Coding of resemiosis

The process of resemiosis and also the development of meaning making over time was addressed by constructing a table that showed each element of speech, gesture

and resource use in the selected excerpt. The example shown in Table 3-16 is drawn from near the end of the first PBL class:

Table 3-16: Example of multimodal analysis structure Time* Verbal semiotic resources (speech) Other synchronous non-verbal semiotic resources Resource category C ont ent C o lla b o ra tio n Re sp o n se s o f id ea s/ c o m p le x ity K now le dge M eta co g n itio n in te rp re ta tio n In te rn alis atio n S ca ff ol di ng

54.21 Okay boys can

I have your attention please,

PT FM BA GM IFS

Students A and B are fiddling with the paddle-pop sticks PT IPP Facilitator: we’re just going to do some of the tricks. TT FE ET IL ISF Facilitator – gesticulates and shows paddle-pop sticks TR FT ISF TS 54.29 Facilitator: So

the tricks are in terms of strength.

CT FE ET IL ISF

Facilitator gestures with his hands to indicate the type of pressure that will be placed on the bridge CT FE ISF MS Facilitator: What you don’t want to have CT FE ET IL ISF MS Facilitator: is the bridge sort of buckling underneath your load springy

CT FE ET IH ISF MS

*Beginning and End points as per camcorder’s timer; the times coincide with the duration of the session, beginning with 0.00.

So in this case the left-hand column shows the time can be related back to the detailed transcriptions in the Appendix provided on CD, with short excerpts of each session in the Appendix at the end of the thesis. Speech is broken down into small excerpts and each is coded, as appropriate. The non-verbal resources are linked to this flow of speech. In some cases a purely descriptive approach has been adopted and in others a video still image has been added to exemplify what is being described. This allows a reading both of the flow of meaning making, where it shifts from the task to content, who is leading the meaning making and how the verbal and non-verbal elements interlink (which dominates, when are they complementary, when are they contradictory).

3.5 Summary

This research is grounded within the interpretivist school of research design (Briggs & Coleman, 2007; Francis & Hester, 2004; Silverman, 2010). That means accepting that the process of observation influences what is being observed and that this is due to the importance of capturing data in context. To assist this, the techniques of participant observation were adopted (Dewalt & Dewalt, 2002; Turner, 2009). A range of techniques have been developed that cover classroom observation and the gathering and analysis of multimodal data. However, the conclusion of this review is that there is no dominant mode by which this is usually carried out. Instead, different research studies use a similar framework but adopt tools for data collection and data analysis that fit their own focus. With this in mind, the next two chapters report the findings, first using the framework of activity theory and then that of multimodality. This allows both an overview of the entire PBL session and a close focus on students’ meaning making at key stages. The concepts developed, and how the data was coded and analysed are discussed in each of those chapters.

Broadly, data collection has been carried out by video-recording the sessions (participant observation). From this data, two related coding schemes were used that allowed an overview of the entire session (Chapter Four) and a detailed examination of particular excerpts (Chapter Five).

Chapter Four

Activity Theory: Overview of PBL Sessions

4.1 Introduction

As discussed in Chapters Two and Three, activity theory has a particular value in allowing an analysis of the context in which a particular learning process takes place. In theory this can be done using multimodal approaches and the concept of resemiosis, but in practice this has proved difficult to achieve (Jewitt, 2006). A second problem with a purely multimodal analysis, as discussed in Chapter Three, is the difficulty in analysing long periods of interaction in those terms (O’Halloran, 2011a; O’Halloran & Smith, 2011).

In combination, this means that activity theory has a threefold role in this analysis:

• To provide an overview of the entirety of the video-recorded classes;

• To form one strand of the analysis, in particular concentrating on the importance of context in the meaning-making process; and,

• To provide a basis for selecting shorter excerpts that exemplify key parts of the meaning-making process that can, in turn, be analysed in multimodal terms.

The first two of these goals can be related to the specific research questions developed for this thesis (see Section 1.3.1). For convenience these are restated here as:

1) Understand the role of context in the PBL task, specifically, how far can the actions of both the students and the tutor be understood in terms of external constraints rather than their own preferred problem-solving / meaning-making approach;

2) Understand the role of the students in the meaning-making process, specifically, do they use different semiotic resources as the task evolves and their understanding shifts?;

3) Understand the role of the tutor/facilitator in the meaning-making process, specifically, does their use of semiotic resources vary as the task evolves and, if so, how does this affect their interaction with the students and use of scaffolding?; and

4) Evaluate the overall performance of the student group in terms of task performance and the students’ construction of meaning.

