CSCLPaper - Revision history

Jsarmi: /* Dissertation Report I */

2007-08-08T17:30:28Z

Dissertation Report I

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:30, 8 August 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:
	:> A trajectory of graphical artifacts for one team		:> A trajectory of graphical artifacts for one team
	:> A trajectory of just participation for all teams		:> A trajectory of just participation for all teams
-	:WHAT ARE THE MORE NUANCED WAYS in which CONTINUITY is co-constructed, not just the explicit ones	+	:WHAT ARE THE MORE NUANCED WAYS in which CONTINUITY or TEMPORALITY is co-constructed, not just the explicit ones
		+	:KANTS critique of pure reason and TEMPORALITY

	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

Jsarmi: /* Dissertation Report I */

2007-08-08T17:27:53Z

Dissertation Report I

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:27, 8 August 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:
	:> A trajectory of graphical artifacts for one team		:> A trajectory of graphical artifacts for one team
	:> A trajectory of just participation for all teams		:> A trajectory of just participation for all teams
		+	:WHAT ARE THE MORE NUANCED WAYS in which CONTINUITY is co-constructed, not just the explicit ones

	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

Jsarmi: /* Dissertation Report I */

2007-08-08T17:24:03Z

Dissertation Report I

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:24, 8 August 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:

	''To-Dos''		''To-Dos''
		+	:*State your goals... remember this is not your whole dissertation, this is question I!!!. So describe the study as meeting that goal
	:*Describe bridging practices: where they happen, how they are deployed, how they proceed		:*Describe bridging practices: where they happen, how they are deployed, how they proceed
	:*Talk about each component in detail, link to other cases (perhaps examples of only one component in action):		:*Talk about each component in detail, link to other cases (perhaps examples of only one component in action):
Line 11:		Line 12:
	:*Expand the single case to the collection of cases/entire dataset		:*Expand the single case to the collection of cases/entire dataset
	:*Implications for Design, Implications for a theory of sustained knowledge builidng		:*Implications for Design, Implications for a theory of sustained knowledge builidng
-	:*Findings, That there ~~is a variety of~~ relevant gaps ~~for teams,~~ in terms of episodes, individual participants and collectivities. Then take each one at a time. Then characterize different methods or purposes, for example the establishment of a joint problem space is sustained, Then talk about implications for design and what still needs to be found out. Emphasize that there was not reuse of the room... USE THIS FACT, for example to analyze how often graphical resources reappeard.	+	:*Findings, That there are mostly 3 relevant gaps in terms of episodes, individual participants and collectivities. Then take each one at a time. Then characterize different methods or purposes, for example the establishment of a joint problem space is sustained, Then talk about implications for design and what still needs to be found out. Emphasize that there was not reuse of the room... USE THIS FACT, for example to analyze how often graphical resources reappeard.
	CREATE MAPS of TRAJECTORIES, for instance:		CREATE MAPS of TRAJECTORIES, for instance:
	:> Team 5> session 1 discovery, session 2 reuse and expansion, session 3 GAP, session 4 failed expansion!		:> Team 5> session 1 discovery, session 2 reuse and expansion, session 3 GAP, session 4 failed expansion!

Jsarmi: /* Dissertation Report I */

2007-08-08T17:19:37Z

Dissertation Report I

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:19, 8 August 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:
	:> Team 2> session 1 solved X, we solved X/did we?, ???, dyad/change of roles		:> Team 2> session 1 solved X, we solved X/did we?, ???, dyad/change of roles
	:> ????		:> ????
		+	:> A trajectory of graphical artifacts for one team
		+	:> A trajectory of just participation for all teams

	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

Jsarmi: /* Bridging: Interactional mechanisms used by online groups to sustain knowledge building over time */

2007-08-08T17:05:54Z

Bridging: Interactional mechanisms used by online groups to sustain knowledge building over time

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:05, 8 August 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	=Bridging: Interactional mechanisms used by ~~online groups~~ to sustain knowledge building over time=	+	=Characterizing Bridging: Interactional mechanisms used by Virtual Math Teams to sustain knowledge building over time=
		+	=Dissertation Report I=
	Johann W. Sarmiento - College of Information Science & Technology - Virtual Math Teams, Drexel University		Johann W. Sarmiento - College of Information Science & Technology - Virtual Math Teams, Drexel University

