[Home]TeamCDataSessionFindings

HomePage | RecentChanges | Index | Preferences | Upload

This is the wiki page for sharing our findings of Team C data for our data sessions Fall, 2008.
Please post your preliminary findings for the selected excerpt on Monday, prior to the Wednesday afternoon data session so others can read and come to the session prepared.
For example, you could say what you found interesting of the excerpt, why it is interesting, and what you think might be going on there.
For those who are working on their dissertation, write something that is related to your dissertation research.
The first data session will be held at noon, Wednesday, Oct 1st, 2008, at the Math Forum. We will start from the very beginning of Team C's first session to where ssjnish joins the group.

Excerpt 1 (Oct 1, 2008 data session) 6:24-6:34

[Notes from Data Session 1]

Comments from Gerry

6:24-6:26 normal greetings as people enter room
6:24 but Davidcl starts right away drawing on the whiteboard, building the pattern from the problem
6:25 137 starts to draw on the whiteboard for fun/practice
6:24-6:26 Davidcyl tells 137, to stop and erases 137's drawings to make room for his own on-topic math drawings
6:25:44-6:26:21 Jason introduces knowledge and terminology from his school experience outside the chat
6:26:21 Jason opens math discussion with a proposal for approaching/defining the problem, phrased as a question
6:26:25 Davidcyl now connects his drawings to the chat problem solving
there is visual reasoning, counting sticks and squares in drawings and translating this into sums and formulae
There are many proposals and questions, rapidly following parallel and intersecting threads
There is a mixture of exploratory interaction and explanatory discourse

Comments from Ramon

WHAT MAKES THIS SECTION INTERESTING 2006-05-09: 6:24:26 – 6:34:12
How Participation Begins
In the VMT-Chat environment, the presence of participants, but not the order in which they entered the room, is visible in the upper right corner of the screen.
Differences in how a participant ‘joins’ the interaction
-through the Chat Space
1. Upon entry into a room, a participant sees who are in the room through the listing mentioned, but has no idea of their chat activity until after the ‘recall’ button is pressed.
2. Even after the recall button has been pressed, a newly entered participant would not see fully see the unfolding of the previous activity because its possible replay is ‘approximate’ rather than at the speed at which it originally unfolded.
3. The chat activity which is seen by a participant is that which takes place after his entrance and he sees how it unfold.
4. Chat postings are preceded by the names of their posters.
5. Pressing the ‘Enter’ key puts a message in the chat window.
-through the Whiteboard space
1. Determining the identity of the poster of a whiteboard posting requires paying attention to the upper left edge of the whiteboard
2. The latest posted activity on the whiteboard can be seen by the newest entrant into the room.
3. Whiteboard activity become visible to all other participants when the poster clicks on the message typing box or begins typing there.
4. Previous instantiations of the whiteboard can be scrolled back to, but they are not replayable because a review cannot be run at the same speed at which the original event unfolded.
Possible consequences of the above
1. More recent entrants into the environment require ‘some’ time to sense the level of activity in the environment; their greater participation may require them to be ‘invited’ to ‘join in’ by those who have entered the room earlier.
2. ‘Acceptance’ of an invitation may consist in ‘some acknowledgment’ that the invitation has been seen. This may be some response which may be in the form of a reply to some question or some sign of attention to recent postings.
Observations
1. Though Jason was the first participant (with the exception of the facilitator Azemel) to enter, the first posting was by davidcyl and the posting was on the whiteboard.
2. The ‘attendance check’ at 6:24:39 may be a response to the whiteboard posting. It functions as an invitation to be active as ‘davidcyl’ has already begun to be active.
3. A question: do the entry times of the participants partially explain how they respond to the ‘attendance check’?
a. Jason is not in a position to know who should be there but he has probably noticed the system messages showing the entry of davidcyl and 137, hence the ‘hedging’ in the answer.
b. Davidcyl has been active on the whiteboard and is probably aware of the entry of 137. Thus he can declare his readiness without hedging.
c. 137 has seen the two previous responses, hence he can also declare his readiness without hedging
4. Since two other participants have declared their readiness, Jason is now in a position to declare how many are in the room and can be expected to ‘participate’ and not simply lurk.
5. The declaration that there are four participants now permits Azemel to close the ‘attendance check’ activity and permit the initiation of another activity, which is the introduction to where the offered problem is, some essential steps that the participants should engage in and (eventually as displayed in 6:25:54) limit his participation in the interaction.
Different Proposals for Problem of Interest and how they are presented (via whiteboard and via chat)
1. Presentation of resources precedes identification of the problem of interest!
a. Davidcyl has ‘prepared the whiteboard’ by putting up a still unidentified and unexplained representation and erasing 137’s ‘whiteboard greeting (6:25:22 – 6:25:44)’.
b. Jason offers a claim of expertise with the yet unidentified problem; 6:25:44 ‘we just did in this in math class a week ago’.
c. Davidcycl proposes his finished representations at 6:26:25.
2. Two problems of interest are eventually proposed.
a. Jason proposes the problem of sticks by soliciting other approaches for it at 6:26:21.
b. Davidcyl proposes the problem of squares at 6:27:32.
3. Distinct interaction spaces are used to propose an approach.
a. Jason uses the chat window.
b. Davidcyl uses the whiteboard space.
Interrelation of the proposals
1. Both Jason and davidcyl hand over their proposals for uptake but eventually ‘explain’ their solutions, through the presentation of examples of candidate answers.
2. 137 links the competing proposals by ‘connecting’ to each proposal though it is unclear which problem of interest he actually takes up.
3. 137’s apparent ‘confusion’ starting at 6:28:43 seems to create an opening for davidcyl to take up the ‘sticks’ problem after the ‘squares’ problem seems to have been answered through 137’s formula at 6:28:16.

