Dillenbourgh chapter 1

Dillenbourg, P. (1999)

What do you mean by collaborative learning?

In P. Dillenbourg (Ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches

P1-19

Oxford: Elsevier

Term - No shared usage. In the context leaning P reckons that it is best to think in terms of the following 3 dimension

1. scale of the situation ( group size and time scale) ,

nb CSCL in general refers to a group of more than 40.

4 sub heading but they are all, to an extent, interrelated.

Frameworks depend on scale psychology for small groups, social psychology for larger groups with sociology, ethnology, anthropology for larger scales. From this view cognitive and social have been distinct until notion of distributed cognition (KRO ? group dynamics – does the same apply),

notion of culture p2 now applied to describe the common grounds built by peers in interaction’ ‘ e.g. p3 ‘ if one talks about culture built by two subjects after an our of interaction the term culture acquires a cultural flavour’ but during transfer across different scales, theses concepts undergo deformations’

Dialogue with ones self – is it a form of collaboration ? self explanation versus explanation with others. Chapter 6 did not find any real differences p 3 ‘ authors did not find any real evidence that the interactivity of real explanation brings any benefit compared to self explanation’

Unit of analysis ‘ This evolution of research, where a group can be viewed as a unit or the individual as a group, indicates that the very notion of ‘scale’ actually changes: it moves from being a property of the object to a propoerrty of the observer, who selects the most appropriate unit of analysis’

2. What do we mean by learning ?

p4/5 “ The variety of uses of the word ‘learning’ reflect two distinct understandings of ‘collaborative learning’:

· is it a pedagogical method’ and therefore prescribed

· or a psychological process , the mechanism by which we learn.

D argues against both views

· take the ‘mechanism view’ need to perform activities which trigger learning whether as an individual or with peers. i.e. p5 ‘interaction among subjects generates extra activities ( explanation, disagreement, mutual regulation…) which trigger extra cognitive mechanisms ( knowledge elicitation, internalization, reduced cognitive load ….) …… However …… there is no guarantee that these mechanisms occur in any collaborative interactions. On the other hand, they do not occur only during collaboration. At some level of description – at least the neurone level- the mechanisms potentially involved in collaborative learning are the same as those potentially involved in individual cognition ( maybe KRO can argue against this?)

· take the method view ‘collaborative learning is not a method because of the low predictability of specific types of interactions’ ( KRO ? AI perspective)

‘In summary, the words ‘collaborative learning’ describe a situation in which particular forms of interaction among people are expected to occur, which would trigger learning mechanisms, but there is no guarantee that the expected interactions will actually occur. Hence a general concern is to develop ways to increase the probability that some types of interaction occur.’

These can be classified into 4 categories , 3 of which are addressed in the book.

Increasing the probability that interactions will occur

Set up the initial conditions.

P5 ‘ beyond a few main results, it appears that these conditions interact with each other in a complex way ( Dillenbourgh, Baker, Blaye & O’Malley, 1995) , the group heterogeneity effect will for instance be different for different tasks. Because of these multiple interactions, it is very difficult to set up initial conditions which guarantee the effectiveness of collaborative learning’ ( KRO but how do you specify effective?)

Over-specify the ‘collaboration’ contract with a scenario based on roles

P5 ‘ this approach turns collaborative learning into a method’

Scaffold productive interactions by encompassing interaction rules in the medium

Either by teacher or by technology e.g. using pre-defined buttons ‘do you agree?’ etc p6 ‘ However, the case study presented in chapter 3 shows that the interface constitutes a tool – semiotic and physical - that users have to appropriate and which affects their understanding of the task beyond simple facilitation/inhibition of particular types of interactions.

Monitor and regulate the interactions

Accomplished either by the

· Tutor role changes to one of facilitator ‘

· Technology providing minor pedagogical intervention’ widgets, analytics. Question in 1999 ‘ ‘whether peers are able to self-regulate their interaction with this type of feedback?’

3. what is referred to as collaboration’

the adjective collaboration concerns four aspects

· situation

· interaction

· learning mechanisms

· effects and the divergent views on how to measure it

situation

p7 ‘ intuitively a situation is termed ‘collaborative’ if peers are more or less at the same level, can perform the same actions, have a common goal and work together .’

· need to consider symmetry between learners, how much, how to manage it.

