Walther et al, 2005

Walther, J.B., Loh, T., and Granka (2005)

Let Me Count the Ways: The Interchange of Verbal and Nonverbal Cues in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Affinity

Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24,1, p36-65

Summary from Hancock et al,( 2007), p 929

‘users were asked to express affinity or disaffinity towards a partner in either a face-to-face or a computer mediated envionment. The data suggested that affinity was expressed equally effectively in both communication conditions. Consitent with predictions from SIP theory, verbal cues carried a larger proportion of the relational information in the CMC condition than in the face-to-face-conidtion…… for example users offered praise and self-disclosures and avoided disagreements and insults’

‘Relational’ Concepts

Affinity is a basic construct of social interaction – p38 ‘ how people express liking’ ‘It has a conceptual overlap with fundamental terms such as involvement, immediacy, attentiveness and the affectively orientated dimensions of communication competence ( Coker & Burgoon, 1987)’

Immediacy – p41 ‘ conceptually it is a composite of involvement, affection and warmth, which is conceived as reflecting the emotional attitude of one individual towards another person’ Non verbally – proximity, smiling, eye contact, postural lean

How do concepts of affinity and immediacy relate?

A possible explanation is provided by ‘equilibrium theory ( Argyle & Dean (1965). – p 41 ‘ that communicators dynamically adapt levels of gaze, physical proximity, and other behaviours indicative of intimacy to normative levels based on culture and need for affiliation. In dyadic interaction, elevations or reductions of these base levels by one communicator through one channel (e.g., proxemic distance reduction) may be compensated for by the other interactant through an alternative channel’( e.g. reduced gaze) ( KRO or alternatively mimicry in near equilibrium states?)

Review of two opposing positions about the effect that a lack of paralanguage might have.

1. Less sociable, relational, understandable and/or effective communication. A view that NVB is critical for the communication of interpersonal identity and affect.

2. P37 ‘ people adapt to the medium by imbuing verbal messages with, and/or by interpreting from contextual and stylistic cues, information about participants’ characteristics, attitudes, and emotions. ‘ eg instead of head nod I quite agree. SIP is a formalisation of this view namely that

communicators adapt to whatever cue systems they have at their disposal , (in CMC these are usually text and chromatics) to communicate the affective information that is usually exchanged non verbally in FTF settings.

empirical evidence in support of SIP has depended on specifying antecedent conditions and then exploring distal outcomes. ie the question has been whether relational and impression forming outcomes occur rather than how they occur.

Therefore the present study has looked at processes . It is also base on the following assessment of previous research on identification p57 ‘Although social identification ( Spears and Lea, 1994) and hyperpersonal ( Walther, 1996) are predicated to prompt affinity and its behaviors in CMC, this research shows little motivation or identity issues need to be salient for communicators to adapt their relational behaviours across channels

Objectives

Concern relations ( affinity) amongst communicators.

1. To test the fundamental claim of SIP, that CMC users employ verbal communication behaviours to achieve a comparable level of relational communication as that which is achieved by FTF communicators who use multiple verbal and non verbal cues. i.e. whether the proportion of variance in the experience of affinity attributable to verbal behaviour in CMC is equivalent to that proportion of FTF affinity that is achieved by verbal and non verbal behaviour. A whether question.

2. To explore what specific cues CMC and FTF communicators employ in the expression of interpersonal affinity. A what question.

Cues

P38-39 reviews the literature including studies that provide what could be considered as contesting views of CMC as a limited medium for personal relationships.

Support for SIP

Utz(200) p40 ‘use of emoticons and affective scripts by online game players was a significant predictor of relationship development – 14% of the variance in users frequency of friendly and romantic relationships online.

Tidwell & Walther(2002) use of self disclosure and personal question asking – compared with F to F CMC devoted a greater proportion of their conversations to disclosures and questions and personal questions were more intimate. Ie uncertainty reduction cues.

The present study will focus on the process of SIP rather than the antecedent conditions and distal outcomes as has been the case in previous research. Although p57 ‘social identification /deindividuation theory ( Spears and Lea, 1994) and hyperpersonal (Walther, 1996) are predicated to prompt affinity and its behaviours in CMC , the research described below shows that little motivation or identity issues need to be salient for communicators to adapt their relational behaviours effectively across channels’.

