The process of analyzing qualitative data started from organizing the data.
Classroom recordings and semi-structured interviews were transcribed first. The interview transcripts were sent to the participants to check the accuracy of the content.
The classroom interaction transcripts were analyzed by adopting a coding scheme developed by Damşa et al. (2010). The scheme was developed from theory-based categories and then refined based on the analysis of empirical data (Damşa et al., 2010;
Damşa, 2014). Three dimensions of actions deemed crucial in collaborative learning process are investigated: epistemic, regulative, and other. Under the epistemic dimension, four categories of actions can be identified: actions that (1) create awareness – stating problems or identifying lack of knowledge, (2) share knowledge, (3) create shared understanding – creating explanations to ideas, structuring new ideas, problematizing, or (re)framing of problem, and (4) generate collaborative actions – generating, negotiating, taking in, or elaborating ideas. Actions under the regulative dimension are about planning goals, coordinating process, monitoring progress, and reflecting on individual and collective actions. Actions in “Other” dimension refer to social talk that are not related to the task. A full description of each category, actions under categories, and examples from our data can be found in Table 3.
To obtain objectivity in the coding process, the researcher and the other two graduate students participated in the coding process. At first, the researcher and the two raters gathered together to go through the categories and actions in Damşa’s coding scheme to ensure that they understood what each category and action meant.
Subsequent to the discussion, a part of interaction data was extracted randomly for analysis. Each rater coded the excerpt individually, and then the raters checked their coding results. The raters paid attention to the entries that had been coded differently
41
and reached a consensus on how to categorize those entries for the rest of their coding.
After the researcher and the two other raters completed the coding process, an inter-rater reliability test was conducted and it showed an acceptable inter-inter-rater agreement between three independent raters (kappa=0.73). After having the participants’
interactional data classified into different categories, the researcher attempted to identify patterns by revisiting certain significant and interesting episodes.
Following the analysis of students’ classroom interactions, the researcher paid specific attention to the use of technological tools by extracting related data from classroom interactions, interviews, and reflection journals. The data were analyzed by using content analysis for the researcher to identify recurrent themes and possible categories. Finally, interpretations were offered by continuously revisiting the data and triangulating the findings.
42 Table 3 Analysis categories and dimensions adopted from Damşa et al. (2010) & Damşa (2014)
Dimensions Categories (of actions) Actions Examples from the present study
Epistemic 1) Creating awareness Identifying focus Now let’s think about the title [of this slide].
Stating problems Cheese, salt, pepper… Are they called “spice”?
Identifying lack of knowledge I am not sure what the story, Beowulf, is about.
2) Sharing knowledge Sharing information (from sources) You can find that in the “process” section [on this website].
Sharing knowledge from sources This article says Japanese love to make noises when eating noodles.
3) Creating shared understanding Creating explanations to concepts or ideas Monsters must be somehow related to heroes. It’s like… monsters make a person hero.
Structuring concepts/ideas So we can apply similar questions “How would you modify the plot” to different stories.
Problematizing No, there is no difference [between the North and South]!
(Re)framing problem/focus Is it like… when foreigners think of Taiwan, braised pork on rice comes to their mind?
4) Generative collaborative actions Generating new ideas I think both of them belong to the northern tribes back then.
Negotiating new ideas I think “evaluate” is better because it means to judge.
Idea up-take That’s right, so they have less canned food.
(Co-)elaborating concepts/ideas [Discussing food and climate] For instance, Mongolians mainly eat meat.
(Constructive) use of feedback [Teacher providing feedback] So let’s choose a story… what would happen differently.
Regulative 5) Regulative actions Planning: define goals and create joint plans We can start with those simple questions, show the video clip, and then talk about Marvel comic books.
Coordinating process We two make PowerPoint slides and you can organize the information.
Monitoring process and object progress Kelly, have you found anything useful?
Reflecting on individual and collective actions So, we’ve uploaded our findings and the sources into the class forum.
Other Other types of statements Beauty and the Beast… Isn’t it Justin Bieber’s song?
43
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS & DISCUSSION
The present study aims at exploring the collaborative process of small group learning with the support of tablet PC in a task-based language learning context.
The current chapter presents and discusses the research results in two sections. The first section shows the results from the data set. It begins with the findings from class observations and the participants’ face-to-face group discussion recordings. An overview of the interactional categories identified in each group and interactional excerpts are given in order to explain the dynamic knowledge co-construction process.
The first section continues with the findings from the participants’ weekly reflection journals and monthly interviews. The next section discusses the results in terms of the interaction patterns and technological affordances in small group learning.