Table 1 Interaction Analysis Model PHASE...

Table 1

Interaction Analysis Model

PHASE I: Sharing/Comparing of Information
A.A statement of observation or opinion or background information that culminates in a question	[PhI/A]
B.A statement of agreement from one or more other participants	[PhI/B]
C.Corroborating/giving examples (provided by one or more participants) (not used as evidence to support a conclusion)	[PhI/C]
D.Asking and/or answering questions to classify details of statements-triggering	[PhI/D]
E.Definition, description, or identification of a problem	[PhI/E]
PHASE II: The Discovery and Exploration of Dissonance or Inconsistency Among Ideas, Concepts, or Statements (This is the operation at the group level of cognitive dissonance, defined as an inconsistency between a new observation and the learner’s existing framework of knowledge and thinking skills.)
A.Identifying and stating areas of disagreement or inconsistency-difference of ideas or themes	[PhII/A]
B.Asking and/or answering questions to clarify the source and extent of disagreement	[PhII/B]
C.Restating the participant’s position, and possibly advancing arguments or considerations in its support by references to the participant’s experience, literature, formal data collected, or proposal of relevant metaphor or analogy to illustrate point of view	[PhII/C]
PHASE III:Negotation of Meaning/Coconstruction of Knowledge
A.Negotiation or clarification of the meaning of terms (building on, adding to others’ ideas)	[PhIII/A]
B. of the relative weight to be assigned to types of argument	[PhIII/B]
C.Identification of areas of agreement or overlap among conflicting concepts	[PhIII/C]
D.Proposal and negotiation of new statements embodying compromise, coconstruction (creating solutions)	[PhIII/D]
E.Synthesis-(Proposal of) Integrating (connecting) or accommodating information, ideas, metaphors or analogies from various resources—textbook, articles, personal experience	[PhIII/E]
PHASE IV:Testing and Modification of Proposed Synthesis or Coconstruction
A.Testing the proposed synthesis against “received fact” as shared by the participants and/or their culture	[PhIV/A]
B.Testing against existing cognitive schema	[PhIV/B]
C.Testing against personal experience	[PhIV/C]
D.Testing against formal data collected	[PhIV/D]
E.Testing against contradictory testimony in the literature	[PhIV/E]
PHASE V:Aggreement Statement(s)/Applications of Newly Constructed Meaning
A.Summarization of agreement(s)	[PhV/A]
B.Applications of new knowledge	[PhV/B]
C.Metacognitive statements by the participants illustrating their understanding that their knowledge or ways of thinking (cognitive schema) have changed as a result of the conference interaction	[PhV/C]

PHASE I: Sharing/Comparing of Information
A.A statement of observation or opinion or background information that culminates in a question	[PhI/A]
B.A statement of agreement from one or more other participants	[PhI/B]
C.Corroborating/giving examples (provided by one or more participants) (not used as evidence to support a conclusion)	[PhI/C]
D.Asking and/or answering questions to classify details of statements-triggering	[PhI/D]
E.Definition, description, or identification of a problem	[PhI/E]
PHASE II: The Discovery and Exploration of Dissonance or Inconsistency Among Ideas, Concepts, or Statements (This is the operation at the group level of cognitive dissonance, defined as an inconsistency between a new observation and the learner’s existing framework of knowledge and thinking skills.)
A.Identifying and stating areas of disagreement or inconsistency-difference of ideas or themes	[PhII/A]
B.Asking and/or answering questions to clarify the source and extent of disagreement	[PhII/B]
C.Restating the participant’s position, and possibly advancing arguments or considerations in its support by references to the participant’s experience, literature, formal data collected, or proposal of relevant metaphor or analogy to illustrate point of view	[PhII/C]
PHASE III:Negotation of Meaning/Coconstruction of Knowledge
A.Negotiation or clarification of the meaning of terms (building on, adding to others’ ideas)	[PhIII/A]
B. of the relative weight to be assigned to types of argument	[PhIII/B]
C.Identification of areas of agreement or overlap among conflicting concepts	[PhIII/C]
D.Proposal and negotiation of new statements embodying compromise, coconstruction (creating solutions)	[PhIII/D]
E.Synthesis-(Proposal of) Integrating (connecting) or accommodating information, ideas, metaphors or analogies from various resources—textbook, articles, personal experience	[PhIII/E]
PHASE IV:Testing and Modification of Proposed Synthesis or Coconstruction
A.Testing the proposed synthesis against “received fact” as shared by the participants and/or their culture	[PhIV/A]
B.Testing against existing cognitive schema	[PhIV/B]
C.Testing against personal experience	[PhIV/C]
D.Testing against formal data collected	[PhIV/D]
E.Testing against contradictory testimony in the literature	[PhIV/E]
PHASE V:Aggreement Statement(s)/Applications of Newly Constructed Meaning
A.Summarization of agreement(s)	[PhV/A]
B.Applications of new knowledge	[PhV/B]
C.Metacognitive statements by the participants illustrating their understanding that their knowledge or ways of thinking (cognitive schema) have changed as a result of the conference interaction	[PhV/C]

Source:Adapted from Gunawardena et al., (1997).

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable