ACM SIGCHI General Interest Announcements (Mailing List)


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"ACM SIGCHI General Interest Announcements (Mailing List)" <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 5 Apr 2010 02:27:15 -1000
"Daniel D. Suthers" <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
"Daniel D. Suthers" <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (276 lines)
We have many applicants to this workshop, but space is still
available for basic participation, and for analyst or discussant
roles in special cases. We accept applications through April 19th,
but encourage immediate application for those who want to be
considered for non-basic participation roles.


                  Call for Workshop Contributions

 Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Collaborative Learning

            Palmer House Hilton Hotel, Chicago, IL, USA
                          June 28 - 29 2010

                      A preconference event of the
         9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences


This workshop brings together researchers from diverse theoretical and
methodological traditions who have a mutual interest in how productive
discourse between these traditions can drive scientific progress in
understanding and designing for collaborative learning. In this
workshop, multiple analyses of shared datasets will explore the
conditions for productive multivocality in the analysis of
collaborative learning. The workshop will culminate in planning a book
on the topic.

The target participants are researchers from the Learning Sciences
(LS) and Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) communities
interested in the analysis of collaborative learning interactions,
including learning theorists, pedagogues, research methodologists and
tool-builders. We will solicit datasets and draft analyses from
participants to achieve a good balance of learning settings,
theoretical orientations and methodologies. Researchers may
participate in any of the following roles:
* Data presenter and analyst: Presents an overview of a data set and
  an analysis
* Analyst: Presents an analysis prepared in advance of one of the
  above data sets
* Discussant: Identifies conditions for productive multivocality in
  the presented analyses
* Basic Participant: Participates in general discussion that follows
  the above
Participants in the first three roles may contribute chapters to the
follow-up book. Proposals for those roles are due March 15th, and will
be notified March 30th. Additional proposals for Analyst roles may be
accepted later if these positions are not filled. Proposals for basic
participation are accepted on a first-come first-served basis.


Researchers in the LS and CSCL communities take diverse approaches to
the study of how interaction leads to learning. This multivocality is
a strength only to the extent that there is sufficient commonality to
support dialogue between the "voices" and reach some degree of
coherence in the discourse of the field. In other scientific fields,
common objects such as instrumentation, data sources, analytic
methods, etc. enable researchers to replicate or challenge results in
a manner that drives scientific progress. The Learning Sciences are
too diverse (theoretically and methodologically) for unification to be
possible or desirable, but learning scientists would benefit from
"boundary objects" that form the basis for dialogue between
theoretical and methodological traditions applied to the analysis of
learning in and through interaction. The question at hand is what
constitutes effective boundary objects and how they may be leveraged.

The present workshop continues the trajectory of a series of prior
workshops. At ICLS 2008 ("A Common Framework for CSCL Interaction
Analysis"), we explored dimensions along which analytic efforts can be
characterized, and attempted to identify a common framework that would
enable comparison of analyses and building shared analytic
tools. Confronted with the multivocality that makes such unification
difficult, we shifted our focus at CSCL 2009 ("Common Objects for
Productive Multivocality in Analysis") to identifying boundary objects
supporting dialogue between different traditions. We found that
multiple analyses of shared data sets provide a promising basis for
dialogue. At the Alpine Rendez-vous 2009 ("Pinpointing Pivotal Moments
in Collaboration"), we followed up by having researchers from
different theoretical and methodological traditions analyze the same
data sets to identify "pivotal moments" in collaborative learning. The
definition of pivotal moments was purposefully left unspecified,
providing a projective stimulus that drew out different researchers’
assumptions and insights and leading to exciting comparative and
integrative discussion. Different conceptions of pivotal moments were
identified, but in all cases they provided good starting points for
further analysis of how learning arises from interaction.

The ICLS 2010 workshop will culminate this series of workshops by
further identifying strategies and boundary objects for productive
multivocality that can be offered to the rest of the research
community. The workshop is intended to meet several needs. First, we
want to bring new researchers into this process as well as enabling
prior participants to meet again. Second, we want to expand the data
corpora in which our work is based. Third, we want to conclude this
workshop with specific actionable planning towards a collaborative
effort that will bring the insights we have gained to the Learning
Sciences community, in the form of a book. The book will not be a
volume of independent chapters: it will be a carefully woven artifact
that deepens our multivocal discourse.


Multivocal Analyses:

The first day of this workshop will follow a format that we have
refined over the past two years and found to be highly successful.

We select data corpora to be representative of different learning
settings and populations (e.g., seek diversity along the dimensions of
primary/secondary/university populations, face-to-face and
computer-mediated communication, synchronous and asynchronous
interactions and different disciplines). We assign two analysts to
each corpus and one discussant. The person providing the data will
perform the first analysis. Each corpus is shared with the second
analyst and the discussant (as well as other participants) well in
advance of the workshop. In order to provide analysts with points of
comparison without overly constraining them, we set a common
objective. As before, we will ask analysts to identify the pivotal
moments in the interaction with respect to students' learning, but in
this workshop we also ask analysts to go further by providing an
account of how interaction led to pivotal learning moments, or how
pivotal moments influenced subsequent interaction leading to 

In the workshop, the researcher providing the data will introduce that
data and provide an analysis with respect to the given objective. A
second researcher will present an analysis of the same data (prepared
in advance of the workshop). Then a third researcher acting as
discussant will compare the first two analyses (optionally bringing in
their own analytic comments). We will choose these three persons to be
diverse in theoretical orientation and to mix methodological
approaches (for example, including qualitative interpretation and
quantitative sequential analysis). The analysts’ presentations will 
focused on the analytic objective, while the discussant will compare
analyses. A fourth researcher (one of the workshop organizers) will
then act as meta-discussant, summarizing what we have learned from the
foregoing with respect to the meta-analytic objectives of the
workshop, namely: how can analytic multivocality productively inform
our collective understanding of learning through collaboration, and
what are the boundary objects that support this discourse?

