A rigourous analysis of multisemiotic data of pedagogic discourse usually involves detailed transcription and annotation of the multimodal corpus. For the purpose of analysis, teacher-fronted segments of thematic extracts were identified from all the participating Singapore-based British international school and Singapore schools. Analyzing the data included noting information about the topic, reading text, lesson
objectives and skills taught and/or concepts discussed in the lesson. In addition, for each thematic extract, the context of lesson, features of talk and use of semiotic resources were noted. Within each table of thematic extracts that were analysed, the researcher annotated for specific codes like open and close questions, short and extended responses, and teacher inputs, topic initiations/invitations, as well as teacher and student repairs. In sum, the segments identified formed a thematic sampling, where the way in which the extracts were identified for analysis was driven by theory on scaffolding, gesture and the research questions in the study.
In CA, the trouble source (TS) describes an identifiable problem in talk that is in need of repair. When the speaker of the TS repairs his or her own utterance spontaneously, it is referred to as self-initiated repair (SR). When somebody other than the speaker of the TS performs a repair of the trouble, it is referred to as other- initiated repair (OIR). It was crucial in this study that the analysis showed the distinction between teachers’ corrections (high adult control) and other-initiated repairs (which foster learner independence). Furthermore, this highlights the fact that corrections would most likely reduce the student’s epistemic authority while other- initiated repairs would foster active involvement in meaning negotiation (Radford, 2010a, 2010b). In addition, Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks (1977) highlighted a type of repair in which speakers (with the trouble source) do not correct their own error in the same turn (SR) or in another turn (OISR). This would be considered as other- initiated other-repair (OIOR). More importantly within the context of classroom discourse, as highlighted by Radford, Ireson and Mahon (2006), repair turns are crucial for learning because they potentially ‘roam’ in the child's zone of proximal development, both cognitively and linguistically.
When trouble occurs, there exists what Schegloff et al. (1977) call ‘multiple repair spaces’ for the trouble to be dealt with. Thus, the repair and repair-initiators could occur in different places in the sequence of the talk (same turn, next turn, third turn, and third-position) and could take more than one attempt to be accomplished, adding to the complexity of the pedagogic discourse organisation. Given this background, all lesson recording were viewed repeatedly in order to isolate all instances in which there appeared to be trouble in the talk highlighted by repair. Thus, the coding of CA conventions (repairs, trouble source, topics) with screen-captures of
the accompanying use of gestures, provided a great discussion in answering the study’s research questions on the role of gestures in teacher’s/student’s formulation of repairs. In addition, the researcher also applied some 'codes' helpful in providing useful information to answer individual research question. These codes, for example, number of occurrences of close/open questions and types of gestures, etc., were used to identify instances of the use of semiotic resources related to each research question. These codes were also identified and checked reiteratively across all thematic extracts to ensure that they are valid codes, applicable across all of the teacher and student participants. The codes only served as an extension to the analysis – an illustration of the rigour of the analysis. Although these codes are applied in the analysis of data, the main approach to analysis in this study is still largely qualitative.
In addition, the captured screenshots of the use of gestures (as non-verbal behaviour) were classified into different categories: iconics, metaphorics, deictics and beats. These were then were coded for various intentions and means of scaffolding strategies; (A) Intentions: Direction Maintenance, Cognitive Structuring, Reduction of Degrees of Freedom, Recruitment and Contingency; (B) Means: Feeding back, Hints, Instructing, Explaining, Modeling, Questioning. Throughout the analysis, the researcher adopted the ethnomethodological structure of CA, i.e., selection and analysis should rest on demonstrable evidence that the participants themselves orient towards the events in a manner indicative of, and consistent with, the analytic focus of the research. Similarly, with the above codes identified for various intentions and means of scaffolding, the analysis will provide a great discussion in answering the study’s research question on how gestures complement the teachers’ scaffolding intentions and means. The 2-part analysis in studying (i) the teachers’ as well as (ii) the teachers’ and students’ interactional patterns during the pedagogic discourse in a reading instruction was aimed at providing insights into the study’s focus – how teachers and students employ the use of speech and gesture to achieve a dialogic approach to teaching and learning.
Table 2 Methods of Analysis for Each Research Question
Research Question Methods of Analysis
What range of semiotic resources do the teachers and
(i) Identification of codes for specific utterances and type of gesture
students employ? gestures) (See Section 4.1.1) What evidence of contingency, fading and transfer of responsibility do the teachers demonstrate?