Line 10:		Line 11:
	:*Expand the single case to the collection of cases/entire dataset		:*Expand the single case to the collection of cases/entire dataset
	:*Implications for Design, Implications for a theory of sustained knowledge builidng		:*Implications for Design, Implications for a theory of sustained knowledge builidng
		+	:*Findings, That there is a variety of relevant gaps for teams, in terms of episodes, individual participants and collectivities. Then take each one at a time. Then characterize different methods or purposes, for example the establishment of a joint problem space is sustained, Then talk about implications for design and what still needs to be found out. Emphasize that there was not reuse of the room... USE THIS FACT, for example to analyze how often graphical resources reappeard.
		+	CREATE MAPS of TRAJECTORIES, for instance:
		+	:> Team 5> session 1 discovery, session 2 reuse and expansion, session 3 GAP, session 4 failed expansion!
		+	:> Team 2> session 1 solved X, we solved X/did we?, ???, dyad/change of roles
		+	:> ????

	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

Jsarmi: /* Bridging: Interactional mechanisms used by online groups to sustain knowledge building over time */

2007-08-06T15:10:22Z

Bridging: Interactional mechanisms used by online groups to sustain knowledge building over time

←Older revision		Revision as of 15:10, 6 August 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=Bridging: Interactional mechanisms used by online groups to sustain knowledge building over time=		=Bridging: Interactional mechanisms used by online groups to sustain knowledge building over time=
	Johann W. Sarmiento - College of Information Science & Technology - Virtual Math Teams, Drexel University		Johann W. Sarmiento - College of Information Science & Technology - Virtual Math Teams, Drexel University
		+
		+	''To-Dos''
		+	:*Describe bridging practices: where they happen, how they are deployed, how they proceed
		+	:*Talk about each component in detail, link to other cases (perhaps examples of only one component in action):
		+	::*Participation/Positioining -> Legitimated peripheral participation, situated on people
		+	::*Sequential/Temporal -> Sense of History, sense of unfolding
		+	::*Epistemic Resources -> What is unknown, what is known, knowledge resources and possibilities of knowing
		+	:*Expand the single case to the collection of cases/entire dataset
		+	:*Implications for Design, Implications for a theory of sustained knowledge builidng

	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

Jsarmi: /* Summary and conclusions */

2007-05-29T15:10:27Z

Summary and conclusions

←Older revision		Revision as of 15:10, 29 May 2007
Line 145:		Line 145:
	==Summary and conclusions==		==Summary and conclusions==

-	The analysis presented in the previous sections has defined bridging activity as the interactional ~~overcoming~~ of ~~certain~~ discontinuities relevant for ~~the~~ small groups engaged in collaborative knowledge building ~~sustained over time~~. '''Three main elements''' appear as the structural components of bridging activity: temporal references, management of participation, and management of problem and task resources. These three ~~elements provide for~~ the ~~structural relevance of bridging as~~ a set of members’ methods ~~to sustain~~ the teams’ knowledge building over time. As we have presented it, bridging is not an individual undertaking but the concerted and situated achievement of collectivities.	+	The analysis presented in the previous sections has defined bridging activity as the interactional constitution of a present task using resources from prior interactions. The presence of this type of activity supports the idea that the discontinuities in time related to the sequencing of multiple problem-solving episodes are sometimes relevant resources for small groups engaged in collaborative knowledge building. In particular, bridging activity is associated with the continuity of a team's work. '''Three main elements''' appear as the structural components of bridging activity: temporal references, management of participation, and management of problem and task resources. These three aspects of the teams' interactions are interwoven together through a set of members’ methods that allow the teams’ to interlink their knowledge building activity over time. As we have presented it, bridging is not an individual undertaking but the concerted and situated achievement of collectivities.

