| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

H: Attractors and Affordances 2

Page history last edited by x28de 14 years, 11 months ago

Is this what we've got now? Do these questionnaire statements cover all the key ideas that we have discussed? We should still be able to track them against our categories of technology, personal connections, conceptual connection and learning, shouldnt' we? as well as against the hypotheses?

  • (MM 29.3.09) I expanded the QuestionsToHypotheses.xls spreadsheet with these attractor statements (in pink). Many of them were not assignable to our (sub)categories unless these Part4Grouping are adapted, as well.

 

I have done this in a bit of a rush. Feeling tired now (I've been working on the research most of the day). The outstanding questions seem to me to be:

 

1. Do the statements cover everything we need to find out?

2. Do the statements make sense? Will they be interpreted correctly?

3. Some statements appear to be asking more than one question. Do we need to split them?

4. Are there any leading statements?

5. Is the English good enough?

6. What pre-questions do we need to ask?

7. Do we need any comment boxes?

8. Do we need to create any more statements.

 

Are we nearly there - pleeeeeease say Yes!!! :-) But as always - please amend/edit etc as needed.

 

Can somebody restore Roy's numbering? (28.3.09) Thank you very much for the quick update! Before I saw this page I just completed a map containing these numbers where I marked the topic areas which seem to me as if we are nearly there (around the hypotheses in blue boxes) vs. the rest which is disputed or/ and unclear to me.

 

(MM 28.3.09) I had to add the missing colors, because otherwise I don't understand where [dis]agreement is emerging. And later I appended "a"-"e" to ambiguous identifiers.

 

On the CCK08 course those who communicated in the blogs more than in the forums did so because:

 

·        Blogs enable personal sense-making and self-expression (BO.1, 1d) Split this into two statements: Blogs enable personal sense-making. Blogs enable self-expression. By John

·        Blogs allow you to create and integrate an attractive layout with ideas and presence (B0.2, 1d) Blogs allow you to create an attractive layout to express yourself and integrate your ideas.  By John

·        You can develop a personal voice in a blog (B1, 1a) You can establish a personal voice in a blog.  By John

·        You can develop personal connections, beyond the immediate task, group in a blog (B2, 1a)

·        You have more control over who you allow in to your discussions on your blog (Front porch for meeting visitors, with (implicit) front door control) (B3, 1b) You have more control over who you would like to discuss with on your blog (or You have more control over who you would be allowed to discuss with you on your blog)

·        Bloggers ensure that the ‘tone’ of their discussions meets implicitly accepted protocols (Bounded by protocols on ‘tone’  - (across many discourses) ) (B3a, 1b1)

·        Blogs enable quiet, slow, reflection (B4, 2e)

·        Bloggers can ‘own’ their publishing space (B5a) Own / published space / presence / pace (B5, 1d)

·        Bloggers can establish a presence on their blog (B5b, 1d) (blogs?)

·        Bloggers can control the pace of discussion on their blog (B5c) (blogs?)

·        Blogs provide a protected space Protected space (B5d, 1d) & (B6, 1b, 1d)

·        Bloggers can build and protect their self-esteem in a blog Building and protecting self-esteem (B7, 1d)

·        Bloggers can individually build good ideas (B8a)

·        Blogs enable intensive personal learning Building good  ideas individually / intensive personal learning (B8b, 2a, 2c, 3a)

·        Bloggers can draw explicit connections between fewer and more distant concepts, that are initially weak and strengthen through time (B9, 3d)

·        Bloggers can focus on the development of side branches in their own space and time, which make (build?) explicit, well formed connections to seemingly distant topics. (B10)

·        Bloggers can develop thoughtful long term relationships and networks (BR1, 1a)

·        Bloggers can develop a blend of personal and conceptual relationships relationships with a blend of personal / ideas focus. (BR2)

  • (MM 28.3.09) Is this statement equivalent to BR2? I think here, two different views become obvious: Either viewing the personal and conceptual layers as two distinct ones influencing each other, or viewing one blended layer. I don't want to harp on the disagreement but we should be aware of it and probably move this subtopic from the hypothesis-testing questions to the open ones unearthing unforeseen insights. (Applies also to MSOF2)

·        Bloggers can rapidly track parallel, blogs and bloggers. (BR3)

·        Bloggers can develop ties which are initially weak but then strengthen. Ties which are initially weak and strengthening (BR4, 1c)

·        Bloggers can develop deep connections  (JM – do we mean relationships here?) (P004c?)

·        Blogs allow for personal freedom (L005d)

Checking against Matthias' spreadsheet QuestionsToHypotheses.xls we may need to add some statements aboutdeeper connections (although this might be implicit in the above); personal freedom (although this might be implicit in the above);  and personal control

The reason why the old questions L005a & L005d appeared in my table was not that wanted to reclaim the freedom and control aspects but because they contained a bit of hypothesis 2b ([the reasons why people chose to Moodle or Blog in the CCK08 course are centred around 4 themes: ...] "what best suited their individual learning styles."), and hypothesis 2b seemed to be the only one among the Learning chapter 2 that was uncontested.