Informing this current research

Paralanguage in FTF associated with affialiative behaviour and affilaitive experience

Used results from Cocker & Burgoon(1987) who assessed 59 vocalic, kinesic and proxemic cues aggregated through factor analyis into 21 cue composites or individual cues

Identifying the verbal cues has proved much more challenging due to page 45 ‘ NVC are implicitly seen as the natural or’sole’ carriers of relational information, subtle verbal variations that also carry relational information have been neglected ‘

Authors suggest basing there study of verbal immediacy in FTF and CMC on the following four bodies of work

1. Validation or invalidation ( based on Watzlawick, et al, (1967)

Confirmation for validation and reinforcing a sense of worth.

Discomfirming – indifferent response, impervious, denying. P46 ‘ Each of these categories includes further detailed maneuvers ( e.g. impersonal language, monologue, irrelevant response, responses that are minimally related to the topic in hand)

2. Liking and Face and disagreement or agreement during discussion (Scheerhorn (1991,1992)

From lesser to greater liking are –aggravated disagreement, direct disagreement, indirect disagreement, indirect and modest viability, praise and indirect disagreement, praise and provisional agreement, implicit and direct agreement, and strong agreement

3. Jablin (1978) provided 5 forms of agreement, disagreement each having both content and relational connotations’

Confirmation (+ feedback and positive relational

Disagreement (- negative feedback with positive relational)accedence ( positive content, negative relational)

Repudiation ( negative content, negative relational)

Disconfirmation ( irrelevant content and irrelevant relational)

Concluded p 47 ‘ Given the focus on discussion of attitudes and decisions in so much past CMC and FTF affinity research, the assessment of relational aspects of verbal agreement and disagreement messages seemed to be a promising approach for the study of affinity online and offline’

4 Patterns of reciprocation and accommodation

Agreement, disagreement, open, closed and rhetorical questions as well as several types of answers

Research questions

· What combination of verbal and nonverbal cues convey affinity FTF?

· What verbal cues express affinity in CMC?

Method

56 undergrads in dyads, one as confederate, the other as naïve. Half assigned to FTF context, half to CMC..

Dyads asked to discuss scenarios capable of generating multiple perspectives in response to social and moral dilemmas.

Confederates instructed to express either affinity or disaffinity after 1 min of interaction – no specific instructions as to how to do this. Prompted to invoke assigned role based on instructions in the papers already reviewed immediacy ( Coker & Burgoon, 1987 and liking ( Scheerhorn)

FTF 10 mins, CMC 40 mins.

Afterwards –

confederate asked to state in their own words what the manipulation had been. 100% consistency

Naïve asked to rate confederate for

Immediacy ( Anderson, 1979)

Affection ( Burgoon and Hale, 1988)

Coding

Done by confederates ( although not for their own dyad)

122 codes ( kinesics, vocalics ( with content filtered out) & two sets of verbal indicators

Results

The motivation to express affinity was more robust than medium effects , with interpersonal affect varying entirely due to the intended emotional expression and not due to the communication medium.

Vocalic

Immediacy … pleasantness & pausing during speech

Affection …. Pleasantness, sharpness, condescension & timbre

Kinesics

Immediact … smiling, body relaxation(-), directness of gaze,

Affection …. Smiling, direct facial orientation, looking around the room(-), random head movement, gaze

FTF Verbal

Immediacy …. Insults(-) , offering personal information

Affection – no significant associations

CMC Verbal

Immediacy … explicit positive statements of affection, changing the subject, indirect disagreement, praise plus novel proposition(-)

Affection …. Explicit positive statements of affection, changing the subject

Hancock et al (2007)

Hancock, J.T., Landrigan, C., & Silver, C (2007)

Expressing Emotion in Text-based Communication

CHI 2007 Proceedings Emotion and Empathy. P 929-932

Theoretical Framework

SIP – strategic relational adaptation in mediated communication. (Parkinson relational alignment). P929 users employ the verbal cues present in CMC to convey relational information that may normally be tramsmitted via non-verbal cues

Method

This study influenced by Walther et al (2007) when confederate in a dyad asked express affinity ( or not)

Using IM Dyads ( undergraduates getting module accreditation) confederate asked to express emotion ( positive or negative) to naïve partner.

