This study explored users’ interaction with a chatbox interface in language learning. The interactions were videotaped, accompanied with individual interviews afterwards.
What surprised me:
The author started the introduction with conversations he/she had with the students about CSIEC, a chatbox system used in language learning. It is an interesting way to draw the audiences into a discussion about the user experience of a computer programme. I was intrigued by the way the author presented it and wanted to read more about it.
Things to take away/questions
The author used abbreviation from the start and did not explain what CSIEC is until the third page. I wonder what type of audience we should have in mind while writing our own thesis? Are we writing for someone with specific knowledge? If not, how might it affect the way we write?
The author explicitly differentiated ethnographic methodology (whole process of research) and ethnographic research methods (an approach or technique to collect data) at the beginning of Chapter 3. The explanation is quite clear and useful for me.
What surprised me:
The author started the introduction with conversations he/she had with the students about CSIEC, a chatbox system used in language learning. It is an interesting way to draw the audiences into a discussion about the user experience of a computer programme. I was intrigued by the way the author presented it and wanted to read more about it.
Things to take away/questions
The author used abbreviation from the start and did not explain what CSIEC is until the third page. I wonder what type of audience we should have in mind while writing our own thesis? Are we writing for someone with specific knowledge? If not, how might it affect the way we write?
The author explicitly differentiated ethnographic methodology (whole process of research) and ethnographic research methods (an approach or technique to collect data) at the beginning of Chapter 3. The explanation is quite clear and useful for me.
The author used pre-research interviews to select participants for the study. This is a great way of getting to know the participants’ background and establishing a relationship. I wonder how many pre-research interviews were conducted to select the final 15 participants? And why they were selected?
Jingyu,
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you mention the consideration of 'audience' here. In another class I'm taking, we discussed this at length one week as awareness of audience while writing can change how an author approaches a specific task. I wonder if, in writing this paper, the author assumed the audience would understand what CSIEC is based on the purpose of the research paper? In using such abbreviations, does the author alienate and/or confuse those readers who are not familiar with the terminology? In our own writing, I wonder where the appropriate place is for explanation of abbreviations? Is it at the beginning where it may disrupt the flow of writing, but be helpful for the reader? How much do we balance the needs of the reader with author's voice and writing style?
Hi JingYu,
ReplyDeleteI also noticed that the author doesn't define or explain some of her terms. "HCI" is another example mentioned many times before it is made clear what it actually is on page 49! As Sarah mentions, there often needs to be a definition of terms and/or a glossary of abbreviations, preferably at the beginning, to help readers follow a paper. I found also the repetition of the challenging phrase "user—centered speech—driven multimodal adaptive language learning interface" throughout the thesis unhelpful.
Very interesting discussion! Normally, any acronym or abbreviation should be written out in full the first time it appears in the paper, with the acronym in brackets afterwards. For example, I might write: "The Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy (EDCP) is one of four departments in the Faculty of Education (FoE) at the University of British Columbia (UBC)." Thereafter, I could refer directly to EDCP in the FoE at UBC.
ReplyDelete