· raises questions about how to translate learning task into a shared goal. P8 ‘shared goals can only be partially set up at the outset of collaboration, they themselves have to be negotiated,…… goal discrepancies are often revealed through disagreements on action. . Through the negotiation of goals, agents not only develop shared goals, but they also become mutually aware of their shared goals. ‘

· also low division of labour ( cf cooperation when roles are shared out) is more likely to lead to more interaction and therefore more collaboration.

Interaction

· Operationalisation :P 8 where ‘ the degree of interactivity among peers is not defined by the frequency of the interactions but by the extent to which these interaction influence the peers’ cognitive processes. The degree of interweaving between reasoning and interaction is difficult to define operationally’

· Synchronicity: ‘doing something together implies synchronous communication while cooperation is often associated with asynchronous communication’ …….’ Is synchronicity less a technical parameter than a social rule. Is it a considerate meta-communicative contract?’ …. ‘if the medium breaks the conversational rules established for another medium, users create new ways of maintaining this subjective feeling of synchronicity of reasoning’

· Negotiation: collaborative interactions are negotiable e.g. negotiate how to act ( KRO possibly something I could measure?) ‘p10 ‘ the grounding process is the bottom layer of the negotiation process ( Dillenbourg & traum). This grounding +negotiation process , i.e. the way through which partners can build a shared solution, hence became a central concern in collaborative learning. Chapter 3 is an ambitious attempt to relate linguistic theory, developed by Clark and several colleagues, with the learning mechanism described by the cultural-historical psychology’.

‘The space for misunderstanding plays in grounding the same role as the space for negotiation in agreement. It constitutes an important element in modeling the dynamics of collaborative learning’ ‘ When two partners misunderstand, they have to build explanations, justify themselves, reformulate statements, and so on and all of these activities can lead to learning. Hence, in contrast with DAI and linguistic criteria, a collaborative learning situation should not eliminate ( if possible) the probability of misunderstanding ( in order to reduce the cost of communication) but instead leave the space for misunderstanding that is necessary for sustaining the subjects’ efforts to overcome miscommunication’

learning mechanisms

· work at the individual level of learning has identified: induction, cognitive load, self explanation, conflict ( Piaget). P11 Theses processes occur more often or more spontaneously in collaborative situations’

· Are there other learning processes that would be specific to social interactions? grounding and mutual modeling

Internalization ‘i.e. the transfer of tools from the social plane ( interaction with others) to the inner plane ( reasoning) Wertsch(1985) ( in a different context) claimed that an important step was ‘when the child becomes able to use the to-be-internalised concepts in conversation with his mother’ ‘Chapter 3 authors might rephrase Wersch’s findings by saying that the concept has been grounded’ another often quoted mechanism is appropriation ( Rogoff, 1990) by which an agent reinterprets his own action or utterance under the light of what his partner does or says next ( Fox, 1987)’ …. ‘An hypotheis mentioned in Chapter 7 is that mutual modeling implies some differential reasoning ( comparing what I do or know to what my partner does or knows) and that the perception of discrepncies with respect to one’s partner knowledge increases the awareness of one’s own knowledge’

Effects

P12 difficult to specify

Theories of collaborative learning

P13 ‘ At a first glance the situation generates interaction patterns, these interactions trigger cognitive mechanisms which in turn generate cognitive effects’

However such a linear causality is s simplification. Most relations are reciprocal. The elements just specified are all related to each other through bidirectional links.

Collaborative learning prospers when there is the necessity of continuous explanation to each other’

cf CF

Book review dillenbourgh

The book emphasizes that in collaborative learning environments particular forms of interaction are needed to trigger the desired learning mechanisms. There is, however, no guarantee that those interactions will actually occur. Hence, a general concern across the book is to develop ways of increasing the probability that they will happen. The chapters illustrate these points relatively well. Particularly, the book focuses on collaboration between two or a few human or artificial agents for a well-defined learning or problem-solving task.

In chapter 2, Littleton and Hakkinen outline some of the theoretical approaches currently informing the analysis of learning interactions and demonstrate how the study of collaborative activity in computer-based settings can enhance the understanding of the processes of productive interaction.

Chapter 3 discusses relations between grounding, collaboration and learning. According to Baker, Hansen, Joiner and Traum, grounding is the process by which the participants of a collaborative learning task maintain some degree of mutual understanding. They illustrate the perspective with reference to a particular computer-mediated collaborative learning situation in the domain of physics.