	Bridging activity as we have described it, although very similar to the offering, discussion and advancement of problem-solving proposals within one single interactional episode, seemed to bring a different qualitative dimmension to the team interaction. Other researchers have pointed out that the management of attention and knowledge proposals as well as the roles of the co-participants in establishing join attention are consequential for the collective achievements of small groups (Barron, 2000) (Stahl, 2006b). In the instances we have analyzed we have seen how these interactional processes are especially important for the establishment of continuity of knowledge building over time. The uniqueness of bridging activity appears related precisely to problem-solving proposals that have a "history" and also to the ways that such history becomes a resource for interaction by positioning the teams in a participation framework that shapes their alignment and their standing towards the current task. These factors, as many aspects of any human interaction, are contingent on the moment-by-moment unfolding of the activity which can quickly oscillate between "reported-past" and "current-activity."		Bridging activity as we have described it, although very similar to the offering, discussion and advancement of problem-solving proposals within one single interactional episode, seemed to bring a different qualitative dimmension to the team interaction. Other researchers have pointed out that the management of attention and knowledge proposals as well as the roles of the co-participants in establishing join attention are consequential for the collective achievements of small groups (Barron, 2000) (Stahl, 2006b). In the instances we have analyzed we have seen how these interactional processes are especially important for the establishment of continuity of knowledge building over time. The uniqueness of bridging activity appears related precisely to problem-solving proposals that have a "history" and also to the ways that such history becomes a resource for interaction by positioning the teams in a participation framework that shapes their alignment and their standing towards the current task. These factors, as many aspects of any human interaction, are contingent on the moment-by-moment unfolding of the activity which can quickly oscillate between "reported-past" and "current-activity."

-	Although we have used ~~one particular team~~ to guide our analysis, the systematic review of our dataset indicates that this type of bridging activity is ~~highly~~ pervasive. The changes in team membership and the sequential nature of the problem-solving episodes and tasks in our data provided a propitious setting for this type of activity in our experiment. Other factors may trigger bridging work as well. All teams in our experiment exhibited this orientation to continuity in different degrees but those that engaged in bridging work more actively were able to better overcome the instability of their membership and the sustainability of their problem-solving enterprise (as represented by the depth of exploration and number of problems attempted). This preliminary observation points to the consequential aspect of bridging work in long-term collaborative problem solving. Different degrees of success can be inferred across instances of bridging work, an aspect of this type of work that remains to be more fully investigated. Interestingly, bridging was ~~also~~ attempted by moderators when trying to inform teams of other teams’ work and provide feedback, but such attempts were often taken normatively by the teams resulting in a framework of participation that appears to be more driven by the authority of the moderators than by the self-directed agency of the team. In other cases, moderator-initiated bridging attempts appeared unsuccessful because the knowledge claims made were ~~not perceived~~ as ~~appropriate~~ by the teams ~~resulting in no~~ direct engagement with the alleged prior work being presented.	+	Although we have used a few instances of bridging activity to guide the presentation of our analysis, the systematic review of our dataset indicates that this type of bridging activity is common, although not pervasive. The changes in team membership and the sequential nature of the problem-solving episodes and tasks in our data provided a propitious setting for this type of activity in our experiment. Other factors may trigger bridging work as well. All teams in our experiment exhibited this orientation to continuity in different degrees but those that engaged in bridging work more actively were able to better overcome the instability of their membership and the sustainability of their problem-solving enterprise (as represented by the depth of exploration and number of problems attempted). This preliminary observation points to the consequential aspect of bridging work in long-term collaborative problem solving. Different degrees of success can be inferred across instances of bridging work, an aspect of this type of work that remains to be more fully investigated. Interestingly, bridging was repeatedly attempted by moderators when trying to inform teams of other teams’ work and provide feedback, but such attempts were often taken normatively by the teams resulting in a framework of participation that appears to be more driven by the authority of the moderators than by the self-directed agency of the team. In other cases, moderator-initiated bridging attempts appeared unsuccessful because the knowledge claims made were assessed as inappropriate by the teams. This assessment prevented direct engagement with the alleged prior work being presented.
		+
		+	In an attempt to use the observations derived from this initial analysis of bridging activity to inform the design of tasks and computational supports, our subsequent work has attempted to use an additional interactional space implemented through a Wiki. With this strategy we are trying to explicitly encourage and support continuity of the work of an individual team and also cross-team knowledge building. Preliminary results of this work indicate that such bridging spaces do in fact promote the continuity of knowledge building across teams by engaging them in activities such as discovering, exploring, testing, and advancing other teams’ ideas as well as reporting projecting their own ideas towards future action. We expect these findings to help expand the scope of analyses of long-term collaborative interactions and enhance our understanding of collaborative knowledge building in naturalistic settings. In fact, in a recently proposed framework to assess the quality of collaborative processes in single-episode encounters (Spada et al., 2005), some of the proposed dimensions (e.g. “sustaining commitment,” “sustaining mutual understanding,” and “time management”) appear to be amenable to expansion in order to accommodate the long-term dynamics of cross-team collaboration.