Comments from Nan

6:26:21 Jason's question initiates the problem solving process by inviting people including himself to answer the question. Jason himself answers the question, providing his findings, making them available for others to assess.
6:29:05 137 makes a proposal, presumably a formula describing the pattern, in the form of question, calling for assessment from the group.
137's proposal does not get direct assessment. Instead, David directs people to the whiteboard and tries to provide some description of how the figure consists of sticks.
Seems like when a participant is engaged in exploratory work with other members, math proposal is often made in the form of question. Such questions serve to organize the participation of exploratory work. 137's proposal is an example of this. Another example:
6:32:02 Jason: well could you just use like
...
6:32;28 Jason: # sticks = N*(3+N)
Questions are used to do clarification. e.g. 6:30:50 would that be the number of sticks; 6:32:30 wait what are you working on?
To think about: are some of the proposals in analogy to "failed proposal"? what may consist of a successful math proposal?

Comments from Murat

MuratsNotesOct08

Comments from Johann

In my tracing of trajectories, usually first sessions don't register a lot of "bridging activity" but I had this in my notes for this team's initial phase:
Jason 5/9/06 6:25:44 PM EDT: ooh we just did this in math class about a week ago! :-)
Jason 5/9/06 6:25:55 PM EDT: well, not the exact thing, but sequences and series
These 2 posting are interesting to me because they seem "prepare" a participation framework (using reporting-like postings) and serve as a preface to this next posting:
Jason 5/9/06 6:26:21 PM EDT: so do we see how the number of sticks grows in a sequence?
What follows, to me, illustrates how Jason tries to get "us" to "see" how the number of sticks grows Question: Is some of this what you called "explanatory" Gerry? I kind of see a kind of "explanatory+exploratory" combination... but unfortunately not much visible uptake to Jason? I agree that there is a lot of parallel work here. Interestingly, no one is complaining about that. :)

Comments from ...

Comments from ...


Excerpt 2 (6:34-7:13:53)

[Notes from Data Session 2 Oct 8th]
[Notes from Data Session 3 Oct 14th]
[Notes from Data Session 4 Oct 22nd]

Comments from Gerry

Comments from Ramon

The gentle art of correcting a whiteboard object
Jason initiates the creation of a whiteboard object – a summation in sigma form – of the number of squares. At completion, his whiteboard object is ∑_(n=1)^∞▒n
Davidcyl makes corrections by replacing the formula n(n+3) with n. The ‘n’ is then replaced by ‘k’, ‘n = 1’ by ‘k = 1’ and finally the infinity symbol ‘∞’ is replaced by ‘k’ at 6:44:33. The ‘k’ is reverted to ‘n’ at 6:44:38.
The final form of the whiteboard object – ∑_(k=1)^n▒k - is highlighted by davidcyl at 6:44:50.
Jason initiates the whiteboard activity at 6:40:45 explaining what he is doing through chat postings and uses reference links to connect his postings to his whiteboard activity 6:42:31. After ‘finishing’ the whiteboard posting, he agrees with davidcyl’s offer to work on the wiki. Jason’s agreement takes place at 6:43:32 and 6:43:36.
davidcyl starts changing Jason’s whiteboard posting sometime after 6:43:37 and highlights an initial change he made through a reference link. The chat posting suggests a mitigated disagreement through the use of the hedge ‘I think’. Jason accepts the correction. Davidcyl continues to revise all other labels of the summation until 6:44:38. Finally, davidcyl highlights the whiteboard object at 6:44:50.
An initial ‘correction’ presented as a typo by the original poster, rather than treated as a mistake, results in a mutually acceptable resource, whose revision saves the ‘face’ of the original poster.

Comments from Nan

Comments from Murat

Comments from Johann

Comments from ...

Comments from ...


Excerpt 3 (Nov 5th, 2008 data session) 5/11/06 7:26:32 - 7:31:22

[Notes from Data Session 6 Nov 5th]

Comments from Gerry

Comments from Ramon

Comments from Nan

Comments from Murat

Comments from Johann

Comments from ...

Comments from ...


Excerpt 4 (Nov 12, 2008 data session) 5/11/06 7:33:06 - 7:43:51

[Notes from Data Session 7 Nov 12th]

Comments from Gerry

Comments from Ramon

Comments from Nan

Comments from Murat

Comments from Johann

Comments from ...

Comments from ...


HomePage | RecentChanges | Index | Preferences | Upload
This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited November 12, 2008 3:25 pm by Nan (diff)
Search: