• Save
Simultaneous consideration of different levels of analysis in educational dyadic conversations
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Simultaneous consideration of different levels of analysis in educational dyadic conversations

on

  • 2,618 views

Mauri, T., & Clarà, M. (2011). Simultaneous consideration of different levels of analysis in educational dyadic conversations: A discourse analysis scheme. Symposium: Methodological strategies for ...

Mauri, T., & Clarà, M. (2011). Simultaneous consideration of different levels of analysis in educational dyadic conversations: A discourse analysis scheme. Symposium: Methodological strategies for the study of teaching and learning: Approaches from discourse analysis. ISCAR. Rome, 5-10 September.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,618
Views on SlideShare
0
Embed Views
3,522

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

3 Embeds 3,522

http://www.psyed.edu.es 1698
http://www.psyed.edu.es 1698
http://psyed.edu.es 126

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Simultaneous consideration of different levels of analysis in educational dyadic conversations Simultaneous consideration of different levels of analysis in educational dyadic conversations Presentation Transcript

  • Simultaneous consideration of different levels of analysis in educational dyadic conversations: A discourse analysis scheme Teresa Mauri Marc Clarà
  • Plan
    • Data
    • Discourse analysis scheme
    • Type of results
  • Data: setting
    • Internship of a student teacher in school (4 months)
    • One teacher of the school is the tutor of the student teacher
    • The student teacher must plan and develop an educational unit with children of 7 and 8 years old
  • Data
    • Main data: The conversations between the student teacher and the tutor during the whole internship
    • Data registered in audio files
    • Other support data for interpretation, such as interviews, documents, a diary by the teacher student, field notes, etc.
  • Analytic scheme 1.Segments of interactivity (Coll and col.)
    • A set of interaction which is articulated according to the same Participation Structure and the same broad theme or topic
      • Participation structure: the set of rules about who can do or say what, when and to whom
  • Analytic scheme 1.Segments of interactivity T: A work? a work about what? 7 S: the unit (...) the theme of the unit, I already have to choose, because this month I have to do a work and take all the information (...) 6 T: Ok, what else? what do we have to talk about? 5 S: Ok 4 T: No (...) no, we’ll introduce you and that’s all (...) and if you want you can talk (...) I don’t know, perhaps there is a moment where you can tell some anecdote or something 3 S: And do the parents have not inconvenient on a teacher student assist to the meeting? 2 T: Ok, so what we have done is to distribute a little bit each section of what each teacher will say, and each teacher prepares it and that’s all. And what we’ll do on Monday is to share it for the meeting of Tuesday 1
  • Analytic scheme 2.Speech acts (Austin, 1982; Coll and col.)
    • The minimal meaningful discursive production
    • Categorization of the theme of each speech act, by means of a Grounded Theory procedure
  • Analytic scheme 2.Speech acts ASK S : yes, “what dos it happen in the lungs with this air?” 7 ASK T : “Why do we need this air”, ok? 6 SAY If they say oxygen it would be great! 5 ASK and then to ask “and why? what do we do with this air?” 4 SAY and perhaps they will say to obtain energy or to... 3 What the pupils say (SAY) I guess that they can say that to live, otherwise we would die 2 What the student asks to the pupils (ASK) S : ...and possible questions I have, well, the fist one, why do we have to breath and what would it happen if we didn’t breath 1
  • Analytic scheme 2.Speech acts Theme: what they are talking about Segments of interactivity: When?
  • Analytic scheme 3.Movement (Wells,1999; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975)
    • The minimal interactive unit: the minimal discursive action by a participant that deserves a response by an interlocutor
    • Categorization of each movement according to (Wells, 1999):
      • Initiation-Response-Feedback sequence
      • Demand-Give-Acknowledgement prospectivity