Chapters 4 and 5 focus on multi-agent learning. First, Weiss and Dillenbourg in chapter 4 provide a general characterization of multi-agent learning from two different perspectives: the perspective of single-agent learning (the ``machine learning perspective'') and the perspective of human-human collaborative learning (the ``psychological perspective''). They also offer a brief guide to agents and multi-agents systems as studied in artificial intelligence, and suggest directions for future research on multi-agent learning. In chapter 5, Joiner, Issroff and Demiris describe some differences between multi-agent systems and cognitive psychology. The chapter reviews recent research concerning the analysis of multi-robot systems and research on human-human computer-supported collaborative learning and illustrates how researchers in both areas can benefit from each other's fields.

The relation between dialogue with oneself and with a peer is addressed by Ploetzer, Dillenbourg, Preier and Traum in chapter 6 and by Nguifo, Baker and Dillenbourg in chapter 7. They compare the basic operators used to model the co-construction of knowledge through dialogue and those used in machine-learning research to model individual learning. These chapters are rather modest in their scope and in their results. Their modesty has, however, to be compared with the width of the gap that separates cognitive psychology and DAI (Distributed Artificial Intelligence).

One of the weakness of the book is that it focuses only on cognitive psychology and neglects the socio-affective aspects of collaborative learning. Social and affective aspects are crucial to understanding human-human collaboration. Yet, the editor says that this was intentional,

This choice does not imply that social and affective aspects are not crucial to understanding human-human collaboration, but that the cognitive layer is probably the easiest to start with when engaging with computer scientists.

)'Regan 2003

Kerry O’Regan

Emotion and E-Learning

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks

Vol 7,3 78-92

Argues for the centrality of emotion whilst learning

Considers emotion from a variety of perspectives

Individual phenomena – experiential knowing is part of the human condition

· Darwin – mechanisms for adaptation and survival

· Behaviorist – states, elicited by ‘ the delivery, omission or termination of rewarding or punishing stimuli’ (Roll, E., The Brain and Emotion, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1984.) i.e. emotions as instrumental in influencing choices

· P79 ‘ emotion as some combination ( with various emphases and sequences) of physiological, psychological and psychomotor components.

Socio-cultural

· Goleman ‘things we catch from each other ‘as though they were some kind of social virus’

· Denzin (Denzin, N. On Understanding Emotion, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1984) ‘social acts involving interactions with self and interactions with others’ Averill ‘a transitory social role’

· Damasio P79 ‘ most recent developments are in the field of neurobiology) Damasio -emotions ‘ retain a primacy that subtly pervades our mental life ….. having a say on how the rest of the brain and cognition go about their business’

What is an emotion and what is not?

How to define a functional relationship between emotion and learning?

RQS

· What emotions are associated with studying online

· What are the teaching-learning contexts of these emotions?

· How do they relate to student learning

· What are the practical implications for teaching and learning online

Method

P82 ‘ explores in qualitative terms the lived experience of students learning online particularly in relation to its social dimensions

11 volunteers, 6, mature, studying a variety of online courses

interviewed , interviewer selected specific topics logging on, following instructions, accessing resources and they were provided with a checklist of emotions, which the interviewer referred to

Findings

Frustration ( all 11 Ps) – p84 ‘appeared as the most pervasive emotion’ cumulative aspect of minor things’ broken links, disruption to service, lack of clarity about navigation ‘ the instructions were quite simple, but the application of them seemed quite difficult’, locating oneself, p84 ‘ rambling or superficial nature of unmoderated online discussion’ ‘ I think a whole group of people who really don’t have a better understanding of the issues than you do, all offering up opinions and there doesn’t seem to be very much comes out of that’ p86 ‘ a general desire to get things done quickly with a minimum expenditure of unnecessary time’ ‘ I don’t know what they look like, where they live, who they really are’

Frustration –other workers

Hara and King p81 and 82 ‘ identify considerable frustration experienced by students with the technical aspects of learning online, with interpreting and following instructions and with managing the enormous amounts of email

Fear, anxiety, apprehension ( many Ps)

Submitting assignments – has it got through? – lack of control over process

Prospect of public exposure of learning work to people who were anonymous

Shame/embarrassment (many)