-	Our subsequent work has attempted to use an additional interactional space implemented through a Wiki in order to better support continuity and cross-team knowledge building with preliminary results indicating that such bridging spaces do in fact promote the continuity of knowledge building across teams by engaging them in activities such as exploring, testing, and advancing other teams’ ideas as well as projecting their own ideas towards future action. We expect these findings to help expand the scope of analyses of long-term collaborative interactions and enhance our understanding of collaborative knowledge building in naturalistic settings. In fact, in a recently proposed framework to assess the quality of collaborative processes in single-episode encounters (Spada et al., 2005), some of the proposed dimensions (e.g. “sustaining commitment,” “sustaining mutual understanding,” and “time management”) appear to be amenable to expansion in order to accommodate the long-term dynamics of cross-team collaboration.
	Finally, we would like to offer a few reflections regarding the collaboration supports used by the participants while engaged in the activities that we have presented. For the experimental design used, the virtual room that the teams used for each session was not available either to the same team nor to other teams who were working on the same problem (despite the potential usefulness of these cross-team interactions). However, even if these resources would have been made available, it seems to as as if special interfaces are needed so that “raw” recordings of interactions can be effectively used in promoting and supporting bridging work. The reappearance of findings across sessions of teamwork, expressed in text or through pictorial diagrams, could suggest that computational supports for the teams to annotate and mark their own resources for future work and for others to inspect them might be useful, but the structure of such resources needs to be carefully consider. The three elements of bridging work identified (temporal structure, management of participation, and knowledge claims) might provide a tentative framework for such annotation mechanisms. Further research is needed to develop our understanding of how continuity of collaborative knowledge work is achieved by multiple participants and how to translate such 8		Finally, we would like to offer a few reflections regarding the collaboration supports used by the participants while engaged in the activities that we have presented. For the experimental design used, the virtual room that the teams used for each session was not available either to the same team nor to other teams who were working on the same problem (despite the potential usefulness of these cross-team interactions). However, even if these resources would have been made available, it seems to as as if special interfaces are needed so that “raw” recordings of interactions can be effectively used in promoting and supporting bridging work. The reappearance of findings across sessions of teamwork, expressed in text or through pictorial diagrams, could suggest that computational supports for the teams to annotate and mark their own resources for future work and for others to inspect them might be useful, but the structure of such resources needs to be carefully consider. The three elements of bridging work identified (temporal structure, management of participation, and knowledge claims) might provide a tentative framework for such annotation mechanisms. Further research is needed to develop our understanding of how continuity of collaborative knowledge work is achieved by multiple participants and how to translate such 8
	knowledge into design principles. This theoretical and applied enterprise would contribute significantly to the pressing need to better understand how the power of virtual distributed teams and online communities can be harnessed to realize the potential of these new forms of interaction to generate and advance learning and knowledge in organizations, communities of interest, academic disciplines, societies, and other types of collectivity.		knowledge into design principles. This theoretical and applied enterprise would contribute significantly to the pressing need to better understand how the power of virtual distributed teams and online communities can be harnessed to realize the potential of these new forms of interaction to generate and advance learning and knowledge in organizations, communities of interest, academic disciplines, societies, and other types of collectivity.

