In my opinion, some of the most interesting points in this article are:
- The “expectation of quality talk” vs. real outcomes.
- The consideration of the balance between responding to an academic task and simultaneously managing one’s identity.
- “Knowing as an interactional accomplishment” (p. 11)
The article made me think about the presence of meaning(s) in different layers of CMC, depending on the analytical tools we are using to pierce through the text, and dynamically visualize it as a living, active entity. I am starting to think about texts as the sea, something you should respect, when you approach it, that can be fascinating and dangerous, deep, lively, animated, silent, infinite. A mysterious, malleable pathway to discover new lands, and make sense of ourselves as lonely and socially-bound voyagers. (Sorry about that, it’s late at night, and I have been on Nescafé Clásico for a couple of days…)
Well, this was one of the most powerful parts of the article and it really requires a minute of deep reflection:
“‘based on the use of relatively rudimentary categories which, furthermore, represent a set of concepts defined by the researcher rather than participants themselves’ (Lamerichs and te Molder, 2003: 469).
I am still thinking about my research, and this changes everything! I’ve been struggling to find the “perfect” model to start building my “even-more-perfect” model of interpretation of the discussion forum I will be analyzing, and the answer to this quest is just in the concepts defined by the participants themselves!
I think that now I should address my efforts to the study of methods to foster the emersion of these concepts in a meaningful way. This is truly a game-changer for me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention!
P.S. By the way, it was fun reading about students blogging for a course! :-)
Yes, I thought some of you might appreciate being bloggers reading about blogging.
ReplyDeleteRight - I think your insight is an important one - starting with the categories in advance is really different from starting with how the participants orient to/take up the talk in the forum. That's what I like about a DP/DA perspective on talk. SO MUCH research has been done with various frameworks (and there are dozens if not hundreds by now) used to understand the content of CMC discussions, but so little takes the perspective of what participants are trying to DO in these forums.