Online exposure inadequacies and mistakes there for everyone to see

Enthusiasm/excitement

P87 ‘ it was quite exciting that we were so technically advanced’, being able to learn with other people. Other commented that they had found f-to-f more exciting

Pride

In assignments well done and having peers compliment p88 ‘ in the online environment with its characteristics for publicness and permanence , the potential for pride is very great’

Conclusion

Makes a number of recommendations made for minimizing negative emotions

In terms of collaborative learning

P89 ‘processes are put in place for students to have an indication of the actual make up of the audience for any submissions they post online; provision is made for class members to become known to each other as real people with their own idiosyncratic interests and characteristics’

‘where possible, online communication is augmented with face to face meetings’ ( KRO why? Author did not say , KRO is it always appropriate?)

Kirwood, Price (2005), 2008, Kirkwwod 2008

Adrian Kirkwood* and Linda Price

Learners and learning in the twenty-first century: what do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses?

Studies in Higher Education Vol. 30, No. 3, June 2005, pp. 257–274

Method Range of Survey data at the OU

‘Learning can be enhanced when innovations take into account not only the characteristics of the technology, but also the pedagogic design, the context within which learning takes place, student characteristics and their prior experience, and familiarity with the technologies involved. So, although ICTs can enable new forms of teaching and learning to take place, they cannot ensure that effective and appropriate learning outcomes are achieved. It is not technologies, but educational purposes, that must provide the lead. Students need to understand not only how to work with ICTs, but why it can be of benefit to do so.’

‘The OU has not sought to replicate or copy traditional classroom-based education. Instead it has aimed to create a different—but equivalent—educational experience.’

‘So, students need to know not only what they are supposed to do, but also why they are expected to do it and how it will contribute to their learning. Otherwise ‘learner control’ will prove to be counterproductive, as it can promote the adoption of ‘unfocussed and inconclusive’ approaches (Laurillard, 1998).’

‘Since participants do not have visual or auditory contact with each other, contributions are not overtly influenced by preconceived notions or prejudices based upon accent or physical attributes, although any written communication can present cues about the social and gender characteristics of the writer (see, for example, Mann & Stewart, 2000). Reserved individuals need not be intimidated by the speed of response or tone of voice of other contributors. Hence learners are able to participate in a manner that is more considered and reflective than is normally possible in face-to-face sessions. However, it is a different form of discourse from face-to-face communication, and most new students have limited experience of its use and need guidance.’

Mann, C. & Stewart, C. (2000) Internet communication and qualitative research (London, Sage).

‘Some would argue that interpersonal communication, cooperation and collaboration are essential elements of higher education in the early twenty-first century (see, for example, Beaty et al., 2002).’

Beaty, L., Hodgson, V., Mann, S. & McConnell, D. (Conveners) (2002) Manifesto: Towards e- quality in networked e-learning in higher education. Available online at: http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/ esrc/manifesto.htm (accessed 4 August 2003).

‘The most important point to conclude from the studies presented in this article is that the medium itself is not the most important factor in any educational programme— what really matters is how it is creatively exploited and constructively aligned. The educational benefits that students perceive as gains from using ICT are more significant than the intrinsic characteristics of any particular medium.’

Adrian Kirkwood* and Linda Price (2008)

Assessment and student learning: a fundamental relationship and the role of information and communication technologies

Open Learning Vol. 23, No. 1, February 2008, 5–16

‘An individual’s conception of learning will determine their expectations of what should happen in any educational situation and influence the approach to learning they adopt for specific tasks or activities. These are discussed in the following sections.’

‘Hence an important task for staff is to engender in students an appropriate conception of teaching and learning and to provide an educational rationale for learning activities. This is especially pertinent when teachers expect learners to cooperate or collaborate with others through’

‘it is how they will be assessed (or think that they will be assessed) on the task that determines an individual’s approach (Laurillard, 1979).’

‘Students’ expectations can be as important as the actual requirements for any test or assign- ment. Sambell and McDowell (1998) argue that students participate in the construction of the ‘hidden curriculum’ through their individual interpretations, perceptions and actions, which in turn reflect their orientations, prior experiences and expectations.’

‘Further, there is a relationship between the approach to teaching adopted and the approach to learning taken up by students (Lindblom-Ylänne, Trigwell, Nevgi, & Ashwin, 2006; Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999).’

