Presentazione di Feldia Loperfido e G. Ritella durante il VI Congresso del CKBG del 14, 15, 16 Giugno 2017 a Napoli.

1. L’APPRENDIMENTO BLENDED
A SUPPORTO
DELL’ESPRESSIONE
DEMOCRATICA DEL SÈ
F. Feldia Loperfido, G. Ritella
Università di Bari, University of Helsinki
E-mail: feldialop@gmail.com; gritella@gmail.com

2. Theoretical perspective (1)
–Dialogism (Bakhtin, 1930/1981, 1941/1965, trans.
1986) as a lens to understand the dynamic and
intersubjective structure of the Self;
–Concepts of polyphony (simultaneous association
of voices) and chronotope (the inseparable
connection between space and time, always
colored by values and emotions);
–Magistral, Socratic and Menippean dialogue
(Bakhtin, 1961/1986) representing the power
relations among the first, the second and the third
voice;

3. Theoretical perspective (2)
–Magistral dialogue  asimmetry of
interlocutors due to the asimmetry of power,
discourse toward a correct meaning;
–Socratic dialogue  questionning and
challenging of voices;
–Menippean dialogue  the third voice is
completely mocked and rejected by the
second one.
–The Dialogical Self. The multiple, dynamic,
and polyphonic presence of several I-positions
and the unity of the Self (Hermans, 2002;
Hermans, Kempen, 1993);

4. Aim
• To investigate how the three forms of dialogue feature the
Self over a blended learning experience

5. The context
• Two blended learning courses held at the University of
Bari, involving 52 burgeoning psychologists (42 females,
14 males)
• The course was based on the Blended Collaborative and
Constructive Participation (BCCP) model (Ligorio &
Cucchiara, 2011)

6. The BCCP model

7. Data collection
• Eight focus group discussions about learning and identity
– First course: one discussion held at the beginning (N=10) and
another at the end (N= 5);
– Second course: three discussions conducted at the beginning (N =
36) and three at the end (because of the higher number of
students) (N = 34).
All of the discussions have been audio-recorded and transcribed by
using the Jefferson notation system.

8. Data analysis
• Dialogical discourse analysis (DDA) (Wortham, 2001) looking at
both narrated (what people say)and storytelling (what people act
when they narrate) events;
• Two steps:
• 1) reading the whole data corpus to have a global view of the utterances
context and to detect indexical clues (references and predication,
metapragmatic descriptors, quotations, evaluative indexicals, and
epistemic modalization)
• 2) re-reading the data looking for interpretative inferences taking into
account the context of the discourse
• Two researchers first performed the two steps of analysis
independently, later they compared and discussed the analysis
involving a third researcher in case of divergence (about 15%).

9. Overview of the results
Beginning End
Narrated
event
- Actual positions: passive, not practical,
traditional – other learning contexts;
- Potential positions: critique,
collaborative, active learners – the
blended context;
- The first voice requires how and what
the second voice has to learn and to
behave;
-The second voice recognizes the third
voice as a system to be criticized
- Actual positions: Individual, independent
and traditional learners – traditional
learning chronotopes; collaborative, active
and critical learners – the blended course;
-The first voice decides how and what the
second voice has to learn. The teacher of
the blended course allows the group
positions and a critique approach to
learning;
- Contradiction between learning
chronotopes, similarity between blended
and job chronotopes
Storytelling
event
- Power relations researcher/students
defined by the researcher
When students talk about the university
system they enact a collective actor
against the system (a “Menippean-We-
Position)
Individual positions;
When students talk about the blended
learning strategies they enact supportive
and collective voices

10. Beginning of the course 2008 – 09, narrated event;
The second voice against the first and the third one

11. End of the course 2009 – 10, narrated event;
A collaborative second voice against the
individualism

12. End of the course 2009 – 10, storytelling event;
A collective voice in the learning course

13. Conclusions (1)
• The Magistral dialogue is associated to the previous
learning experiences;
• System of the Self constituted by the first voice
(teachers), the second one (students) and the third one
(the university system);
• The Menippean dialogue is related to the blended course
and allows students to position themselves as more
collaborative, active, and able to self-defined their own
learning activities;

14. Conclusions (2)
• The first voice of the teacher of the blended course is
perceived as opposite to the third voice;
• Both narrated and storytelling events change over the
course as, at the end, students refer to a new structure of
voices and enact at the interactional level those
collaborative, critique, and active positions related to the
blended course;
• The participation in the course based on the BCCP model
sustained the formation of more democratic relationships
and the distribution of power among the three voices