Combining Methods at Two
Levels in Learning Research
James Greeno
University of Pittsburgh
0
Strategies/methods at two levels
of research activity
• 2. Analyzing episodes of activity:
Interaction analysis, including subjectmatter content.
• 1. Developing and evaluating hypotheses:
Progressive refinement.
1
1. Developing and evaluating
hypotheses: Two (extreme) strategies
• Experimental (strict form): Hypothesizing must
precede empirical testing, which gives binary
answers.
Hypotheses are modified, but only between
experiments
• Ethnographic (strict form); Minimize hypotheses
in advance of empirical study (= avoid
preconceptions); hypotheses emerge in experience
of field work; evaluate with field notes.
Hypotheses happen, at least in the form of
organizing concepts, but they are kept general
2
Examples of Ethnographic Research
• A classic: Jean Lave’s study of math in grocery shopping. JPF
shoppers nearly always picked the product with the lowest unit price,
although their performance on paper-and-pencil math tests was much
poorer.
• Nunez, Schliemann, & Carraher, and Saxe, studied young Brazilian
street merchants. They managed the math of wholesale purchases and
setting prices, and didn’t do as well on paper-and-pencil tests.
• Current research at the LIFE Learning Sciences Center is studying
family math and activities involving science at home, finding
capabilities that exceed performance in school, e.g., a girl who
successfully mixes chemicals for cosmetics at home, but is lowperforming student in school science.
3
Combining these complementary
strategies
• Progressive refinement; enabled by video records.
• Start with a general issue or type of process; select
and analyze some relevant episodes; formulate
hypotheses; reconsider analyses and consider
more episodes; reformulate hypotheses, usually
more specific, toward (hopefully until)
convergence.
• (e.g., Engle, Conant & Greeno, 2007)
4
2. Analyzing dynamics and contents
of subject-matter discourse
• Method of information-processing analysis
—> hypothetical information structures,
attributed to individual mental activity.
• Method of interactional discourse analysis
—> hypothetical patterns of participation
and coordination, attributed to groups, with
material and informational resources
(activity systems).
5
Combining these complementary
methods
• Interaction analysis, including participation
structures (e.g., distribution of agency), and
construction of information structures in
common ground.
6
An Example
• Analysis by Carla van de Sande of videos
recorded by Melissa Gresalfi, Victoria
Hand, and Greeno (supported by the
Spencer Foundation)
• Setting: an 8th-grade algebra class; the
teacher emphasized cooperative problem
solving and sense making.
7
Some hypotheses we carried into this analysis
• General topic: growth in conceptual understanding
through discourse interaction (since 1991)
• Analytical scheme: Information structures
constructed as contributions to discourse (Clark &
Schaefer)
• Hypotheses of supporting conditions:
° distribution of authority, authorship,
accountability and
° practices of problematizing, resolving subjectmatter issues (Engle & Conant; Engle);
° dispositions toward collaboraative mathematical
engagement (Gresalfi)
8
Selecting episodes for analysis
• From field notes (by Gresalfi) we chose
episodes in which a solution or method
initially was not mutually understood, but
came to be.
9
Two findings to be explained
• Episodes in which new understanding was
achieved had a characteristic structure, with
one (or more) of the participants providing
an explanation to the other(s).
• The process of reaching mutual
understanding can be difficult, requiring
sustained attention and effort.
10
Hypotheses we have developed
in this study
• Participant functions of inquirer and explainer
organize interactions of (effortful) constructive
listening. This need not correspond to who leads
the conversation.
• Cognition is fundamentally perspectival (from
MacWhinney, Fauconnier)
• Success in communication requires alignment of
perspectives, and reorganizing a perspective can
be very hard (cf. gestalt theorists)
11
Our questions, then, in studying
an episode:
• Does the episode provide evidence supporting or
disconfirming these new hypotheses? (That is, do
the hypotheses support an interpretation of the
episode that accounts for important aspects of the
interaction)?
• Do our current more general hypotheses provide a
useful framework for analyzing this episode?
12
Specifically:
• Look for evidence of the explainer/inquirer
participant structure in constructing
contributions
• In cases of difficulty in reaching mutual
understanding, formulate and evaluate
hypotheses involving perspectives that
differed initially, with eventual alignment.
13
A scheme for summarizing
contributions:
• Cognitive function (what they
accomplished, or got into common ground)
• Participation (positioning in the interaction)
• Task information (contents of information
structure in the interaction)
14
4:07 - 5:13
• Cognitive function: Settle that the answer to S10
for Function 1 is 21
• Participation: D enacted her solution, G and J
followed and accepted D’s enactment and the
result, the G and D corrected their earlier answers
• Task information: D counted the segments of S5,
then iteratively enacted adding 2 for each member
of the sequence from S6 6o S10.
15
>5:13 - 5:59
• Cognitive function: Determine that the formula
2n+1 is correct
• Participation: G’s presentation was not picked up;
J’s presentation was responded to negatively by G,
but J did not accept G’s objection and they did not
resolve their difference. D took the lead in the
interaction to present her support for 2n+1
• Task information: Candidate patterns were
presented … 2n+1 was verified in examples by D,
agreement was given by G
16
>6:10 - 6:38
• Cognitive function: Complete the work sheet for
Function 1 (graph, answer for S17) and reconfirm
the formula 2n+1sd
• Participation: Interaction between D and G. G
presented tentative answers, D provided candidate
answers, G accepted.
• Task information: D and G attended to graphing
Function 1 by points (3, 5, …) and to the answer
for S17 (34? No, 35) and wrote 2n+1 as the
pattern
17
7:34 - 8:42
• Cognitive function: Settle that both 3n+2 and
5+3(n-1) “work.”
• Participation: D and G presented different patterns
(again); D didn’t disagree with G but repeated her
pattern with examples. G presented and explained
her pattern again and D accepted it with stronger
evidence.
• Task information: D presented 3n+2, G presented
5+3(n-1) D demonstrated 3n+2 for S1, S2, and S3.
G presented 5+3(n-1) again demonstrating it for
S3.
18
Evidence for perspectives?
• Task information: D presented 3n+2, G presented
5+3(n-1)
• D’s perspective: pattern of numerical progression;
G’s perspective = pattern of change in diagrams?
• D demonstrated 3n+2 for S1, S2, and S3. G
presented 5+3(n-1) again demonstrating it for S3.
• G shifted perspective to numerical evaluation of
the formula?
19
8:48 - 8:52
• Cognitive function: determine that S10 - 32
• Participation: D and G participated jointly
• Task information: Evaluated 3(n-1)+5 for
S10.
20
A couple of summary notes
• Aspects of positioning interacted with aspects of
information content throughout. For example, J’s
proposal to solve for S10 in Function 1 (2 times
11) could have been resolved, but J was reticent
and D took over the conversation
• The adjustment of perspective we hypothesize for
G in Function 3 might indicate a stronger
commitment by G to achieving mutual
understanding than D had.
21
Something that didn’t happen
• Reconciling the two patterns (cf. Bass &
Ball)
22