A. Kirkwood

Getting it from the Web: why and how online resources are used by independent undergraduate learners

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning; Oct2008, Vol. 24 Issue 5, p372-382,

Method Telephone Interview study based on volunteers from one of 4 courses two science two in Health and social care. Formal assessment requirement varied between courses.

Requirement for web activity ‘This article reports an interview study that aimed to investigate why and how independent learners use resources on the World Wide Web (subsequently referred to as the Web) while undertaking their normal coursework. The investigation was concerned not only with the academic context of courses being studied, but also any personal, domestic and employment-related experiences and circumstances that were pertinent.’

‘Insufficient attention appears to have been paid to two key aspects relating to students gaining access to and making use of Web resources. First, what factors are likely to encourage (or discourage) students in their use of Internet information resources? Second, how do learners develop the information literacy skills necessary to make effective use of the multitude of resources available via the Internet? Too little concern for the educational context and rationale for students’ use of online resources has resulted in disappointing levels of access and use by learners (Rowley et al. 2002).’

Rowley J., Banwell L., Childs S., Gannon-Leary P., Lonsdale R., Urquhart C. & Armstrong C. (2002) User behaviour in relation to electronic information services within the UK higher education academic community. Journal of Educa- tional Media 27, 107–122.

‘While all participants made some use of the Internet for social, domestic or work-related purposes, the extent to which each used the Internet for their studies seemed to be subject to various factors. Some of these acted as an incentive or approach factor, while others were a disincentive or avoidance factor. Most of the students mentioned several factors that coexisted con- currently, reflecting the complexity of their personal circumstances.’

‘The relative impact of factors in combination was shown in the four illustrative examples earlier. Although no single factor was predominant, the influence of assessment was strong in many instances, for example, in the different responses to technical difficulties encountered by Carol and Eve, and the selective attention to course elements reported by most participants.’

not technologies per se, but a wide range of contextual factors (personal as well as educational), that are important in determining whether and how students use Web resources in their learning

Open Learning 2008 Vol 23, no 1

Hopkins, Gibson, Ros i Solé, Savvides, and Starkey from Spain and the United Kingdom, who provide an overview of research on the subject of interaction. They examine the ways in which asynchronous computer-mediated communication can provide student–student and student–tutor interaction that leads to higher-order thinking and the social construction of knowledge. Learners reportedly value the opportunity to interact with their peers and tutors in online conferences but, in practice, tend to post individual messages with no reference to other postings. Conferences, therefore, tend to consist of serial monologues rather than the types of interactive discussion that would lead to the social construction of meaning. Through an examination of the effect of social presence, the role of the tutor, and the impact of task type, the authors conclude that asynchronous computer conferencing is not only welcomed by most students, but also that the ‘social presence’ facilitated by this mode can improve student satisfaction, engagement and retention.

Wosnitza & Volet (2005)

Marold Wosnitza & Simone Volet (2005)

Origin, direction and impact of emotions in social online learning.

Learning and Instruction, 15, 449-464

Notes

· KRO - Concept of emotional arousal can be questioned

· Authors talk in terms of emotions ‘ directed at’ e.g. p456 task directed emotions, but surely using their framework the appraisal would be the causal agent. It is inherent in the description of the student reactions but it is not described in that way. Also talk in terms of emotions as a trigger.

· Multiple sources for emotion

· Interventions (teachers) depend on source and need to be able to recognize the source ( ? link to DP work)

· See individuals as p455 ‘mediating emotions’ (KRO link to frontal)

· How does conflict fit into this and in fact any work from any author about motivation? Although note authors do not talk specifically in terms of motivation

· Authors never found any evidence of positive emotions ‘ directed at’ the technology

· Claim that emoticons are common but do not evidence

· In social learning case study the participation record of others was a key factor of emotional ?arousal( KRO link to task relevance and values)

describe how within a group a group course of action is discussed; is this how emotion links to collaborative?

Concepts

Identifies the following as concepts that have developed around socio-emotional experience in online environments

· Social presence

· Sociability (Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Journal of Education Technology and Society, 5(1), 8e22.)

· Social-emotional affordances Volet, S., & Wosnitza, M. (2004). Social affordances and students’ engagement in cross-national online learning: an exploratory study. Journal of Research in International Education, 3(1), 5e29.

· Distributed emotions

however

P450 ‘ mediating role of students’ appraisals of online learning activities and the process of emotion arousal remains less well known.