What strategies are used to express emotion? Confederate view. Confederates asked to respond to the questionnaire below

Positive and negative descriptives	P values
Punctuation 4.22 .45 2.95 .43	<0.05
Typed More 4.56 .40 3.95 .38 .	.28
Emoticons 4.00 .53 3.15 .50 .	.25
Explicit Emotion Statements 4.06 .41 3.00 .39 .	.07
Encourage Partner 3.28 .36 3.40 .34 .	.80
Respond Quickly 4.72 .37 3.20 .36	<0.01
Self-disclosure 4.50 .37 4.30 .36	.70
Agreement 5.00 .36 2.85 .34	<0.01

What is the textual evidence?

Linguistic analysis using LIWC

For the purposes of the study only the linguistic features shown in the following table were used ie relevant to the purpose of the study ( no further justification given!)

% measure – divides the frequency of the observed variable by the total number of words in the sample

	Linguistic Category positive then negative M SE M SE
Word Count	590.40 44.08 458.70 42.94 < .05	<0.05
Affect	4.44 .24 5.27 .33 < .05	<0.05
	Positive feeling .80 .12 .63 .11 .30	.30
	Negative feeling .11 .14 .55 .53 < .01	<0.01
	Emoticons .26 .09 .15 .07 .34	.34
Pronoun		.
	1st-Person 7.31 .38 6.72 .45 .33	.33
	3rd Person 1.38 .22 1.70 .28 .37	.37
Agrrement
	Negations 1.58 .15 2.29 .20 < .05	<0.05
	Assents 1.69 .20 2.51 .35 = .05	=0.05
ExclamationPoints	7.45 2.04 1.20 .69 < .05	<0.05
Msgs Per Minute	2.64 .22 2.37 .26 .43	.43

Note p931 ‘ Linguistic analysis of the texts revealed that several verbal dimensions differed significantly across the two emotion conditions although not necessarily in the manner the expressers reported in the questionnaire response

(KRO ? evidence for the involuntary)

Naives view

Naïves given questionnaire with 11 items to assess their ability to detect the expresser’s emotion.

FA gave 2 factors, perceived mood of expressor, and perceived relationship. Naïve partners were able to detect the expressor’s emotional state. Analysis suggest that negations and exclamation points were relied on most heavily by assessors when judging their partner’s affective state…

Discussion

Supports SIP .

Data suggests that four strategies ( ? use of this term) were used for differentiating between positive and negative emotions. Note that expressors reposnses to the questionnaires was not always born out by the linguistic analysis.

Walther et al agreement led to more liking.

• However for this data ( emotion) positive affect users disgreed significantly less.

• Negative used x5 times more negative affect terms, although they seemed to be unaware of this on the questionnaire ( KRO involuntary again)

• More x6 punctuation by positive expressors

• Positive reported responding quickly although analysis showed that they did not.

social presence rourke 1999

Liam Rourke, Terry Anderson, D. Randy Garrison, Walter Archer (1999)

Assessing Social Presence In Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing

The Journal of Distance Education / Revue de l'Éducation à Distance, Vol 14, No 2 (1999)

Community of inquiry Model -

was specifically designed to guide the use of computer conferencing to support critical thinking in higher education.

Models learning occurring in the space where cognitive, social and teacher influences overlap

Cognitive presence - the extent to which the participants in any particular configuration of a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication.

social presence, defined as the ability of learners to project themselves socially and emotionally in a community of inquiry. – therefore it supports the cognitive and affective elements of learning. IN CMC, unlike FTF instructional contexts, It is a function of both learners and teachers

“Teacher immediacy is conceptualized as those nonverbal behaviors that reduce physical and/or psychological distance between teachers and students” (p. 544). She found that engaging in eye contact with students, adopting a relaxed body posture, using gestures, and smiling improved students affect toward the practices promoted in the course, the subject matter of the course, and the course instructor.

