RQ4: What are the implications of the findings in terms of SoTL, Higher Education teaching, and CPD for knowledge development of

teaching-learning interactions?

In developing a SoTL framework (such as that in Figure 5.2), my contribution is that more attention needs to be paid to communication in its various forms. Embedding the insights on the multimodal character of communication and the existence of various material elements of interaction can inform new tutors’ training and CPD activities as an expanded understanding of SoTL.

With regards to this SoTL expansion, by using a novel analytical tool (IG), I have demonstrated the potential of semiotic and multimodality approaches to provide support for tutors’ reflection, particularly those highlighted in 5.2.3

regarding the physical infrastructure, dialogic interactions and the impact of non-verbal communications. It is important to discuss with the tutors how all elements of interaction and their layers of meaning are operating in the classroom, as a symbolic space full of meaning-making signs.

167

From an Accounting Education perspective, the main implication for

developing pedagogical practices in HE and via CPD activities is to firstly raise awareness that teaching-learning interactions are being characterised by didactic approaches with the tutor accepting the dominant role and not disrupting the passive roles assumed by students. Student performance is a key metric with pressure on achievement of high grades for league tables and tutors may be reluctant to cede any control of classroom activities, even if they are aware. However, the implication is tutors do not understand that students’

behavioural and cognitive engagement is not obtained by tutor-centred environments. This leads to the key contribution of this study with the demonstration of a how a more holistic approach can reveal what may be hidden from tutors as they press on with delivering their curriculum. The multimodal, semiotic approach here, with SI and EduS underpinnings, as a means to reveal a deeper understanding of teaching-learning interactions can take common approaches to investigation (such as peer observation of

teaching) to new levels incorporating issues of emerging identities, verbal and non-verbal communications, including re-examining frequently provided artefacts in classrooms for their effective affordances. The adoption of Si and EduS has allowed for a rich description and analysis of what is often taken for granted, and often missed, in classrooms and enabled a focus that has gone well beyond verbal interactions. In making this claim, I am not suggesting that everything has been seen, nor all perspectives obtained and further

interpretations, as well as further work, are desirable. I would further caution that the time-consuming nature of the analytical approach here means it is unlikely to be used routinely by individual tutors but could become part of a

168

SoTL approach that allows for periodic scrutiny, then further development at programme levels.

I do not consider that individual tutors can achieve the changes needed; the structural and agentic issues that have come from investigating teaching- learning interactions in one discipline have wider implications across institutions to include the physical infrastructure as well as the dialogic and non-verbal communication structures of how classroom practices are framed. There are other related issues, not least concerning the use of VLEs, the nature of assessments driving learning, and how they would complement the findings from this study in support of effective teaching-learning engagements.

I would advocate for a peer support network at institutional levels that actively supports programme teams to bring about a cultural change to understanding what is occurring in classrooms, with a focus on identity interactions; non-

verbal mediations, and teaching-learning engagements themes. This would

be beyond current peer observation of teaching practices and could usefully be done across disciplines to break out of signature pedagogy dispositions.

There already exists a wealth of resources on SoTL matters; mainstream examples include the UK’s Higher Education Academy (now AdvanceHE) and

the significant outputs in journals and textbooks on SoTL. This raises issues of how these are accessed by practitioners, or indeed whether they are. Such a plethora of resources, not all in one place, is not a practical option for busy academics to access and make sense of, let alone put into practice; hence, my preference for programme teams and peer network support at institutional level.

169

Given the time-consuming nature of fine detailed analysis, IG analytics would not serve to analyse extensive data as practitioners would not be doing their PhD research. In terms of multimodality and edusemiotics, it was clearly shown that teaching-learning interactions are multimodal practices that

happen when human actors are positioned in physical material spaces, using material resources (e.g. handouts, technology). An IG analysis can be easily appropriated to an analysis of short video snippets or photograph taken of practice, in order to bring into a tutor’s consciousness the semiotic awareness

of environmental complexities that an edusemiotic approach promotes. This can lead to a greater awareness and understanding of the ‘wicked’ issues

encountered to allow for individual and group tutor reflection. As an IG has a conceptual object, this conceptual object acts as a lens with which meanings that happen in the classroom can be observed through. The conceptual object will therefore provide some theoretical notions of why some practices happen, considering for example structure (social relations) and agency (individual positioning), as well as many other issues of power, ideology, favouritism, disruption, exclusion and so on,

A top-down initiative supporting a bottom-up programme team knowledgeable about their operational context and who are empowered to bring about a significant change project is more likely to succeed. So, the use of the analytical approach applied in this study is advocated in CPD and teacher training and reflective practice as applied as mentioned above, on short video examples or photographs as the analysis is flexible in that sense and at key points determined by programme teams. An IG analysis can help teachers understand embodied teaching-learning practices and nuances of socio-

170

material interactions (Fenwick, 2010; Fenwick and Edwards, 2013). Although this thesis did not venture into tackling sociomateriality, the adopted

approaches of multimodality and edusemiotics are related to the field. Future studies that apply an IG analysis or explore embodied and material

environment structures can further develop this area.