(i) Identification of codes for specific evidence of contingency, fading and transfer of responsibilities
(ii) Qualitative analysis of multimodal transcription based on scaffolding principles: trouble source, repairs
(See Section 4.1.2) What role does the use
of gestures play in the teachers’ and students’ formulation of
repairs?
(i) Identification of codes for specific type of gesture and repair (ii) A multimodal ‘Visual Frame’ qualitative analysis (illustrated with screen captures) based on classifications of repairs (Self- Repair & Other-initiated Repair), and classifications of gestures: iconics, metaphorics, deictics and beats.
(See Section 4.1.3) How does the use of
gesture complement the teachers’ construction of scaffolding strategies?
(i) Identification of codes for specific evidence of gesture used to complement scaffolding strategies
(ii) Qualitative analysis of multimodal transcription of thematic- based extracts (from teacher-student(s) or student-student interactions based on (I) intentions and (II) means of scaffolding strategies:
(I) Direction Maintenance, Cognitive Structuring, Reduction of Degrees of Freedom, Recruitment and Contingency;
(II) Feeding back, Hints, Instructing, Explaining, Modeling, Questioning.
(See Section 4.1.4) How can teachers and
students employ the use of speech and gesture to achieve a dialogic approach to teaching and learning?
Qualitative analysis of multimodal transcription of thematic-based extracts based on principles of dialogic teaching: collective, reciprocal, supportive, cumulative, and purposeful.
(See Sections 4.2 to 4.5.4)
Table 2 above summarizes how each type of data analysis was employed to answer the study’s specific research questions.
Two of the research questions, the second and fourth, focus on the interactional patterns of teachers in relation to the scaffolding strategies they construct in the classrooms. The other two research questions, the first and third, look at both the interactional patterns of the teachers and students as they engage in talk involving a reading text. The final research question, the fifth, aims to explore both the teachers’ and students’ use of speech and gesture in creating a dialogic teaching and learning.
The analysis is informed by McNeill’s (1985) and Martinec’s (2000) classifications of gestures; van de Pol, Volman and Beishuizen’s (2010) scaffolding principles, means and intentions; and Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks’ (1977) trouble
sources and sequences of repairs. The identification of codes was then used to identify instances of the specific use of semiotic resources related to each research question. Analysis of each of these dimensions helped to inform what goes on in the classroom. Furthermore, it allowed the researcher to have a critical lens to discuss linguistic and multimodal features of the pedagogic discourse between teacher and students, such that the multisemiotic meaning making experiences are explicated. In the next chapter, findings of the study are presented and the semiotic mediation of speech and gestures used in scaffolding principles (in the form of repairs) are discussed further.
3.5 Ethics
As Punch (2000) asserts, “all social research involves consent, access and associated ethical issues, since it is based on data from people about people”. The study ensured that informed consent from all teacher participants and student assent from all student participants were obtained from the selected Singapore-based British international school and Singapore schools. The research adheres to the principles outlined in the Code of Ethics and Conduct and Code of Human Research Ethics written by the Ethics Committee of the British Psychological Society (BPS).
Since part of the data collected (secondary source of data from Singapore schools) is largely from a research study at the research centre, ethics approval was granted by the Research Ethics Committee under the Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, where institutional informed consent from all participants were gathered. (Refer to Appendix 8 for submitted supporting documents for Ethics Approval.) Participants received full information about the research including the reasons they had been chosen to participate. Participants’ privacy, confidentiality and anonymity are guaranteed. Consent forms and a covering letter were provided. The schools were assured that findings would be used appropriately, as would their reporting and dissemination.
For the primary data that was collected from British-based international schools, the study ensured that informed consent from all teacher participants and student assent from all student participants were obtained. Participants received full
information about the research aims and purposes of the study, including the reasons they had been chosen to participate. Since the study involved video recordings, participants’ privacy, confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed. The ‘blurring’ of minute areas of screen captures (classroom scenes) were ensured to prevent any potential facial recognition. All raw and formatted video files were stored digitally in hard drives, used exclusively for the research, with password protection. Any data shared were only with those who were part of the research (supervisor and research participants). A clear set of procedures was established to ensure data was not lost during or after data collection. The schools were assured that findings would be used appropriately, as would their reporting and dissemination. If findings of the research study is shared in the future at conferences, teacher professional development workshops or published in journal articles, participants’ confidentiality and anonymity will also be guaranteed. The researcher will ensure that there is no identification of the research participants or schools. In addition, all participants and schools will be informed of such sharing and publication platforms.
Chapter Four