Grounded theory 1

Grounded theory research is mainly used in qualitative research, and works in reverse from most traditional social science research.  Grounding theory began to be used in Human Computer Interaction research, and was then brought into the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) community, which is now part of the International Society of the Learning Sciences (ICLS).  It is now used more widely in learning sciences research.

The first step is data collection, then coding the key points of the data with codes and extracting them from the text.  Codes are grouped as concepts, and then categories are formed. The categories becomes the basis for the creation of a theory, or the hypothesis of the experiement in retrospect.
Traditionally, a researcher chooses their theoretical framework and applies it to the research.

Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss developed the grounded theory method.


References
•Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R. & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in
collaborative learning tasks. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning:
Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 31-63). Amsterdam: Pergamon /
Elsevier Science. [34 pages]

readings about grounding theory:
Anderson, A. H. (2006). Achieving understanding in face-to-face and video-mediated
multiparty interactions. Discourse Processes, 41(3), 251-287. Finally a paper looking at
how groups of three or larger ground their understanding!
Bangerter, A. & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive
Science, 27(2), 195-225. This is the most recent piece on the idea that people also ‘ground’
what it is that they are doing together at the level of “joint projects”, which build upon
conversational contributions. This piece focuses on markers of transitions between and
within joint projects. However, the best piece introducing joint projects is Chapter 7 in
Clark (1996) below.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. This is the
comprehensive source about all aspects of grounding theory, which are put in relationship
to each other here. Key chapters to check out include: Chapter 6 about multimodal
signaling, and Chapter 7 about joint projects, the last of which is online.
Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. B. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M.
Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [23 pages] Focuses on how
grounding changes depending on medium and purpose. Very relevant for those interested
in technology-mediated communication or for thinking about how interactions change
depending on what people are trying to do together.
Schober, M. F. & Brennan, S. E. (2003). Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of
the partner. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of
discourse processes (pp. 123-164). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [42 pages]. This review article,
written years later by two of Clark’s former students and editors of the journal Discourse
Processes, gets into the issue of what it means for an interaction to be interactive, and all the
controversies that have arisen about that.

readings on applications of grounding theory to education:
Beers, P., Kirschner, P. A., Boshuizen, H. P. A. & Gijselaers W. H. (2007). ICT-support for
grounding in the classroom. Instructional Science, 35, 535-556. [22 pages] A more recent
application of grounding theory to CSCL focused on designing classroom systems to support
more effective grounding.
Fong, C. (2007, March). Identity issues in ESL chat rooms: Grounding positioning statements in
Linguistics Colloquium, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. This revision of Carlton’s course
paper from the fall 2006 Discourse and Learning seminar applies Clark’s idea of joint
projects to analyze identity negotiations in an ESL chat room.
Rummel, N. & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to
promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201-241. [41 pages]