+Vance Stevens . (AND ALL OTHERS) PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, DO NOT NOT NOT NOT INTERACT WITH JANE, MATTIE, OR EMANUAL IN ANY WAY DURING THE RECORDINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No worries! We’ll use a different discord channel for our 30 min temple biome recording. It’s gonna be fine! I will refrain from texting during our recording. This is the first time we’re trying to record for research purposes (to conduct conversation analysis), so we’re trying to trouble shoot as we go along. These might be things that other researchers need to consider when doing a similar project (but if they have a private server this would not be a problem.) Thank you all for understanding!! Jane and Mattie and Emanuel loves to play with everyone! ^_^ We just need to be more focused talking within our little circle for this one so that analysis won't get complicated.
Sounds like we have the basics established: 1) everyone using the 1st person view 2) FOV set to 80 3) voice only chat 4) no interaction outside the three participants.
A CA colleague I've been talking to also wondered about any other multi-tasking/intrusions that might be happening in the real-world during game play. He actually suggested video-recording the players while playing as well. That seems like too much to hope for. Besides there are principled reasons to limit ourselves to only what is available to co-participants as they interact in MC. For example, if someone is momentarily AFK or simply doesn't respond right away they wouldn't immediately know the reason for that. And if the participants don't know then neither should the (overseeing) analyst.
In the very first recording you made of Mattie playing side-by-side with another child, the external video would absolutely be necessary because they would be interacting in the real-world as well as in-game.
Another interesting aspect of this sort of "talk-in-interaction" is that it is talk-while-engaged-in-an-activity. And we might say that the talk is embedded in the activity rather than the other way around. The talk might not be "continuous" as you might find in a casual conversation. Rather participants will find themselves in what have been called "states of incipient talk" in which talk is expectable but so are long silences. Imagine sitting around with your family in the living room watching TV or in the kitchen cooking dinner. It may be that no one is talking at any given moment, but it would seem strange for someone to talk...and you wouldn't have to do another "opening."
Yet a further (interesting) complication that will almost certainly pop up (and that's OK if it does) is that the on-screen avatars may not always be within sight of each other. It's like they're all in radio contact but not always visible.
There have been researchers who have looked at gaming data, but I'm not aware of anyone who has looked at this sort of data from a conversation analytic perspective. I'm still reading the two ReCALL papers.
Final comment here: CA-for-SLA researcher Numa Markee has suggested the label ACD (Analysis of Conversational Data) to cover all the many other methodological approaches to working with spoken interaction. He contrasts these with Conversation Analysis in the tradition of ethnomethodology (e.g. Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974). Over the years, CA has emerged as the most robust of these means of analysis due in large part to the "finer granularity" of the transcription and analysis.
No worries! We’ll use a different discord channel for our 30 min temple biome recording. It’s gonna be fine! I will refrain from texting during our recording. This is the first time we’re trying to record for research purposes (to conduct conversation analysis), so we’re trying to trouble shoot as we go along. These might be things that other researchers need to consider when doing a similar project (but if they have a private server this would not be a problem.) Thank you all for understanding!! Jane and Mattie and Emanuel loves to play with everyone! ^_^ We just need to be more focused talking within our little circle for this one so that analysis won't get complicated.
ReplyDeleteSounds like we have the basics established: 1) everyone using the 1st person view 2) FOV set to 80 3) voice only chat 4) no interaction outside the three participants.
ReplyDeleteA CA colleague I've been talking to also wondered about any other multi-tasking/intrusions that might be happening in the real-world during game play. He actually suggested video-recording the players while playing as well. That seems like too much to hope for. Besides there are principled reasons to limit ourselves to only what is available to co-participants as they interact in MC. For example, if someone is momentarily AFK or simply doesn't respond right away they wouldn't immediately know the reason for that. And if the participants don't know then neither should the (overseeing) analyst.
In the very first recording you made of Mattie playing side-by-side with another child, the external video would absolutely be necessary because they would be interacting in the real-world as well as in-game.
Another interesting aspect of this sort of "talk-in-interaction" is that it is talk-while-engaged-in-an-activity. And we might say that the talk is embedded in the activity rather than the other way around. The talk might not be "continuous" as you might find in a casual conversation. Rather participants will find themselves in what have been called "states of incipient talk" in which talk is expectable but so are long silences. Imagine sitting around with your family in the living room watching TV or in the kitchen cooking dinner. It may be that no one is talking at any given moment, but it would seem strange for someone to talk...and you wouldn't have to do another "opening."
Yet a further (interesting) complication that will almost certainly pop up (and that's OK if it does) is that the on-screen avatars may not always be within sight of each other. It's like they're all in radio contact but not always visible.
There have been researchers who have looked at gaming data, but I'm not aware of anyone who has looked at this sort of data from a conversation analytic perspective. I'm still reading the two ReCALL papers.
Final comment here: CA-for-SLA researcher Numa Markee has suggested the label ACD (Analysis of Conversational Data) to cover all the many other methodological approaches to working with spoken interaction. He contrasts these with Conversation Analysis in the tradition of ethnomethodology (e.g. Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974). Over the years, CA has emerged as the most robust of these means of analysis due in large part to the "finer granularity" of the transcription and analysis.