Group+Two+April+23


 * Wiseman Discussion**

The theoretical framework for this year long case study was multimodal social semiotics. The research sought to answer how the Literacy Through Photography curriculum affected how children learned in a third grade language arts classroom. I did not see in the article how this particular class/teacher was chosen for the study, although I am guessing it was related to the fact that their magnet focus was arts and humanities. I like how this type of study was framed with the increased focus on standardized testing and this school choosing not to give into the pressure despite low test scores. Perhaps one purpose of the study was to advocate for this type of curriculum in all schools. There certainly aren't enough articles getting published advocating this type of curriculum while schools face pressures of standardized testing. The author provided an excellent description of multimodalities and the framework for her research. However, I would like to have seen even more description of previous studies/literature on photography as pedagogical method. Maybe there hasn't been much research on this...it would be good to know that too. Good point! - this would be a good thing to address. I AGREE! I'M TRYING TO CHANGE THAT AND GET MORE OUT THERE ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY AS A PEDAGOGICAL METHOD. Rationale stated teachers perceive standardized testing as having a narrow definition of literacy that is at odds with visual literacy focused instruction although the latter expands literacy development. The research could be more specific if the question situated the type of learning; interested in writing, reading, or literacy learning? The literature review is thorough and extensive and really lends itself well to the study.
 * I. RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY**

The think aloud protocols were a good idea to help capture the thoughts of the kids after each photography/class session. It would be good to have a table of some of these in order to illustrate the most prevalent themes. HOW WOULD YOU SHOW A TABLE? Sampling and selection beg further explanation - even if it entails convenience sampling. Case studies are not expected to have external validity, but the sampling still needs a thorough explanation as part of the thick description that balances the lack of generalizability. This study's internal validity is greatly strengthened by the excellent length and depth of study (1 yr. 2x week) and the rich description of the treatments.
 * II. CRITIQUE OF RESEARCH METHODS**
 * This was an ethnographic study of a third grade classroom in an urban magnet school. The researcher was a participant-observer. Observations were made twice a week. Data was collected from classroom observations, student work samples (writing and photographs), interviews, and discussions. Think aloud protocols were used.**

Data was analyzed in 2 phases: 1) A thick description of the LTP program and classroom context was created. Is more of this going to be added to the paper? WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW? 2) Emerging themes were identified and analyzed. Would another coder help with reliability and internal validity or is one considered OK? The dialectic descriptions in the study were helpful in understanding how the kids mediated their social practices through the photography. The photographs also were informative and provided a great deal of visual understanding that enhanced the article. I wonder if a reference to Gee (2003) would be helpful here, as well. Interviews with the teacher and students, student work, and field notes, involved analyzing and identifying emergent themes in field notes and transcripts. The student think-alouds are added to these rich multiple data sources to provide excellent triangulation of the qualitative data; the research question of 'how' is clearly answered with these data sources. The results of the constant-comparative analysis would be more accessible with a matrix describing the codes and the resultant themes. GREAT IDEA!
 * III. CRITIQUE OF DATA ANALYSIS**

The discussion centered on the researcher's findings that photography can contribute to the literacy instruction of students, alongside more traditional forms of literacy. This is an important consideration and extends the current knowledge of literacy as grounded within a social construct (again, see Gee (1996, 2003)). The educational implications for teachers and future policy makers are significant. Prior research was referenced in the discussion of the findings which in turn support the existing theoretical frameworks related to social semiotics. The limitations of the study warrant a brief discussion - especially in light of the lack of any quantitative data to triangulate with the rich qualitative results.
 * IV. CRITIQUE OF DISCUSSION**

I wanted to see some of the students' photographs. After hearing about the ball-in-the-face shot, it would have been great to have included the actual photo that resulted from that interaction. I AGREE - I WILL INCLUDE THIS. Are there any data to support the narrowing of the definition of literacy as a result of standardized testing suggested in the rationale for this study? The personal stories truly help to situate the study for the reader! The pictures were also a great piece, as was the author's voice in the introduction. The personal touches are much appreciated!
 * V. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS (QUE**
 * I appreciate the use of the photographs in this study. It is not common to see that included in research articles. It was a nice touch since photography is the focus of the study, was part of the data collection, and is an effective way to convey information to your audience. THANK YOU! **
 * I loved the use of script in this article. I enjoyed knowing the process the teacher used to get the students to talk about the photographs (and the students' responses). THANK YOU **

Some resources:

Alvermann, D. E., Dillon, D. R., & O’Brien, D. G. (1987). Using discussion to promote reading comprehension. Newark, D.E. International Reading Association.