Gorham (1988) expanded the definition of teacher immediacy behaviors to include oral behaviors such as talking about experiences that have occurred outside class, using humor, addressing students by name, and praising students’ work or comments. Her results suggest that these types of behavior also contributed significantly to students’ affective learning

immediacy

traced back to Mehrabian (1969, p203 ) ‘those communication behaviors that enhance closeness to and nonverbal interaction with another” - not implies that immediacy is given by the non verbal

Sproull and Keisler (1986) regarded the implications of Mehrabian’s (1969) work from a different perspective. They argued that the critical difference between face-to-face communication and mediated communication was the absence of social context cues. Their research indicated that the lack of cues to define the nature of a social situation led to uninhibited communication such as hostile and intense language (i.e., flaming), greater self-absorption, and a resistance to defer speaking turns to higher-status participants.

CMC & immediacy

The capacity of CMC to support highly affective interpersonal interactions is supported by studies that focus on its use in educational settings. Angeli, Bonk, and Hara (1998) conducted a content analysis of a course conducted entirely through CMC. They found that 27% of the total message content consisted of expressions of feeling, self-introductions, jokes, compliments, greetings, and closures. McDonald (1998) studied the development of group dynamics in educational computer conference settings and found that expressions of openness and solidarity were significant elements, rising from 18% and 40% of the total respectively when the conference began to 36% and 54% at its conclusion.

Analysis Framework for social presence

An important step in content analysis is the development of categories and indicators that researchers can then use to analyze the transcripts. We arrived at the categories for social presence that we used through an iterative process. First, behavioral indices were derived from the three categories of social presence articulated by Garrison et al. (2000, i.e., emotional expression, open communication, and group cohesion). Second, indicators of social interaction that had been derived from the media capacity, teacher presence, and group interaction literature were applied deductively to the analysis. Third, additional indices were deduced from careful readings of the transcripts and then added to the coding scheme. This process culminated in the formation of three broad categories of communicative responses that contribute to social presence. These categories correspond directly to Garrison et al.’s original categories. However, they were relabeled to reflect better the nature of the emergent indicators that define them in this study. Open communication is now referred to as interactive responses, referring to indices of threaded interchanges combined with messages of a socially appreciative nature. Emotional presence has been renamed as affective responses and group cohesion as cohesive responses.

Affective

Kuehn (1993) noted that text-based, asynchronous interlocutors employ unconventional symbolic representations such as emoticons to facilitate expressiveness in the medium. Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) found that conference participants “enhanced their socioemotional experience by using emoticons to express missing nonverbal cues in written form” (p. 8).

Teacher immediacy literature has identified the use of humor as a contributory factor to immediacy and subsequently to learning (Christenson & Menzel, 1998;

Cutler (1995) explains that “the more one discloses personal information, the more others will reciprocate, and the more individuals know about each other the more likely they are to establish trust, seek support, and thus find satisfaction” (p. 17)

Interaction

Eggins and Slade (1997) add that responses and rejoinders serve several beneficial purposes in conversation. They build and sustain relationships, express a willingness to maintain and prolong contact, and tacitly indicate interpersonal support, encouragement, and acceptance of the initiator. Using the “reply” feature to post messages, quoting directly from the conference transcript, and referring explicitly to the content of others’ messages are all types of interactive response in CMC.

Walberg (1984) conducted a meta-analysis of 3,000 studies that examined the effects of educational interventions designed to improve academic achievement. Reinforcement was at the top of his list and had an effect size of 1.17.

Complimenting and acknowledging, and expressing appreciation are ways of communicating reinforcement in a text-based medium.

Cohesive

This category is exemplified by activities that build and sustain a sense of group commitment.

Phatics are defined as communication “used to share feelings or to establish a mood of sociability rather than to communicate information or ideas” (GuruNet, 1999)

Vocatives, that is, addressing participants by name, are also an important expression of cohesion.

A variation of the vocative effect occurs at the group level when participants refer to the group with inclusive pronouns such as we, our, us, or group.

Eggins and Slade (1997) note, disagreement and critical evaluation are more characteristic of those who share strong bonds, rather than of new or transient acquaintances.