On the CCK08 course those who communicated in the Moodle forums more than in the blogs did so because:

 

·        The forums enabled collaborative peer learning Collaborative Peer learning for the assignments - would it be more cooperative for the CCK08 forums? (F0)

·        There was an immediate sense of community in the forums Immediate community Close immediate community (see F0) CCK08 Does this need to be separate from F1 or is this an error (F1, 1b) (F6, 1d)

Variable paced asynchronous interaction My perception is that it was all fast in the CCK08 course - but I wasn't a moodler (F2, 1b)

·        There were more people to interact with in the forums Marketplace to bump into people / ideas with front door control (F3, 1b)

  • Is "bump in" more positive, negative, or neutral than "sparring"? Is it perhaps harmless sounding for the bumpers and less harmless for the victims (as is often the case with loose speak from males to females?) And does it better convey the connotation of spatial squeeze than "stepping on others' toes"?

 

·        The ‘tone’ of discussion in the forums was academic Bounded by protocols on ‘tone’  - (emphasis on academic) I don't think there were protocols on 'tone' in the CCK08 forum. They weren't apparent to me, although the tone was often academic. See MSOF3 (F4, 1b1) 

·        There were group-like uniformly medium-strong ties (do we mean connections) in the forums Ties which are group-like, uniformly medium-strong (F5, 1c)

·        The pace of discussion was fast in the forums (F7a, 1d, 3a)

·        Discussion in the forums was provisional and exploratory with a focus on knowledge drafting Fast, Provisional, exploratory expression and knowledge drafting (F7b, 1d, 3a)

·        There was intensive collaborative learning in the forums Building good  ideas collaboratively / intensive collaborative learning - as above I'm not sure that collaborative is the correct word (F8, Id, 2a, 2c) 

  • (MM 28.3.09) See also my remark (2009-03-25) at 2a of Hypotheses for my doubts on the collaborative learning.

·        In the forums conceptual connections were more implicitly present, closer in time and space and more numerous  Conceptual connections which are more implicitly present, closer in time and space and more numerous (F9, 3d)

·       Forums allowed for big picture discussions with digressions and disparate topics Big picture discussions with digressions, disparate topics. (F10, 3f)

·        There was alpha--fe/male sparring in the forums Sparring alpha-fe/male contestation (MSOF 0.1)

·        The forums were like a free-for-all marketplace without a regulator Free-for-all Marketplace without a regulator. (MSOF 0.2, 1b)

·        There was fast-paced asynchronous interaction in the forums Fast paced asynchronous interaction (MSOF 1, 1b)  

·        Relationships in the forums were developed on the basis of ideas Developing relationships biased towards ideas. (MSOF 2, 1b)

·        There was no restriction on the ‘tone’ of discussion in the forums No restrictions on ‘tone’ (supposedly self-correcting!) (MSOF 3, 1b1)

·        Forums ensured a greater number of readers of your posts (T007)

·        Forums ensured a greater number of responses to your posts (T009)

·        It was easier to track back through discussions in the forums (I need to look for this) C003

·        In the forums you could avoid the distraction of numerous hyperlinks (I need to look for this) 3f or C006a/b

Other statements which we may want to include - because they appear in Matthias' spreadsheet QuestionsToHypotheses.xls are

- greater number of readers/responses (although you may think this implicit in what is above); the ability to track back through discussion more easily; the lack of links.

 

(MM 28.3.09) Jenny asked "Are you saying that in the questionnaire we should only include those statements that appear directly connected to the blue boxes (on the map) and all the other statement can be left for following up in interviews, if we do them?".

 

No, I would not suggest such radical things. On the contrary, I tried to adapt my original suggestion (agree on hypotheses, then optimize questions) to the new attractors that were not aligned with either hypotheses or subcategories or questions. Similarly to my attempt to identify the few hypotheses that received less objections on the Hypotheses page, I tried to identify those hypotheses numbers that seemed to be surrounded by less contested and less ambiguous attractors. (Of course the was a subjective attempt).

 

Since there were so few questions avaiable (in the spreadsheet) even for the few undisputed hypotheses, I thought we could split our questions among two groups: One with matching hypotheses and one without.

  • For the latter, we could proceed as previously considered, anyway: Don't try to optimize them in advance, but interprete them later (after the survey) or ask for more details in the interviews.
  • For the former type we could try to optimize them. If there are hypotheses without matching questions, we could see if the matching attractor statements could be taken instead, now that you have rephrased them on this page.

 

Was I clearer now? As always, I did not deduce anything from the map, so nothing on the map is obvious or justifiable, just an illustration of my interpretation of the corresponding text pages. For hypothesis 3f, I did not see objections on the Hypotheses page, just more details, and there was a nice pair of attractors. In contrast, 3a was contested from the very beginning.

Unfortunately, I overlooked a clearly uncontested one: the one-liner 3d (implicit/explicit links), and was too cautious with 1c (strengths) due to the apparent error. And vice-versa, I mistook 2b (best suited to individual style) as uncontested since I did not notice that the small change to "individualISED" was in fact a radical meaning change. Please do tell me when you have doubts about other assignings.

Comments (1)

Jenny Mackness said

at 4:26 am on Mar 29, 2009

Matthias -just to try and clarify. Are you saying that in the questionnaire we should only include those statements that appear directly connected to the blue boxes (on the map) and all the other statement can be left for following up in interviews, if we do them? This would considerably shorten the questionnaire, which might be a good thing. You are probably going to despair of me for asking this - but it's not clear to me how you have decided which boxes should be blue (apart from the 4 main ones) So, for example, why is 3f coloured blue, but not 3a? When it comes to writing up our methodology, will we be able to produce a justifiable rationale for our choice of questions? So sorry if this should be obvious to me. I know that you have done such a lot of work on these maps. Jenny

You don't have permission to comment on this page.