Anderson, V. A. & Roit, M. (1993). Planning and implementing collaborative strategy instruction for delayed readers in Grades 6-10. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 121-137.

Bateman, J. & Shi, H. (2007). Analyzing dialogic interaction: Course overview [with related readings]. Available online: []

Callanan, M. A. & Shrager, J. (1995). Parent-child collaborative explanations: Methods of identification and analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 105-129.

Camps, J. (2003). Concurrent and retrospective verbal reports as tools to better understand the role of attention in second language tasks. //International journal of applied linguistics//. 13, (2) 201-221.

de Mesquita, P. B., Dean, R. F., & Young, B. J. (2010). Making sure what you see is what you get: Digital video technology and the preparation of teachers of elementary science. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 275-293.

Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Frohlich, D. M. (1993). //Adding interaction analysis to the user research portfolio.// Position paper for the workshop on Rethinking Theoretical Frameworks for Human-Computer Interaction at InterCHI '93, 24th-25th April, Amsterdam.

Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2009). "Intermediate theory" building: Integrating multiple teacher and researcher perspectives through in-depth video analysis of pedagogic strategies. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1753-1795.

Hill, J. R. & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the World Wide Web. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(4), 37-64. [Outlines methods used for compiling various data sources into a reading action trail].

Jordan, B. & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103. Available online: []

Kaakinen, J. K. & Hyona, J. ( 2005). Perspective effects on explistory text comprehension: Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking & recall. //Discourse Processes 40//(3), 239-257.

Kissman, Ulrike. Tikvah. (Ed.) (???) Video interaction analysis: Methods and methodology. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Kintsch, W. & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. Paris & S. Stahl, Children’s reading comprehension and assessment, (pp. 71-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lewins, A. & Silver, C. (2006). CAQDAS Networking Project: Choosing a CAQDAS Package. Available online: []

Helwig, B. (2007). EUDICO Linguistic Annotator (Version 3.0) [Computer software and manual.] Online at []

Mondada, L. (20006). Video recording as the reflexive preservation and configuration of phenomenal features for analysis. In H. Knoblauch, B. Schnettler, J. Raab, & H.G. Soeffner (Eds.). Video analysis: Methodology and methods. Qualitative audiovisual data analysis in sociology. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Pulido, C. M., Pulido, M. A., Serrano, M. and Tortajada, I. I. (2007). Dialogic Reading: Learning to Read Through Interaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, TBA, San Francisco, CA Available online at: []

QSR International. (2009). //Nvivo 8 research software for analysis and insight.// Retrieved October 30, 2009 from [] See also related discussion forum about software tools for analyzing discourse on video clips at []

Rand Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Schelling, G. Aarnoutse, C., & van Leeuwe, J. (2006). Third graders think-aloud protocols: Types of reading activities in reading an expository text. //Learning and Instruction, 16//, 549-568.

Suthers, D., Dwyer, N., & Vatrapu, R. (???). A methodology and formalism for eclectic analysis of collaborative interaction.

TechSmith. (2009). Camtasia studio: Techsmith’s Screen Recording Software. [Computer software demonstration and manual.] Online at: []

Wittenburg, P. Brugman, H. Russell, A. Klassmann, A. Sloetjes, H. (2006). ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. Retrieved February 28, 2008 from the Language Archiving Technology portal Web site: []

Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A. C. & Resnick, L. (2005). Classroom talk for rigorous reading comprehension instruction. //Reading Psychology//. 26: 27-53.

Collaborative Video Data Analysis:  Understanding Multimodal and Visual Literacy in a Third Grade Classroom

// “The emphasis here is on blurring the boundaries of research and practices as a critical and theory building process. The larger goal is to create classrooms and schools where rich learning opportunities increase students’ life chances and to alter the cultures of teaching by altering the relations of power in schools and universities (Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1999, p. 18).” // This research project integrates computer assisted video data analysis and collaborative research with the classroom teacher to study and analyze a learning context that incorporates a visual and multimodal instructional approach. My qualitative research study examines the following research questions: 1) What happens when computer assisted video data analysis is used to understand the integration of visual and multimodal literacies in the classroom, particularly related to reading and writing instruction? 2) How does collaborative analysis between a university researcher and classroom teacher provide insight and understanding about a multimodal language arts classroom?