Method

Corpus extracted from week 5 of two( 14 members in 1 and 17 in the other) text based 13 week modules. New topic each week,

Discussion

the presence of replies and quoted messages may be a superficial artifact of conferencing communication rather than a defining indicator of social presence. The remaining indicators represent a more labor-intensive, and thus a more conscious and willful, effort on the part of the student to interact with others. According to this hypothesis, referring to other students by name and referring explicitly to the contents of another’s message are better indicators of interaction than having another student’s name or message appear automatically due to software features.

developing social brain

Sarah-Jayne Blakemore(2010)

The Developing Brain: Implications for Education

Neuron, 65, 6, 744-747

P2 ‘ We are constantly reading each others’ actions, gestures and faces in terms of underlying mental states and emotions, in an attempt to figure out what other people are thinking and feeling, and what they are about to do next’

Age 4 ‘ children begin explicitly to understand that others can hold a belief that is different from their own’

Refers to Kuhl work on language learning and video

P3

‘ What is so special about social interaction with a real person is not yet understood. One possibility is that social interaction increases infants’ motivation through enhanced attention and arousal. Social interaction also directs the adult trainer to focus on the learner’s individual needs and tailors the training content for the learner. In addition, by nine months, infants start to understand that pointing to, or looking in the direction of an object indicates that this object is being referred to (KRO Multi modality). This is one of the first building blocks of theory of mind’

examples of mentalizing

· understanding irony ( separating the literal from the intended meaning)

· thinking about ones own intentions

· thinking about social emotions such as guilt and embarrassment

We need to ask whether online social networking, which is particularly important with teenagers, is the same as real live interaction, or whether it might be denying the developing brain of important real-life interactions. There is yet no research on this important question. What is the critical factor in social interaction that is so evidently missing from video conferencing, and which makes it incomparable to a meeting with real people? Being able to ascertain whether or not involuntary emotional expression occurs and if so when is a critical piece of evidence for this debate.’

online silence

Michael Zemblyas & Charalambos (2007)

Listening for Silence in Text-Based Online encounters.

Distance Education, 28, 1, 5-24

Note: lots of examples of illocutionary force in the examples.

Silence as an aspect of social presence.

When and why are student silent – assumes p 7 the multidimensional meanings of online silence are a critical component of social presence

FTF

They have nothing to say/add

They may feel that contributions are not valued and therefore choose to remain silent

They may feel insecure and/or shy

They may need time to think

However in online environments silence is often assumed to be down to non participation or marginialization.

Research questions

RQ1 p8 ‘ What forms and meanings do online silences take within text-based communications, and how are those forms and meanings enacted?

RQ2 “how do online instructors address silence in constructive ways, considering that silence is an important part of text-based communication?’

Method

Ethnographic perspective ‘ an ethnographioc perspective does not focus on understanding an entire culture, but rather can be used to take a more focused look at the actions of members of a group.

Two phases

1. Content analysis of all content

2. Interviews

Interviewed instructors with ‘ a focus on the different meanings and forms that silence took in their online encounters with learners’.

Used purposive sampling to select 4 students for interview ie the ones that ‘would provide optimal variation ( Patton, 2002) of interpretations about online silence’

Semi structured – prompted to make reference to events that made them feel uncomfortable, confused or concerned

Joyful and pleased

With prompts used to explore whether these feelings were related to online silence.

All interviewees asked to check researcher interpretations.

Analysis

Thematic analysis - Going from the particular meaning to generalizations p10 ‘propositional statements that indicate relationships and generalizations in the data’

Four themes

1. Silence as ‘non participation’ ie conscious decision not to participate

‘ I thought we were doing this online course because it allows us flexibility’

‘not keen on hearing the same old stuff’

‘pretty soon is was kind of pitiful’

2. Silence as confusion

Without gaze information it may not be obvious to whom a response is directed that can then lead to confusion. Emoticons , when used, did not always disambiguate.

