Pursuing Playful Forms of Interaction Analysis Alongside Youth Stakeholders

• In Event: Expanding Participatory Video Analysis for Ecological and Ethical Validity

Abstract

Objectives:
We present pilot data of a play-based framework to co-analyze video data with youth in an effort to make the research process a more playful endeavor. We worked alongside youth participants in an after school nature club which was aimed at learning about the natural world through place-based activities (Bang et al., 2014). Together alongside youth, we co-analyzed video data using interaction analysis (IA; Jordan & Henderson, 1995) where we intentionally invited the play of youth as they reflected on video of their own discourse during a nature walk through the wetland. In doing so, we ask: How does play as a means to express ideas support youths’ contributions to processes of co-research alongside community stakeholders?

Theoretical framework:
We operate within a participatory design research (PDR; Gutierrez & Jurow, 2016) which focuses on collaborating directly with communities throughout the design process in pursuit of transformative goals (Bang & Vossoughi, 2016; Gutierrez & Jurow, 2016). We frame play as a boundary object (Suchman, 1994) in this work, as it is one of the most significant cultural activities in children’s lives. We sought to treat play as a serious endeavor for both youth and researchers, framing youths’ expertise in play as an important asset to better contribute their insights during IA.

Data and methods:
We collected pilot data which was situated in the context of an informal learning environment focused on place-based learning of local ecologies (Marin & Bang, 2018) in the form of an after school nature club. Following a nature walk activity in a local wetland, youth co-analyzed video data with us of their talk and gestures during a nature walk. Following this, we carried out collaborative sessions of IA where playful contributions from youth as they reflected on their interactions within nature were invited into the analysis process.

Results:
Analysis of this data is ongoing, but initial pilot testing of this playful methodology demonstrated that youth took up imaginary and sociodramatic play when reflecting on action (Schon, 1983) in selected IA moments that highlight students discussing their ideas and relations to local wetlands. Play during co-analysis provided the opportunity for youth to 1) articulate their ideas multimodally through the use of their embodied learning (Georgen, 2019), 2) create imaginative narratives to expand on their place-based experiences (Paley, 2009), and 3) further explore the complex ideas they initially brought up during the nature walk around their relationality to local wetlands ecology.

Significance:
Play is an integral cultural process in youths’ lives which centers them as the primary designers and contributors of their lived experiences. Through playful forms of PDR, we hope to form sustained collaborative engagement aimed at embracing and reflecting deeply on the divergences and uncertainties that occur at the boundaries of youth and researcher perspectives (Penuel et al., 2015). When leveraged within paradigms of participatory community design work, play holds the generative potential to illuminate a lens into community and household practices which create moments of opportunity for youth to share their reflections and contribute as co-researchers during analysis of video data.

Authors

• Zachary D. Ryan, Indiana University

• Mengxi Zhou, Indiana University