  • Analytic scheme 3.Movement G R T: Well, then we’ll see, I have to wait to the next session, because perhaps they are very interested in breathing, or in eating... (...) 104 D F/I S: And then, when we are in the human body? because there are a lot of things in the human body 103 G R T: yes, it is to add characteristics to the living beings, the idea is the body and the livings beings, but I thing that these children cannot directly go to the living beings, so these days we have been remembering the animals they know (...) Then the idea is to go to the question (...) in what are we similar? what do we do similarly than animals? are we very similar or not?... in this direction 102 G R S: ...the human body 101 G R T: My idea is... where I go to is... 100 D I S: And what would it be? 99
  • Analytic scheme 3.Movement
    • Categorization of each movement according to the use of the voice (Bajtín, 1993)
      • Univocal Direct voice: the utterance is articulated with only one voice, and is the own voice of the locutor
      • Univocal Objectified voice: the utterance is articulated with only one voice, but it is not the own voice of the locutor, but another voice which is ventrilocuated by the locutor
      • Bivocal Subordinated voice: the locutor takes the interlocutor’s utterance and put it in his own intention (in the same direction), but without developing more the utterance
      • Univocal Shared voice: the locutor takes the interlocutor’s utterance and put it in his own intention (in the same direction), and he develops the utterance
  • Analytic scheme 3.Movement UD G R Well, then we’ll see, I have to wait to the next session, because perhaps they are very interested in breathing, or in eating... (...) 104 UD D F/I S: And then, when we are in the human body? because there are a lot of things in the human body 103 UD/ UO G R T: yes, it is to add characteristics to the living beings, the idea is the body and the livings beings, but I thing that these children cannot directly go the living beings, so these days we have been remembering the animals they know (...) Then the idea is to go to the question (...) in what are we similar? what do we do similarly than animals? are we very similar or not?... in this direction 102 BS G R S: ...the human body 101 UD G R T: My idea is... where I go to is... 100 UD D I S: And what would it be? 99
  • Analytic scheme 3.Movement
  • Type of results
    • In the beginning of the development of the use of a representation:
    Structure of Control of Give 1 (SCG1)
  • Type of results
    • At the end of the development of the use of a representation:
    Structure of Control of Give 2 (SCG2)
  • Type of results
    • During the development of the use of a representation by the teacher student, the structures of interaction between the student and the tutor evolve:
    from SCG1 to SCG2
    • There are some intermediate structures, which allow the transition between SCG1 and SCG2
  • Type of results
    • Intermediate Structure 1: Prolongative
    S: ...or what do we have learnt in this class 2207 T:...what they say, so all this part of listening to each other, of talking, let’s see if they say so also 2206 S: ...in order to see what they... 2205 T: no, but for example, I was thinking that perhaps you can make a question related to how we worked sciences these days...”What do we do in science classes?”, for example 2204
  • Type of results
    • Intermediate Structure 2: Tutor controlled SCG2
    S: Why do we have to eat? 579 T: of course, of course 578 S: why do we have to eat? 577 T: to say, why do we eat?, isn’t it?, why do we eat? 576 S: yes, yes, a debate, a debate 575 T: the thing about the energy, it will be by means of a conversation, isn’t it? 574
  • Type of results
    • Intermediate Structure 3: fight for the control
    T: no, but what he said... so don’t say cells, he said, Pau said to the whole body, what does it mean this, to the whole body? how, how, what does it happen? 1806 S: but only Pau knew about cells, the others had no idea 1805 T: Yes, but I think that this idea of saying, look, what does it mean? what does it mean that the blood is the responsible of taking the oxygen to the cells? what does it mean? 1804
  • Conclusions
    • Method of conversational analysis in dyadic interaction that permits to characterize the evolution of zones of proximal development
    • The method is based on:
      • 1) the identification of the use of a representation
      • 2) the characterization of the join activity in which this representation is used, in order to see the evolution of the structures of join activity
    • This method allowed us to identify a specific evolution of join activity
      • from SCG1 to SCG2
      • and a set of intermediate structures which allow this evolution
  • New directions
    • Extend the method to multiple (not dyadic) interactions
    • The characterization of the individual action toward the join activity
  • Thank you so much