The primary contribution of this chapter concerns the first goal, that of understanding the context so as to address the criticism that research into student knowledge construction and problem solving has neglected context:

the broader learning context in which the collaboration is embedded. Research has concentrated more on participants’ mental structures than on learning as a situated activity. This type of research has focused on studying the relationship between the cognitive aspects of student interaction and individual learning. Positive results of collaborative interactions have been explained by the notion that peer interaction stimulates the elaboration of knowledge and hence adds individual cognitive gains. Thus, the main interest has been in investigating how collaboration contributes to individual knowledge construction, the mental content of individual minds. Yet, contextual aspects are also important in learning. (Arvaja et al., 2007, p. 448)

In addition, this chapter presents an overview of the entire PBL class. More importantly, Hmelo-Silver (2003) and Jewitt (2006) argue that such an overall analysis can identify specific elements within the overall session that can be usefully analysed in semiotic terms so as to deepen our knowledge of students’ meaning- making process. So, not only can activity theory very directly address one strand of the research question, it can also help answer the others and provide a basis for the selection of shorter excerpts that can be analysed in multimodal terms.

4.2 Overview of PBL sessions

The next six sections briefly review each of the sessions (see Table 4-1) and there is then a discussion of the overall PBL process. This provides an overview that places the subsequent analysis into context using the language and concepts of activity theory (see Section 2.3 and, in particular, Figure 2-4). This is then summarised in Section 4.3, first in terms of activity theory as a whole, then in particular in terms of the importance of the overall academic situation as providing a context for the meaning making and then in terms of the varying forms of interaction between the students and between the students and the facilitator.

The following terms are used to describe the building blocks to the overall PBL class. ‘Class’ is used to describe the totality of the PBL learning experience for the students (ie the five separate events considered together). Each of these separate

one and three saw considerable directive input by the facilitator, these two sesions are also referred to as tutorials as they often operated in that mode, rather than the student-led approach to learning that is central to PBL pedagogy. Finally, the concept of problem is used to describe the task (the bridge design) set for the students in this particular PBL class.

Broadly, the sessions follow the logic of moving from a concentration on the theory behind the bridge design to a consideration of the practical steps involved in using the supplied materials and the test requirements. In addition, there is a transition from tutor-dominated discussions to the students working on their own (Session 4). The final session (five) is a review of the work to date and ends with the students agreeing to revise their model for the formal test.

4.2.1 Session 1 (16 September 2010)

This session lasted for just over one hour and for the bulk of the time the students were working on the mathematical problem posed by how to build a bridge strong enough to bear the weight that would be placed on it.. The session (referred to as Kevin Team 1) commenced with a presentation by the facilitator and was structured around students working on the mathematical properties of the bridge design.

Although the overall object of the session is the bridge design, at this stage the students were more concerned with working out the theoretical forces to be placed on the bridge rather than the physical design of the bridge. The students’ problem solving is thus set by external requirements, in this case, of the academic task of designing and building a model bridge that will bear a set weight given the building resources provided, and in a particular the time available for this. However, within the session, especially towards the end, there is considerable discussion as to just what these rules are and how they will be applied.

The subject in this session is the group of five students. What is noticeable though is how often they worked as individuals or as sub-groups rather than as a coherent group (defined as all five students, or at least most of them, working collaboratively). The ongoing focus on solving a mathematical problem seemed to lead the students to working individually rather than collectively on this task. Across the session, the group dynamics varied as shown in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Group dynamics – Session 1

Type of Group Dynamics

Time (mins, sec) Proportion of Session (%) Group Discussion 9, 48 16.73 Individual Work 18, 10 31.94

Listening to Facilitator (whole class) 11, 47 20.24

Listening to Facilitator (only PBL group) 10, 01 17.67

Sub-Group Discussion 7, 06 13.41

Total 64, 00 100.00

In total across one hour and four minutes, the bulk of the student work was done either working as individuals or in sub-groups (see Figure 4-1). The students adopted an individualised approach to problem solving which may reflect their understanding that the goal of this specific session was to calculate the forces and angles that would be applied to their bridge once it was completed. Their time was split between periods of individual work, periods where part of the team were engaged in discussions, periods where the whole team was engaged in discussion and periods when the team was listening to the tutor (the latter including a formal presentation to the entire room and interaction with the particular PBL team under observation).

16.73% 31.94% 20.24% 17.67% 13.41% Group Discussion Individual Work Listening to Tutor (whole class) Listening to Tutor (only PBL group) Sub-Group Discussion

Across the session the students used a number of tools in support of their problem-solving activity. The dominant tools for both recording their work and carrying out calculations were paper and pencil plus calculators. For the most part the students adopted the tools they needed at each stage. There were instances of use of textbooks, in particular with images of bridge designs that were then used to inform their calculations and design. The other main tool used was a whiteboard with an overhead screen showing relevant calculations. This was introduced early on by the facilitator (Timer 1.20-1.45) 2 to help PBL students carry out the required calculations, and consisted of notes and formulae as shown in Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2: Whiteboard information