Computer assisted video data analysis software can further the use of video as a research tool. Using VDA software collaboratively has the potential for expanding the notion of //insider perspective// (Anderson & Herr, 1999). What is different about video data analysis?
 * Analysis of both verbal and non-verbal behaviors of research participants (Coiro, 2009)
 * Encourage collaborative participation between teachers and researchers (Hennessy & Deaney, 2009)
 * Insight about the complexities of learning while also encouraging new ways of thinking and learning about classroom contexts.
 * Speaks to the concern that educational research has too little influence on classroom practice (Hiebert, Galimore & Stigler, 2002).
 * Analytical options including repeated viewing, pausing, and editing
 * Expands ways that teachers and researchers could demonstrate their findings and perspectives of the research (timelines, graphs, movie clips grouped together)

1. Share audit trail with teacher 2. Joint identification of four critical incidents 3. Print outs of transcripts, collected video clips, uploaded them into Transana 4. Met together to view the videos of the critical incidents. The teacher controls the “play” and “pause” button. 5. When the video was paused, group members propose ideas, hypothesis and pose questions about what is happening on the tape. Ideas are briefly discussed. 6. Questions and hypothesis are recorded and posed for future discussion and analysis. In many cases, the questions or ideas warrant further data collection and observation from the field. 7. Identify significant themes and ideas that had emerged from the video data analysis using grounded theory (Mills, Bonner & Francis, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
 * Process of Data Collection and Analysis:** Using a framework of interaction analysis (Jordan & Henderson, 1995), the following steps were taken for data analysis:

//I thought it was nice today, to zoom in some parts and pull back to look at the big picture in other ways.// //(Teacher’s response to collaborative data analysis.)//

Using interaction analysis as we viewed critical incidents allowed for the teacher’s theory to emerge and be a part of analysis, interpretation, and understanding. One of the most important connections was the idea that visual and multimodal literacy can be an important link to reading comprehension strategies. As the teacher viewed the videos, she critiqued and assessed her teaching while also noticing student interactions. The opportunity to analyze lessons and also consider the student interactions is something that is not afforded to teachers as they are teaching in the moment. Joint video data analysis provides opportunities for reflection and deeper understanding. There was also an opportunity for both the researcher and teacher to jointly reflect on what it was like to conduct the research and work together in the classroom. Further debriefing included how the teacher felt about participating in data analysis with the researcher.
 * Findings**
 * //Question 1://** How can computer assisted video data analysis be utilized to understand the integration of visual and multimodal literacies in the classroom, particularly related to reading and writing instruction?
 * //Question 2://** How does collaborative analysis between a university researcher and classroom teacher provide insight and understanding about a multimodal language arts classroom?

1. This study offers a beginning understanding of how to use technology to support and extend the ways classroom learning is collected and analyzed, something that has been called for in educational research 2. Collaborative research between the teacher and researcher can affect and inform multimodal and visual literacies in a way that impacts pedagogical understanding. Utilizing different forms of communication, such as photographs, alongside traditional school literacies, such as writer’s workshop, expands the options that children have of processing and expressing their understanding. 3. It is important to consider how researchers and teachers might theorize multimodal transformations and how research can provide answers as schools and classrooms are increasingly abandoning curricula that encourages diverse and creative ways of knowing in lieu of teaching practices that focus on repetitious and standardized learning. In this regard, joint analysis can provide opportunities for praxis.
 * Implications**

Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2009). "Intermediate theory" building: Integrating multiple teacher and researcher perspectives through in-depth video analysis of pedagogic strategies. //Teachers College Record, 111//(7), 1753-1795. Hiebert, J. Gallimore, R., and Stigler, J. (2002. A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look  like and how can we get one? // Educational Researcher June 2002 31: 3-15 // Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. //Journal of the Learning Sciences,// // 4 // (1), 39-103.  Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory [Electronic Version]. // International Journal of Qualitative Methods //, //5//. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from  []
 * References **