Jsarmi: /* "we already did that yesterday:" Bridging three dimensions of interaction to manage the "joint problem space" */

2007-05-29T14:49:22Z

"we already did that yesterday:" Bridging three dimensions of interaction to manage the "joint problem space"

←Older revision		Revision as of 14:49, 29 May 2007
Line 135:		Line 135:


-	Each one of these three dimensions of collective problem-solving interactions play very important roles individually. In each one, a wide array of different methods are used by the groups. The temporal and sequential organization of experience allows the participants to interlink different bounded elements of their interactions within one interactional episode or across a set of them. In this way the participants construct sequences of moves and activities that can be built upon, combined or contrasted as with the turns of a conversation. This sequential unfolding of a single episode of interaction makes problem-solving work a sequencing of creations and manipulations of problem resources which allow a team to collectively structure the exploration of a problem space and develop their understanding of it. Actions are not just immutably sequenced but instead participants engaged in an active structuring of their experience by building linkages about events and activities when relevant. In the case of multiple interactional episodes, the sequentiality and temporal organization of experiences might also require explicit work by the participants so that the interdependence of relevant activities is made relevant to all participants. This particular aspect seemed to come across very centrally in our datased through the participation of the moderators who repeatedly prompted the teams to considered what they had done in previous sessions, to expand ideas they had started to explore or reconsider prior solutions.	+	Each one of these three dimensions of collective problem-solving interactions play very important roles individually. In each one, a wide array of different methods are used by the groups. The '''temporal and sequential organization of experience''' allows the participants to interlink different bounded elements of their interactions within one interactional episode or across a set of them. In this way the participants construct sequences of moves and activities that can be built upon, combined or contrasted as with the turns of a conversation. This sequential unfolding of a single episode of interaction makes problem-solving work a sequencing of creations and manipulations of problem resources which allow a team to collectively structure the exploration of a problem space and develop their understanding of it. Actions are not just immutably sequenced but instead participants engaged in an active structuring of their experience by building linkages about events and activities when relevant. In the case of multiple interactional episodes, the sequentiality and temporal organization of experiences might also require explicit work by the participants so that the interdependence of relevant activities is made relevant to all participants. This particular aspect seemed to come across very centrally in our datased through the participation of the moderators who repeatedly prompted the teams to considered what they had done in previous sessions, to expand ideas they had started to explore or reconsider prior solutions.

-	Interaction among the members of a group and between them and the resources they create and have access to constitutes the central dynamic that characterizes participation in joint problem solving. Inevitably embedded in their moment-by-moment interaction is the participants' management of their own stance or position (and that of others) by constructing and playing out specific ''participation frameworks'' (Goffman, 1981). In these frameworks co-participants situate each other as peers, experts, explainers, audience, and many other positions that more than simple typologies are the outcome of the collective activity in which participants engage. Sometimes these frameworks are directly related to the sequential or temporal structure of activity leading to activities such as an old-timer assisting a newcomer in catching up on current activity. These frameworks are created and recognized through the doings of the participants, and although they might be influenced with past doings or possible future activity, they are primarily a current concern of the interaction. The collective actions that open up and maintain a framework of participation produce a contingent alignment of the participants towards each other and towards the resources of the current activity that can be abandoned, reframed, or sustained as the interaction continues.	+	Interaction among the members of a group and between them and the resources they create and have access to constitutes the central dynamic that characterizes '''participation in joint problem solving'''. Inevitably embedded in their moment-by-moment interaction is the participants' management of their own stance or position (and that of others) by constructing and playing out specific ''participation frameworks'' (Goffman, 1981). In these frameworks co-participants situate each other as peers, experts, explainers, audience, and many other positions that more than simple typologies are the outcome of the collective activity in which participants engage. Sometimes these frameworks are directly related to the sequential or temporal structure of activity leading to activities such as an old-timer assisting a newcomer in catching up on current activity. These frameworks are created and recognized through the doings of the participants, and although they might be influenced with past doings or possible future activity, they are primarily a current concern of the interaction. The collective actions that open up and maintain a framework of participation produce a contingent alignment of the participants towards each other and towards the resources of the current activity that can be abandoned, reframed, or sustained as the interaction continues.