At various stages in the balance of the session, students refer back to this information either individually or as small groups. From Timer 16.00 onwards one student makes intermittent use of a laptop. At the start this seems to be to access information from a previous lecture. However, after 30 minutes, some of the team shift their focus to commence sketching out a bridge design. This sees some shift in the use of tools to include both Google and Web-CT information for examples of bridge designs as well as an increased use of the pieces of paddle-pop sticks provided by the facilitator. This search between laptop with images of bridges and physically

2 _{‘Timer’ refers to the camcorder’s timer, and the numbers refer either to a point in time or indicate a}

range of time, as per the timer. For example, 16.00 means that some activity started or ended at 16 minutes, 00 seconds as per the camcorder’s timer, and 52.50-58.40 means an activity lasted from 52 minutes, 50 seconds to 58 minutes, 40 seconds as per the camcorder’s timer. For greater clarity, in the discursive text such numbers are preceded by ‘Timer’. Since the recording of each session

coincided with the beginning and end of the session, these times also coincide with the conduct of the session, such that an event marked ‘Timer 16.00’, for example, means it occurred 16 minutes into the session, and an activity marked ‘Timer 52.50-58.40’, for example, means it began 52 minutes and 50 seconds into the session and ended at 58 minutes and 40 seconds of the session.

working with the pieces of paddle-pop sticks becomes more dominant towards the end of the session and becomes the major tool being accessed from Timer 52.50 onwards.

Figure 4-3: Combination of laptop and bridge design

However, as above, at this stage, the students were not working as a group. The students testing design ideas were not looking at the laptop and the student with the laptop was not contributing to the discussion about bridge design.

The setting of the session rules was developed in various stages. An early input by the facilitator (Timer 1.15-1.45) emphasised the practical task issues and provided additional information for the students (as shown in Figure 4-1). This was followed by another Facilitator’s input from around 22 minutes giving information regarding the timeline for completing the task and then a student discussion about the task process amongst themselves. This conversation was repeated in part of the group at Timer 30.25-31.20, for example at Timer 31.08: “When are these due, next week or something”. The facilitator then provided a lengthy input on the task process and requirements at Timer 37.00-45.10 where he highlighted the importance of the design being able to handle the forces it would be subjected to. Typical of this is what happened at Timer 37.12:

What you’re going to do is to build a bridge or a tower out of these paddle-pop sticks. You’re only allowed to use the paddle-pop sticks or the glue. So the first thing that I want you to think about is how you’re actually going to get a strong structure. Think back to that wire frame job.

A final discussion of the rules (both the objective and the timeline) dominated the last 10 minutes of the session, where the focus was less on the theoretical forces and more on building the bridge to be tested.

This indicates a shifting community involved in the task. Although the five students were the problem-solving team (i.e. the subject), the facilitator intervened at different stages. Some of these interventions were addressed to the wider class (more than one PBL group was working in the room) such as at Timer 1.15-1.45, and at Timer 37.00-45.10. In each of these interventions, information was provided on the whiteboard and the focus was the theoretical knowledge needed for the task.

Figure 4-4: Facilitator’s input – entire class

In addition there were a number of instances where the facilitator engaged directly with parts of the student group (in most of these some team members carried on working on their individual problem solving) such as at Timer 21.55-22.35 and most substantively at Timer 45.10-55.00 where at different stages he was engaged in trying to clarify the task and identifying the nature of the forces that the bridge would be subjected to.

Student discussion of division of labour (as opposed to carrying out the task) was limited in this session. It was not till the end, after Timer 57.10, that there was any discussion about how to organise the task to prepare for the following week and this was mostly in response to clear advice by the facilitator along the following lines:

The preliminary report is next week and then we’ll see some sketches. …

What you’re going to do, yeah. I don’t want you going and gluing stuff together when you’ve got no plans, no idea what you’re doing. So think

about what you’re doing.

Figure 4-5: Facilitator-whole group interaction

What is clear in the opening session (Session 1) is the relative lack of group work between the students (at times one had asked the facilitator a question and others carried on with their own calculations) and their lack of clarity about the complete task. There were a number of interventions by the facilitator to ensure that students had some focus on issues such as design and the likely forces to be exerted on their bridge. In addition, the facilitator’s interventions were intended to keep encouraging the students to think about the task rules and timelines. The absence of group working meant that the opening session was dominated by individual or one-on-one problem- solving activity and the various inputs by the facilitator.

4.2.2 Session 2 (23 September 2010)

The second session took place a week after the first session. In this session students continued to work on the mathematical aspects of the problem, but there was a greater focus on options for bridge design. However, student interaction both within the team and with the facilitator indicated uncertainty about the task they are undertaking. At the start there was a discussion between two of the students about the various tasks they are completing that included the following exchange:

The teachers, they haven’t taught us anything but she just expects us to know all this crap. What does this… mean? …

I’m not too sure, like I haven’t done the class yet … she gets really angry.”

This session lasted just over 45 minutes. The object remained the same in that this