P15 ‘ one thing, I was thinking something else, and it just didn’t match, until we talked later on the phone’

3. Silence as marginalization

P16 ‘But some postings receive no responses or are responded to without addressing the real issue…. Humour is usually a means to dismiss serious discussions…… I complained about this to my instructor. I feel that I am silenced, you know? I don’t feel welcomed and so I don’t participate in the online discussions as often as I used to’

4. Silence as thoughtful reflection

P18 ‘ not an emoppty silence but a thoughtful silence’

Due to my cultural background ‘ Having the opportunity to think and phrase my response carefully before i post it , is really important to me…..’

problem arises ‘how long do you wait for a response in a threaded discussion ….. if you go ahead and continue with the discussion , wouldn’t this be interpreted as disregarding this individual?’ In FTF some judgement could be made from NVC

Suggestions for tutors based on interview data from tutors

Ask students to post a certain number of responses and to participate

Review online discussions for quality and provide more or less facilitation as a consequence where facilitation involves 9 synthesising themes or conflicting opinions, redirecting a lagging discussion

Asking good open ended questions

Have frequent and consistent interaction with students to encourage openness and trust.

Ie fit with Salmon advice

Barron (2003)

Bridget Barron (2003)

When Smart Groups Fail

The Journal of Learning Science,12(3), 307-359

no tutor, 6th graders, face to face, all triads

Value of collaboration and the problems that can occur

P308 ‘intense interaction between partners, nurtures achievements when partners share interests, knowledge, personal history, and a commitment to work ‘ quotes John-Steiner, 2000.

but

‘groups are source of aggravation, feelings of wasted time and discouragement’ ( Salomon & Globerson, 1989)

outcomes of collaborative groups can be very different, i.e. there is variance between groups

p309 ‘ there is a need for better articulation of the characteristics of interactions that lead to differentially productive joint efforts’ p301 ‘ even when the knowledge or insights that individual members generate does not differ between groups’

units of analysis – individual or group

Therefore

‘research in this article is concerned with advancing the understanding of how the microinteractional processes between collaborators ‘ influence collective achievements and what individuals learn from their interactions’

Three Main ( general) ideas

Attention ‘ management of attention is a fundamental aspect of interactional work during collaborative problem solving’, quotes Roschelle, Teasley

In Face to face there are non verbal strategies for joint attention eg pointing, tapping, moving to share perspective of the workgroup

Metacognitive comments eg need to keep pace

‘both speakers and listeners have consequential roles to play in establishing joint attention’

there are ‘barriers that some participants face having their ideas heard and how this is particularly challenging if partners are self-focused’ KRO seems that it applies to 6^th graders also. On the other hand ‘persistence coupled with increasing strength of presentation can pay off’ but might be offputting or discouraging, particularly for more passive members.

think in terms of a ‘cognitive space’ plus ‘a relational space’ ‘which are negotiated simultaneously and can compete for limited attention’ ‘ information made available in the space from the self and from others’ activities must be integrated’ ie relational aspects of the interpersonal context.

There is sometimes an unwillingness to negotiate a shared space.

Crook 1996, p116 describes ‘intersubjective attitude’

Fogel (1993) p337 ‘ true communication takes co-regulation , a willingness and openness to be influenced by others’

P331

“Maintaining the group as a unit of analysis focuses attention on the emergent patterns of interaction and allows for the identification of individual conversational moves that shift patterns’ eg persistence

‘an important property of language in interaction is its flexibility and generativeness. Silence, repetition of ideas, eye gaze, gestures, physical synchrony, laughter, pauses, interruptions and overlaps in turn taking do not have single meanings but have productive ambiguity, thus depending on the context they signal different things to different people’.

RQs

1. ‘What interactional processes are associated with better group problem solving’

2. ‘How does the quality of group problem solving relate to individual learning as indicated by subsequent independent performance on the same and a related problem’

3. ‘What social and cognitive factors contribute to the emergence of more and less productive interactional patterns’

p312 ‘ Although Rochelle’s analysis focused mostly on the cognitive aspects of creating a joint problem space other studies suggest that to deeply understand the nature of productive collaboration, attention must be paid to the ecology of relations that develops within interactions that allow group members to access and functionally express knowledge and other cognitive resources’

e.g.

Engle & Conant (2002) describe a student scenario with sustained debate over several weeks p312 ‘ students passionate engagement was reflected in intensive emotional displays, persistence in having their ideas heard, additional research, and continued attention over weeks’ . A key aspect of their discourse that allowed for productive learning conversation rather than developing into argumentation shouting matches was the appropriation of scholarly moves such as various kinds of evidence to justify their claims’ KRO what is the equivalent, appropriation of moves, for social ?