-	Finally, problem-solving interactions usually involve the production and use of a set of problem resources that are considered relevant, in one way or another, for the collective task of the team. These resources include noticings about specific aspects of the task, references to potentially relevant principles or strategies, manipulations of existing resources, and many other "artifacts" that constitute the problem space ~~that~~ the ~~teams has~~ access to in different, sometimes asymmetrical, ways. It is through the manipulation of these artifacts, in interaction, that the team sets to do problem-solving. In doing so, participants are engaged in sense-making activity geared towards ~~understanding~~ their own pieces of the problem and also trying to understand how ~~other~~ are seeing and manipulating ~~those~~ resources as well ~~as creating new ones~~. It is through the achievement of degrees of coordination that the collective creation and manipulation of problem resources is managed so that the group can function jointly.	+	Finally, problem-solving interactions usually involve the '''production, assessment and use of a set of problem resources''' that are considered relevant, in one way or another, for the collective task of the team. These resources include noticings about specific aspects of the task, references to potentially relevant principles or strategies, manipulations of existing resources, and many other "artifacts" that constitute the material problem space to which the team members have access in different, sometimes asymmetrical, ways. It is through the manipulation of these artifacts, in interaction, that the team sets to do problem-solving. In doing so, participants are engaged in sense-making activity geared towards their own understanding of certain pieces of the problem and also trying to understand how others are seeing, creating and manipulating problem resources as well. It is through the achievement of degrees of coordination that the collective creation, assessment, and manipulation of problem resources can be managed so that the group can function jointly.

-	After reviewing the entire dataset, we found numerous instances ~~in which~~ the teams ~~seemed to take~~ one of the ~~three aforementioned elements as a~~ relevant concern for their interactions (See some examples) ~~but only~~ a few ~~where~~ the three elements appeared together. Although the importance of these individual aspects of collective problem-solving interactions is undeniable, their intersection ~~as part of bridging~~ activity seemed to engage ~~the teams~~ in ~~a kind of~~ problem-solving activity which ~~seems unique~~. Sometimes these three aspects of the interaction involved some of the participants but not all of them, sometimes there was a noticeable asymmetry of participation among the parties involved and such "distribution" seemed clearly a condition that participants managed.	+	After reviewing the entire dataset, we found these three dimensions to be relevant in numerous instances of interaction. In some instances the teams themselves made one of these dimensions the relevant concern for their interactions (See some examples). In a few instances we recognized that the three elements appeared to be interwoven together in a unique way that we have tentatively labeled as “bridging activity.” Although the importance of these individual aspects of collective problem-solving interactions is undeniable and their interdependence obvious, the ways that teams made their intersection relevant for their problem-solving activity seemed to to engage them in unique problem-solving activity which, at the moment, we can only hint at. Sometimes these three aspects of the interaction involved some of the participants but not all of them, sometimes there was a noticeable asymmetry of participation among the parties involved and such "distribution" seemed clearly a condition that participants managed, but in all cases the bridging of prior problem-solving activity was the central focus of attention of the collectivity.

	==Summary and conclusions==		==Summary and conclusions==

Jsarmi: /* "we already did that yesterday:" Bridging three dimensions of interaction to manage the "joint problem space" */

2007-05-29T14:06:51Z

"we already did that yesterday:" Bridging three dimensions of interaction to manage the "joint problem space"

←Older revision		Revision as of 14:06, 29 May 2007
Line 139:		Line 139:
	Interaction among the members of a group and between them and the resources they create and have access to constitutes the central dynamic that characterizes participation in joint problem solving. Inevitably embedded in their moment-by-moment interaction is the participants' management of their own stance or position (and that of others) by constructing and playing out specific ''participation frameworks'' (Goffman, 1981). In these frameworks co-participants situate each other as peers, experts, explainers, audience, and many other positions that more than simple typologies are the outcome of the collective activity in which participants engage. Sometimes these frameworks are directly related to the sequential or temporal structure of activity leading to activities such as an old-timer assisting a newcomer in catching up on current activity. These frameworks are created and recognized through the doings of the participants, and although they might be influenced with past doings or possible future activity, they are primarily a current concern of the interaction. The collective actions that open up and maintain a framework of participation produce a contingent alignment of the participants towards each other and towards the resources of the current activity that can be abandoned, reframed, or sustained as the interaction continues.		Interaction among the members of a group and between them and the resources they create and have access to constitutes the central dynamic that characterizes participation in joint problem solving. Inevitably embedded in their moment-by-moment interaction is the participants' management of their own stance or position (and that of others) by constructing and playing out specific ''participation frameworks'' (Goffman, 1981). In these frameworks co-participants situate each other as peers, experts, explainers, audience, and many other positions that more than simple typologies are the outcome of the collective activity in which participants engage. Sometimes these frameworks are directly related to the sequential or temporal structure of activity leading to activities such as an old-timer assisting a newcomer in catching up on current activity. These frameworks are created and recognized through the doings of the participants, and although they might be influenced with past doings or possible future activity, they are primarily a current concern of the interaction. The collective actions that open up and maintain a framework of participation produce a contingent alignment of the participants towards each other and towards the resources of the current activity that can be abandoned, reframed, or sustained as the interaction continues.

