is also known that there are several coordination mechanisms that enable group members to maintain conversational coherence in face-to-face settings. Examples for these mechanisms are eye contact or other nonverbal and paraverbal backchannelling signals such as nods, paraverbal confirmations, etc. In a video conference the application of these nonverbal and paraverbal signals is restricted which means that group members have to apply more explicit strategies in order to maintain the thread within a discourse. Nevertheless providing conversational coherence is an essential means for successful conversation and successful group work, in face-to-face settings as well as in computer-mediated settings. Therefore, in the present study a training for the participants of desktop video conferences was developed. In this paper, we present a mixed methods design for the training on conversational coherence in video conferences. We chose this design of combining qualitative and quantitative methods in order to strengthen the insights on the mechanisms of conversational coherence. Qualitative methods were mostly needed to analyze the group members? discourse. In the study, the discourse in the various communication settings had been recorded and written transcripts of all group meetings were produced. For analysis we employed the method of content analysis to get qualitative and quantitative measures. The following research questions were investigated in the study: 1. Does the training indeed improve conversational coherence in videoconferencing? 2. Is there a quantitative increase of the use of coordination mechanisms in video conference groups who completed the training in contrast to groups without training? 3. Is it possible to analyze patterns for successful groups? Methodology/research design: The experimental design comprised four conditions. We trained groups of three participants in (a) conversational coherence, (b) problem solving, (c) conversational coherence and problem solving or (d) we skipped the training at all (= control group) (in the present paper, however, the focus lies on the coherence training). Firstly, the participants completed a training phase where they got familiar with mechanisms of conversational coherence and had to apply them. Later, the participants worked on a complex problem together. During the training phase all participants were seated in different rooms and took part in a question game to spend some time with the unfamiliar technique and to apply certain conversational rules. In the training conditions the groups had to obey these rules which had been outlined beforehand; the control groups spent the same amount of time in the video conference without attending the special training. After the training phase participants worked collaboratively on a task which is also used in assessment centres. For task completion the participants had to exchange information and come up with a joint solution. The discourse in all video conference groups as well as the time groups needed for task completion were recorded. Then the discourse protocols of all groups were categorized according to categories from Cornelius and Boos (2003) into coherent, incoherent, and neutral utterances (secondary content analysis). Following Mayrings? approach (2000) we defined the categories, chose anchoring examples, and outlined rules for questionable cases. With these categories we dissected the discourse for each group. We analyzed the patterns of contributions and as quantitative measure we computed a coherence coefficient afterwards. Outcomes: The results show a relationship between the type of training and the enhancement of conversational coherence. The coherence coefficient was higher for the coherence training group than for the control group. Other training conditions show different results. Qualitative data further show that special patterns do develop with special types of training. Theoretical and educational significance: The study follows a mixed methods design which enables us to get more insights on the mechanisms of conversational coherence especially to point out the characteristics of the discourse in several groups. Besides, the results yield useful implications for the design of group work in online courses. They give recommendations how to support knowledge communication. Literature: Cornelius, C. & Boos, M. (2003). Enhancing mutual understanding in synchronous computer-mediated communication by training. Trade-offs in judgmental tasks. Communication Research, 30 (2), 147-177. Mayring, Ph. (2000). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (7th edition, first edition 1983). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag. Schweizer, K., Paechter, M. & Weidenmann, B. (2003). Blended learning as a strategy to improve collaborative task performance. Journal of Educational Media, 28, 211-224. |
| Keywords | Computer supported collaborative learning Media Qualitative research |
| Appendices | |
| Authors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Surname | Institution | Country | EARLI Number | Presenting | |
| Karin | Schweizer | Technical University of Braunschweig | Germany | kschweiz@t-online.de | * | |
| Manuela | Paechter | University of Graz | Austria | manuela.paechter@uni-graz.at | ||