Emotion

Agrees that the literature on emotions is very diverse but claims that p450 ‘ but only a few of the extant theories form the basis of research on emotions related to learning ‘

Appraisal

Base their approach on appraisal theory

Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lazarus, R. S., & Lazarus, B. N. (1994). Passion and reason: Making sense of our emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J. Davidson,

H. Goldsmith, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Handbook of the affective sciences (pp. 572e595). New York:

Oxford University Press.

They conceptualise appraisal operating at two levels

The primary level involves an assessment of familiarity, degree of challenge, which are considered alongside relevance to personal goals and interests. More specifically things that are familiar and not too challenging do not arouse much emotion whilst the unfamiliar and challenging lead to anxiety.

(KRO but surely these only relate to the task?, technology rather than the interaction. Also Jones described in more in terms of previous experience)

The secondary level is concerned with evaluating o the appropriateness of the different courses of action available to the learner.

In this way, the emotional valence and the appraisal of action will impact on learning although students will vary as to whether any action taken stems from a positive or a negative valence.

P455 ‘ their arousal ( emotions) is an appraisal process triggered by a perceived potential harm or benefit for the learner in the learning situation’ the reason for the arousal being linked to an attribution process.

Emotion type

Get the following as a source for another approach

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91e105.

After a review of the various methods available an particularly the timing of data collection, they concluded that a multiple method approach is desirable

Evidence their claims about appraisal based on two case studies

1. Maths class, 8^th graders, thinking aloud and simulated recall

2. University students, online course, transcripts of CMC and questionnaire.

Based on case study 2 p457 ‘ in summary, the analysis of social online learning situations reveals a range of other directed emotions in addition to self, task, and technology directed emotions. Emotions generated in social online environments are not different in nature from those generated in face-to-face ( they didn’t convincingly evidence this claim ( ? rather assumed) therefore (thesis will question this). What is different in online learning is the fact that emotions are expressed via technology ( how? No specific information) and the disclosure of emotions is of necessity voluntary ( thesis will not make this assumption). In contrast face to face situations offer the possibility of detecting emotions through facial expression and bodily language which may not always be voluntary disclosures of emotions’

The impact of emotions on learning and the significance for teacher intervention

P458 A number of studies have shown that ‘ when education based on computer conferencing fails, it is usually because there has not been a responsible teaching presence an appropriate leadership and direction exercised ‘ ( G, A & A, 2000, p96)

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment:

computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2e3), 87e105.

The process of emotion arousal is triggered by an activity that presents different degrees of challenge or familiarity to the learner and also difference degrees of relevance .

sw

Authors claim that appraisal and emotional arousal processes be used as conceptual tools to illustrate the impact of emotions on the individual students learning process.

The authors provide two case studies that ‘s stress the importance of teachers’ understanding the processes that trigger negative emotions in order to intervene effectively’

But

‘if emotions are not spontaneously disclosed, as is necessary in online learning ( a point the thesis will consider without making prior assumption) , teachers are unable to appreciate their significance on the learning process. Teachers also need to understand the full complexity, as evidenced from empirical work of the impact of student’s emotions on their motivation and further work.

Authors review of method

Considered in terms of a distinction between methods that collect evidence during learning and those that collect after.

(1) survey , specifically of emotions ( Pekrun paper) Emotions bring draw attention to the problematic nature of disclosure particularly when emotional experience is salient. Process of emotional experience is not revealed ( KRO ?process of empathizing with the experience revealed by the DP work ) KRO retrospective and therefore surely involves attribution

(2) observation

(i) Facial expression - FACs – ( details on this method from old notes ). For online it would require video recording ( with the attendant problems of that method)

(ii) Content analysis , inobtrusive, but maybe privacy issues. Inference and interpretation although methodologies have been developed

(3) emotion diary

(4) simulated recall – present some record of the learning process (KRO not available as a continuous record it can be challenging . For group work there are complex issues, particularly ethical

(5) Practitioner records

P454 ‘overall the methods that are applicable to social online learning provide only limited (KRO for thesis one aim is to extend these) access to the complex set of emotions experienced during the learning process.’ Each of these methods has limitations. When used in combination these methods provide a more comprehensive picture of the emotion arousal process and its impact on the learning process ( actually it doesn’t, as described, tell you anything about the learning process)