Design

Problem

How to get back from Cedar Creek before nightfall – based on mathematical calculations. 6^th graders, similar ability > 75%, same gender triads.

Students required to complete a workbook that posed 8 questions ( 2 planning, 3 subproblems planning questions, 3 solutions). Analysis based on the first subproblem.

Groups were videotaped

Group as the unit of analysis

IV Level of group performance on a complex problem

DV uptake of a correct proposal and response sequences ; based on the observation that correct proposals were not always taken up.

Scoring

Three calculations required for the first subproblem. 0,1, or 2 for each i.e. 1 for partial , 2 for a total solution.

Individual as unit of analysis

Ability of individuals to solve similar problems in the future.

Group as the unit of analysis

Time sequence of proposals and responses

Scoring

Transcripts parsed into turns. Backchannel e.g. umhh, yeah, aldo considered as turns

Analysis

6 staged approach. 1,2,3,4,& 6 based on group as the unit of analysis

Quant (1-5), qual (6)

1. Group problem (sub) solving compared

7 gained total solution, 1 a partial solution, 4 below 50% correct

2. Groups compared for other variables

prior achievement

number of turns

difference beteen partners in turns taken

correct proposals made

3. apply a coding scheme for the way in which correct proposals are responded too.

Three categories, accept, discuss, reject or ignore.

Chi square analysis- significant association between success of groups and pattern of response to proposals.

4. Links between a correct proposal and the relatedness of the prior discussion.

Used the video data

Using Chi square analysis , two associations are confirmed.

Success and relatedness to previous discussion

Relatededness to the prior discussion and acceptance of a correct proposal

5. Individual student subsequent performance

Students in the success groups performed better than student in the unsuccessful groups

6. Sequential view of the interrelation between cognitive and social based on four triads. p331 ‘maintaining the group as a unit of analysis focuses attention on the emergent pattern of interaction and allows for the identification of individual conversational moves that can shift patterns’

Four groups, 2 successful (c&d), 2 unsuccessful (a&b) included in this analysis

Group a

Competitive nature of exchanges.

Claims of competence

Failure to acknowledge the contribution of others

Domination of the workbook

3^rd member used mainly as a scribe

Group b

Parallel efforts on different parts of the problem

3^rd member mostly used as a scribe but makes timely and appropriate suggestions albeit in a hesitant way. Although one other member begins to take notice, other member jumps in with own ideas. Example of a damaged turn Erikson 1996, p37-38 due to hesitancy

Group c

Triad who confronted some of the same issues as group b but who had members that demanded the joint attention be preserved. Third member used physical contact when necessary. There was also evidence of metacommunication ‘wait until the first parties written down’

During initial brainstorming all three were visibly excited and engaged. Third member took on observer role to some extent for part of the time whilst other two put forward parallel ideas

Group 4

‘exchange of conversational turns is rapid ‘ with all three participating. Joint attention and joint problem space maintained throughout.’ P347 the workbook served as a centre of co-ordination ( suchman, 1997, p42) for group work

‘In the two most successful groups, we see an interweaving of members own content space work with an awareness of others’ progress’

Portraits of interactional contexts

‘In less successful cases, relational issues arose that prevented the group from capitalizing on the insights that fellow members had generated. These included competitive interactions, differential efforts to collaborate, self-focused problem solving trajectories.

Behaviorally these manifested as violation of turn taking norms, difficulties in gaining the floor, domination of the workbook, competing claims of competence’

‘Persistence and resistance to dominating efforts were effective’

p349 ‘successful achievement of a joint problem-solving space was especially reflected in high rates of huddling around workbooks and mutual gaze’…….’it was not that more successful groups were immune to problems of coordination but rather that members used strategies that recruited or evoked a joint focus of attention’

lead to

idea of ‘a between person state of engagement’

Finally author broadly discusses three issues

Ethos/assessment approaches that value competition over collaboration

Previous practice and experience eg norms, appropriation of practice

Friendship and familiarity including familiarity with practice