-	Finally, problem-solving interactions usually involve the production and use of a set of problem resources that are relevant, in one way or another, for the collective task of the team. These resources include noticings about specific aspects of the task, references to potentially relevant principles or strategies, manipulations of existing resources, and many other "artifacts" that constitute the problem space that the teams has access to in different, sometimes asymmetrical, ways. It is through the manipulation of these artifacts, in interaction, that the team sets to do problem-solving.	+	Finally, problem-solving interactions usually involve the production and use of a set of problem resources that are considered relevant, in one way or another, for the collective task of the team. These resources include noticings about specific aspects of the task, references to potentially relevant principles or strategies, manipulations of existing resources, and many other "artifacts" that constitute the problem space that the teams has access to in different, sometimes asymmetrical, ways. It is through the manipulation of these artifacts, in interaction, that the team sets to do problem-solving. In doing so, participants are engaged in sense-making activity geared towards understanding their own pieces of the problem and also trying to understand how other are seeing and manipulating those resources as well as creating new ones. It is through the achievement of degrees of coordination that the collective creation and manipulation of problem resources is managed so that the group can function jointly.

	After reviewing the entire dataset, we found numerous instances in which the teams seemed to take one of the three aforementioned elements as a relevant concern for their interactions (See some examples) but only a few where the three elements appeared together. Although the importance of these individual aspects of collective problem-solving interactions is undeniable, their intersection as part of bridging activity seemed to engage the teams in a kind of problem-solving activity which seems unique. Sometimes these three aspects of the interaction involved some of the participants but not all of them, sometimes there was a noticeable asymmetry of participation among the parties involved and such "distribution" seemed clearly a condition that participants managed.		After reviewing the entire dataset, we found numerous instances in which the teams seemed to take one of the three aforementioned elements as a relevant concern for their interactions (See some examples) but only a few where the three elements appeared together. Although the importance of these individual aspects of collective problem-solving interactions is undeniable, their intersection as part of bridging activity seemed to engage the teams in a kind of problem-solving activity which seems unique. Sometimes these three aspects of the interaction involved some of the participants but not all of them, sometimes there was a noticeable asymmetry of participation among the parties involved and such "distribution" seemed clearly a condition that participants managed.

Jsarmi: /* "we already did that yesterday:" Bridging three dimensions of interaction to manage the "joint problem space" */

2007-05-29T13:49:26Z

"we already did that yesterday:" Bridging three dimensions of interaction to manage the "joint problem space"

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:49, 29 May 2007
Line 137:		Line 137:
	Each one of these three dimensions of collective problem-solving interactions play very important roles individually. In each one, a wide array of different methods are used by the groups. The temporal and sequential organization of experience allows the participants to interlink different bounded elements of their interactions within one interactional episode or across a set of them. In this way the participants construct sequences of moves and activities that can be built upon, combined or contrasted as with the turns of a conversation. This sequential unfolding of a single episode of interaction makes problem-solving work a sequencing of creations and manipulations of problem resources which allow a team to collectively structure the exploration of a problem space and develop their understanding of it. Actions are not just immutably sequenced but instead participants engaged in an active structuring of their experience by building linkages about events and activities when relevant. In the case of multiple interactional episodes, the sequentiality and temporal organization of experiences might also require explicit work by the participants so that the interdependence of relevant activities is made relevant to all participants. This particular aspect seemed to come across very centrally in our datased through the participation of the moderators who repeatedly prompted the teams to considered what they had done in previous sessions, to expand ideas they had started to explore or reconsider prior solutions.		Each one of these three dimensions of collective problem-solving interactions play very important roles individually. In each one, a wide array of different methods are used by the groups. The temporal and sequential organization of experience allows the participants to interlink different bounded elements of their interactions within one interactional episode or across a set of them. In this way the participants construct sequences of moves and activities that can be built upon, combined or contrasted as with the turns of a conversation. This sequential unfolding of a single episode of interaction makes problem-solving work a sequencing of creations and manipulations of problem resources which allow a team to collectively structure the exploration of a problem space and develop their understanding of it. Actions are not just immutably sequenced but instead participants engaged in an active structuring of their experience by building linkages about events and activities when relevant. In the case of multiple interactional episodes, the sequentiality and temporal organization of experiences might also require explicit work by the participants so that the interdependence of relevant activities is made relevant to all participants. This particular aspect seemed to come across very centrally in our datased through the participation of the moderators who repeatedly prompted the teams to considered what they had done in previous sessions, to expand ideas they had started to explore or reconsider prior solutions.