Book Planning:

>From the standpoint of fostering collaboration and advancement in the
field, a risk of workshops is that while connections are made and
insights gained in a one-day yearly event, follow-up is
inadequate. Often there is no follow-up, and sometimes when there is
it consists of individuals each publishing their own piece (in a
special issue or book) without continuation and deepening of the
collaboration. Realizing this, and having done several of these
corpus-focused comparative analyses, our next step is to work out the
implications in more detail than is possible in a one-day workshop
meeting. We are planning to produce a book consisting of a section for
each of several corpora as well as introductory and reflection
chapters. The sections of the book will follow the same format as the
workshop (introductory chapters followed by several data focused
sections each consisting of an introduction to the data, at least two
analyses of that data, and synthesis of these analyses). The chapters
will not be independent contributions, but rather will be woven
together with empirical and theoretical dialogues and reflection on
implications for the learning sciences. Therefore, we conclude this
workshop with a second half-day in which we will agree on the
structure and content of the book and assign follow-up activities
towards its production. All persons who have actively participated in
our workshops will be candidates for authorship or co-authorship of
chapters of the book.


Interested researchers should submit at least a two-page abstract to
[log in to unmask] and [log in to unmask] by March 15,
2010. (Late applications will be considered on a space-available
basis.) The abstract should indicate which of the following types of
participation is requested: basic, analyst, discussant, or data
presenter and analyst. Organizers will choose a limited number of
participants. Acceptance letters will be sent out by March 30, 2010.

Basic Participation: Basic participants should submit up to two pages
summarizing their relevant prior experience, their objectives in
participating in this workshop, a bibliography of relevant
publications, and a relevant URL providing further information on the
researcher's work.

Analyst or Discussant: Researchers who wish to be selected as analyst
or discussant should meet the requirements for Basic Participation
(2-page abstract as explained above) and also submit up to two pages
characterizing the analytic work they typically undertake, including
theoretical assumptions, questions addressed, and methods
used. Analysts will be expected to obtain the data from one of the
accepted Data Presenters, analyze that data in advance of the
workshop, and provide a draft of the analysis to discussants.

Data Presenter and Analyst: Researchers who wish to offer a data
corpus should provide the information requested for Basic
Participation and Analyst roles (as explained above) and also submit
up to two pages summarizing the nature of the corpus and making the
case that this data will serve the objectives of the workshop. We are
particularly interested in data corpora that will be of interest to
researchers from more than one theoretical or methodological
tradition, and hence serve as a boundary object for multi-vocal


Monday March 15th: Priority Deadline for Analyst, Discussant and Data
  Presenter/Analyst Participation Proposals

Tuesday, March 30th: Applicants meeting priority deadline are
  notified. We will also inform interested parties of the data sets
  selected and solicit additional analysts if needed.

Monday April 19th: Final deadline for additional Analysts and
  Discussants.  Data Presenters are encouraged to share their data as
  soon as possible after this date.

Monday May 3rd: Final notification for late applicants. Data
  presenters are requested to have shared their data with analysts by
  this date.

Monday June 7th: Analysts make their analyses available to workshop
  participants, (including discussants, who can then prepare their

Monday, June 28th: First day of workshop
* Part I: Introductions of workshop participants to each
  other. Overview of objectives, results of prior workshops, and plans
  for this workshop by workshop organizers
* Part II (after coffee): First corpus, including presentation of
  data, two analyses, one discussant, and one meta-discussant.
* Part III (after lunch): Second corpus, including presentation of
  data, two analyses, one discussant, and one meta-discussant.
* Part IV (after coffee): Synthesizing conclusions by meta-discussants
  and all participants. Orientation to plans for Tuesday.

Tuesday June 29th: Second half-day of workshop
* Part V: Review analyses we have done in the prior as well as present
  workshop and what we have learned. Choose corpora to include in the
* Part VI (after coffee): Assign analyst, discussant and
  meta-discussant roles for book; set timelines.


* Kristine Lund, ICAR, CNRS, University of Lyon,
  [log in to unmask]
* Dan Suthers, Information and Computer Sciences, University of
  Hawai'i at Manoa, [log in to unmask]

Workshop Committee:
* Nancy Law, University of Hong Kong, [log in to unmask]
* Carolyn Rose, Carnegie Mellon University, [log in to unmask]
* Chris Teplovs, University of Toronto, [log in to unmask]

Send all submissions to
[log in to unmask] AND [log in to unmask]

An online copy of this CFP and further information may be found at

Dan Suthers,
Email can take a week or more to read: for urgent matters please
call 1-808-956-3890 (office), text 1-808-741-5686 (mobile), or
drop by my office in POST 309.  

                To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
     mailto:[log in to unmask]
    For further details of CHI lists see