Data Analysis

This section describes the analysis approaches of the three main types of data in this study: (1) video and audio data collected from students’ physical collaborative group work during reading sessions, (2) video data collected from recordings of the on-screen activities on the tabletop computer via SnagIt, and (3) audio data collected from students’ group interviews. The first two types of data (the reading sessions) were examined using microgenetic analysis, while the third type is examined using thematic analysis.

42

3.8.1 Analysis of reading sessions

Analysis of students’ collaborative reading sessions involved two consecutive stages: the first stage answers the first part of the second question (what are the user strategies and the system tools that could scaffold students’ reading comprehension on the tabletop computer) of the study in order to find out about the scaffolding ‘user strategies’ and the scaffolding ‘system tools’. I carried out inductive analysis of scaffolding scenes and derived codes from the data. Codes were revisited and checked constantly for refining. Various coding sessions were conducted with a second coder (a PhD candidate of Applied Linguistics), which led to clarifications regarding defining codes. Microgenetic analysis of learners’ interaction is used to examine the learning process and how learners exploit the learning resources of assistance and opportunities available to them, and how learning is mediated within the tabletop-based social context. Figure 2.1 shows the multiple forces and resources of assistance that come into play as students interact with one another and with the tabletop technology as parts of their whole learning environment. Microgenetic analysis of these episodes resulted in a ‘taxonomy’ of ‘user strategies’ and ‘system tools’ for scaffolding reading comprehension on the tabletop computer. To answer the second part, the two frameworks of Wood et al. (1976) and Lidz (1991) were jointly used in stage two to categorize user strategies and system tools emerged from microgenetic analysis in stage one. This categorization resulted in a ‘taxonomy’ of scaffolding functions of user strategies and system tools.

What is microgenetic analysis: Microgenetic analysis stems from microgenesis, a sociocultural

investigation of moment-by-moment interaction. Microgenesis is described by Gutiérrez (2008, p. 121) as “the study of the origin and history of a particular event” and by Wertsch as “a very short term longitudinal study” (1985, cited in Gutiérrez, 2008, p. 121). It investigates development by observing learning taking place within learners over a period of time. Microgenetic approach, within a sociocultural perspective, mainly focusses on the development and transition from a novice learner to a more capable learner, or from an other-regulated to a self-regulated learner as a result of social interaction with the teacher or more capable peers. Interaction between a learner and a supportive expert leads to more discussion and may gradually changes the learner’s performance and allows him/her to accomplish with the help of an expert or a more capable peer what he/she cannot not accomplish alone. Donato (1998), who studied collective scaffolding during L2 planning sessions, asserted that “a microgenetic analysis allows us to observe directly how students help each other during the overt planning

43

of L2 utterances and the outcome of these multiple forces of help as they come into contact, and interact, with each other” (p. 42). With the help of video and audio recorders, this approach made it possible for researchers to uncover and gain a wider information about the dynamics of development via focusing on the process not the product.

Microgenetic analysis of reading sessions: Analysis of students’ collaborative reading sessions

involved inspecting the transcripts, alongside the video recordings, for (1) scaffolding system tools and (2) scaffolding user strategies in line with the microgenetic approach. This inspection draws on Vygotskian genetic approach where mediation is crucial for transformation from an interpersonal stage (constructing knowledge with the help of an expert or a more capable peer, or a system tool) to an intrapersonal one (knowledge is achieved). Such inspection aims to gain detailed understanding of the ‘system tools’ and ‘user strategies’ as mediations during the collaborative reading activity. It also considers the importance of different modes of interaction to “co-construct meaning and learning opportunities” (Gutiérrez, 2008, p. 120). As with Gutiérrez (2008), the focus of analysis was on “a specific aspect of microgenesis that appears to be crucial for driving the learner’s second language (L2) forwards, and which I refer to as microgenesis affordance” (Gutiérrez, 2008, p. 120). During interaction between the learners and other resources in their environment, affordances of these resources arise, allowing learners to exploit learning opportunities, construct knowledge, and solve problems. Interaction in a social system is “dynamic rather than static [and] provides affordances for active participants in the setting, and learning emerges as part of affordances being picked up and exploited for further action” (van Lier, 2004, p. 8).

According to Warschauer (2005), beside mediation and social learning, genetic (or developmental) analysis is the third of Vygotsky’s concepts which are relevant to understand CALL. Warschauer (2005) stated that it is possible to understand mental functioning only if its origins, histories, and developmental processes can be understood as well; and thus “we can only understand CALL when we place it in its broader historical, social, and cultural contexts” (p. 43). Microgenetic analysis is conducted in order to understand the ‘process’ of knowledge construction within the individual learners’ zone of proximal development (ZPD) as a result of their social interaction with other more experienced learners sharing the same activity.

The data analysis is based on the way data are transcribed. What was transcribed were the verbal utterances made during the students’ collaborative work. Students’ non-verbal behaviour, including on-(tabletop) screen actions, were described, and at times photo-illustrated. As a case

44

study, which aims to describe how ESL students use verbal strategies, non-verbal strategies, and system tools for scaffolding, the units of analysis are episodes during which these students use different tools and strategies to solve a problem, “develop a specific skill, grasp a particular concept or achieve a particular level of understanding [or] goal they would not have been quite able to achieve on their own” (Panselinas & Komis, 2009, pp. 87–88). This present study will add a new dimension to the understanding of the relationship between peer scaffolding and learning by considering the newly emerging, and thus less researched, context of the tabletop assisted language learning environment.

3.8.2 Interpretation of the transcribed data

Verbal, non-verbal, and on-screen actions may co-occur simultaneously or sequentially, and should be coded using appropriate categories. Some simultaneous behaviours may fit in the same or in different categories. In group work, the expectation is to find behaviours that are generated by two or more people simultaneously.

3.8.3 Focus group interviews

The focus group interview was conducted to collect data about students’ experience of collaborative reading on the tabletop computer. The interview session was conducted at the end of the fifth reading session. Appendix 8 lists the questions used in the interview. I arrived at these questions after reading interview questions about students’ perceptions of implementation of CSR in a Taiwanese EFL context (Fan, 2009, p. 191). Although the scope of my study is different, I gained some insights from such questions while devising this study’s interview question.

45

Figure 3.2. Thematic analysis of group interviews Source: Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 87

Analysis of the data from the focus groups followed an inductive analysis approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The thematic analysis followed the six stages suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 87): (1) becoming familiar with the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing and refining themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) generating theory and producing a report. In this study, producing a report was the option taken (see Figure 3.2). As shown by some of the arrows in Figure 3.2, there are certain stages in the process that have to be iterative.