Researchers and teachers learning together and from each other using video-based multimodal analysis

British Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 451-460

  Davidsen, Jacob ^a   Vanderlinde, Ruben ^b  

^a AALBORG UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b EAPRIL board (European Association for Practitioner Research on Improving Learning)   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TEACHING; TOUCH SCREENS;

COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES; COLLABORATIVE PROCESS; DIGITAL RESEARCHES; LONGITUDINAL DESIGNS; MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS; TEACHING AND LEARNING; TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION;

RESEARCH;

EID: 84898775262     PISSN: 00071013     EISSN: 14678535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12141     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., Mosher, A., &, Swenton-Wall, P., (1993). Ethnographic field methods and their relation to design. In, D. Schuler, &, A. Namioka, (Eds), Participatory design: principles and practices (pp. 123-155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Broekkamp, H., &, van Hout-Wolters, B., (2007). The gap between educational research and practice: a literature review, symposium, and questionnaire. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 3, 203-220.
3. Davidsen, J., &, Christiansen, E. T., (2013). The benefits of single-touch screens in intersubjective meaning making. In, N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, &, S. Puntambekar, (Eds), To see the world and a grain of sand: learning across levels of space, time, and scale Vol. 2 (p. 10). Madision, WI: International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS).
4. Davidsen, J., &, Georgsen, M., (2010). ICT as a tool for collaboration in the classroom-challenges and lessons learned. Design for Learning, 3, 1-2, 54-69.
5. Dourish, P., (2004). Where the action is?: the foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.
6. Goodwin, C., (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 10, 1489-1522.
7. Jewitt, C., (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 1, 241-267.
8. Jordan, B., &, Henderson, A., (1995). Interaction analysis: foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 1, 39-103.
9. Nielsen, J., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., &, Danielsen, O., (2003). Dialogue design-with mutual learning as guiding principle. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 1, 21-40. (Pubitemid 36392881)
10. Norris, S., (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: a methodological framework. New York NY: Routledge.
11. Rowe, D. W., (2012). The affordances of multimodal interaction analysis for studying the beginnings of literacy. Retrieved August 26, 2013, from http://nctear2013.ehe.osu.edu/files/2013/01/rowe-2012-affordances-of-multimodal- interaction-analysis-cmp.pdf
12. Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., &, LeBaron, C. D., (Eds) (2011). Embodied interaction?: language and body in the material world. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Tracy, S. J., (2010). Qualitative quality: eight "big-tent" criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 10, 837-851.
14. Vanderlinde, R., &, Van Braak, J., (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36, 2, 299-316.
15. Wagner, J., (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: a framework for reconsidering researcher-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26, 7, 13-22.
16. Woods, D., &, Fassnacht, C., (2013). Transana v2.52 [Software]. Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Retrieved September 14, 2013, from http://transana.org