1. Why is transcript data to be preferred to the video data for such a visual task?

They did use video, so the question I presume is why did they not present video as evidence in their findings?

• Practicality
  • Academic research is distributed through text (especially in 1997)
• Ethics
  • Anonymity and the protection of these children can be better maintained with textual descriptions. Non-verbal, facial methods of communication can be shown on video, but this raises difficult questions technically and ethically.
• Software analysis text
  • Their chosen software analyses text, which is based on quick searching. To date, a reliable method of searching video has yet to be developed.

2. Is it possible to avoid the use of preconceived categories when analysing this data?

This is a question of linguistics and epistemology. The research is investigating the significance or not of certain linguistic utterances. All language is made of signifiers (as opposed to the signified), and is, therefore, always at some remove from the original thing (emotion, idea, physical thing). Others must attempt to interpret linguistic utterances based on context and knowledge of systems such as languages.

Whenever any form of interpretation in executed, there is a risk of misinterpretation. It is unlikely that this ‘ambiguity’ can ever be fully removed, so it seems a little pointless to do too much second guessing. We could say that these researchers are rational, educated people and as such we can trust their interpretations of the children’s utterances in the contexts in which they were made.
3. What evidence might support this claim?: “In the context of John’s vocal objections to previous assertions made by his two partners his silence at this point implies a tacit agreement with their decision.”

The fact that these are educated, rational academics who are unlikely to wish to mislead or deceive is the strongest point for me.

• If they have observed that in the previous instances, John objected, and that in this third situation – with all other variables being equal – he remained silent, then their claim is reasonable.
• However, if they neglected to mention that John was chewing a lollipop, distracted by something else or some other difference, then we could challenge their interpretation.

4. Did you ask yourself if this was true of the control group?

No, because I didn’t think of that. And this is not just because I’m new to this area, but also because one assumes that in a peer-reviewed report/article, such fundamental parts of a piece of research would need to be present in order to be credible.

5. Lack of unambiguous word – how can this be dealt with?

• Analyse the contextual data
  • Can we identify from intonation, facial expression, physical gestures?
• Analyse the participant’s linguistic style in similar contexts.
  • Does he frequently leave out these words even though it is clear that he means them?

6. Are you convinced that the study effectively demonstrates the authors’ case that the software gets over the qualitative/quantitative distinction?

I don’t feel confident that I actually understand the way the technology works here. I can see how it could be effective with quantitative data (which needs to be identified by someone), but I’m not entirely certain how it works with qualitative data. OK, one can switch rapidly from, say, a mention of the number of occurrences of a keyword to the specific usage of that word in the context of the transcript, but to my mind this is not qualitative data; it’s raw data. Could one say that this transcript needs some degree of evaluation/processing before it is qualitative?

7. What does the computer add to the analysis?

A way to quantify and categorise data. In this case, as I understand it, the authors identify phrases/linguistic occurrences and these are sorted by the software. The software can count occurrences, place them in context (concordance) and allow fast switching between ‘levels of abstraction’.

Apart from efficiency, one assumes that the computer adds some degree of objectivity to the quantitative data.

8. Computer-based analysis 10 years on?

With the relative ubiquity of electronic texts, the term ‘computer-based’ has become redundant. Similarly, just mining a document for text is not as meaningful as searching for ‘content’, so the name has changed a little.

• It is used to evaluate documents, especially for presentation by a search engine such as Google Scholar.
• The commercial potential appears to have been harnessed, with the technique seemingly widely used in Public Relations.

9. How does this paper compare with Reading 1?

Reading 1 was concerned with the effectiveness of technology in learning, particularly the methods of interaction made possible by technology. Reading 2 is more concerned with the use of a technology to enhance the quality of research. So, reading 1 is investigating the effectiveness of a tool while reading 2 is investigating a hypothesis using a tool.

H809 has, of course, been busily getting about its business for the last three weeks and I’ve not been able to engage as I had wanted to. The first week was OK as it was largely making ourselves familiar with the technology as well as one reading. Happily all the struggle with H808 was at least worth it as one was already au fait with FirstClass, wikis, blogs and podcasts etc.

H809 seems to based around a weekly reading, each illustrating some important aspect of research that us budding research professionals should know. The first reading, by Hiltz and Meinke, dates back to 1989 and tests the merits of using a ‘virtual classroom’ to teach Sociology. I was struck less by the outcomes of the research (both virtual and physical are pretty much the same with some benefits to one over the other here and there) than by the fact that these discussions are still taking place twenty years on. “Is elearning as effective as face-to-face learning?” is the contemporary language, but the song remains the same (especially in my institution).

Anyway, I’m on a major catch up these next few days, so expect a glut of blog entries! Another feature of this module is the expectation that we keep a blog and interact with those of others before bringing our observations back to FirstClass. H809 is a first run module, so it will be interesting if this system works. In H808, when faced with the pressures of the TMAs and the ECA, learners abandoned any optional activities very quickly, so we’ll see how this module copes!

The aim of this activity is to make us consider the importance of a statement of values or code of practice/ethics. First we looked at the values held by CMALT and we were to consider any values that we not explicitly mentioned but tat we felt were important. I found this rather difficult, as the four values above are quite all-encompassing. I’m certain that this broadness is on purpose and unavoidable due to the hugely diverse group of people under the CMALT umbrella.

Elearning (not that ALT call it that!) is an emerging (and emergent?) profession and so it is rather difficult to set down stringent standards when the profession is still in development. Let’s look to the traditional professionals once more and see if they do things differently.

Predictably, I looked at medicine and law. The Irish Medical Council have a Guide to Ethical Conduct and Behaviour which has some large general principles (respecting the dignity of the individual) but over one hundred very specific ‘professional responsibilities’ such as how to treat colleagues, what material should be on letterheads and personal use of alcohol and drugs.

The Law Society of Ireland has a comparable Guide to Professional Conduct of Solicitors in Ireland. Again, there are a few overarching principles followed by over one hundred pages of highly specific guidelines.

As I’m the one who seems to keep talking about the cold, hard cash, I find it interesting to see whole sections in both of these documents around payment. The HEA’s guidelines make no mention of it.

I thought it might be interesting to look at the codes of practise (if any) of another emerging and diverse ‘profession’, that of the alternative/complementary practitioner. Like elearning, CAM is made up of people who advocate practices that range from the almost integrated (massage, use of PowerPoint) to the more marginal (angel therapy, use of Second Life). Both groups are trying to establish professional associations and have those associations set standards for their own practitioners. http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/rrpcam.pdf?direct=1 Chap 3.2). The Code of Practice set out by the Society of Homeopathy in the UK is very similar to that by the Irish Medical Council. No doubt this is partially to appear thorough and credible and as such it does a good job (and that’s coming from one who has very little time for the ‘profession’).

My conclusion is that a set of values/code of ethics is essentially a tool to establish credibility. Law and Medicine (In Ireland, at least) have based their codes on both legislative and self-imposed requirements. The statutory involvement is justified given the very direct and powerful relationship these practitioners who often work in isolation have with people. In education, it’s a little different in that practitioners rarely work individually and belong to institutions which are themselves frequently regulated by legislation and have, by extension, credibility. Private institutions on the other hand have to work very hard to earn their reputations.

The elearning professional also will generally work in an institution and his/her work will contribute to the reputation or standards of the collective. Perhaps given CMALT’s promotion of learning technologists as being at the ‘core’ of teaching and learning, a statement of values should simply be the one used by the institution generally? That there will soon be no relevant or significant distinction between a learning technologist and anyone else involved in learning.