-	Inevitably embedded in their moment-by-moment interaction is the participants' management of their own stance or position (and that of others) by constructing and playing out specific ''participation frameworks'' (Goffman, 1981). In these frameworks co-participants situate each other as peers, experts, explainers, audience, and many other positions that more than simple typologies are the outcome of the collective activity in which participants engage.	+	Interaction among the members of a group and between them and the resources they create and have access to constitutes the central dynamic that characterizes participation in joint problem solving. Inevitably embedded in their moment-by-moment interaction is the participants' management of their own stance or position (and that of others) by constructing and playing out specific ''participation frameworks'' (Goffman, 1981). In these frameworks co-participants situate each other as peers, experts, explainers, audience, and many other positions that more than simple typologies are the outcome of the collective activity in which participants engage. Sometimes these frameworks are directly related to the sequential or temporal structure of activity leading to activities such as an old-timer assisting a newcomer in catching up on current activity. These frameworks are created and recognized through the doings of the participants, and although they might be influenced with past doings or possible future activity, they are primarily a current concern of the interaction. The collective actions that open up and maintain a framework of participation produce a contingent alignment of the participants towards each other and towards the resources of the current activity that can be abandoned, reframed, or sustained as the interaction continues.

-	Finally, ~~the set of~~ problem-solving interactions ~~naturally conduced to numerous opportunities where the teams were centrally concerned with the construction of a problem to work with and~~ the production and use of a set of problem resources ~~to conduct such work. Sometimes these three aspects of~~ the ~~interaction involved some~~ of the ~~participants but not all~~ of ~~them~~, ~~sometimes there was a noticeable asymmetry~~ of ~~participation among the parties involved~~ and ~~such~~ "~~distribution~~" ~~seemed clearly a condition~~ that ~~participants managed~~. After reviewing the entire dataset, we found numerous instances in which the teams seemed to take one of the three aforementioned elements as a relevant concern for their interactions but only a few where the three elements appeared together. Although the importance of these individual aspects of collective problem-solving interactions is undeniable, their intersection as part of bridging activity seemed to engage the teams in a kind of problem-solving activity which seems unique.	+	Finally, problem-solving interactions usually involve the production and use of a set of problem resources that are relevant, in one way or another, for the collective task of the team. These resources include noticings about specific aspects of the task, references to potentially relevant principles or strategies, manipulations of existing resources, and many other "artifacts" that constitute the problem space that the teams has access to in different, sometimes asymmetrical, ways. It is through the manipulation of these artifacts, in interaction, that the team sets to do problem-solving.
		+
		+	After reviewing the entire dataset, we found numerous instances in which the teams seemed to take one of the three aforementioned elements as a relevant concern for their interactions (See some examples) but only a few where the three elements appeared together. Although the importance of these individual aspects of collective problem-solving interactions is undeniable, their intersection as part of bridging activity seemed to engage the teams in a kind of problem-solving activity which seems unique. Sometimes these three aspects of the interaction involved some of the participants but not all of them, sometimes there was a noticeable asymmetry of participation among the parties involved and such "distribution" seemed clearly a condition that participants managed.

	==Summary and conclusions==		==Summary and conclusions==