SOLE Session 14: A deviant case

This session is considered a deviant case (Schegloff, 1968) because of the 11 audio- recordings, this was the only one in which the control exerted over information and artefacts by one participant prevented the group from effectively comprehending texts and finding an answer to the big question. Participation structure of interaction was defined by the big question: “Using alternative energy, how can we light up our Christmas tree?” At the time of this session, students had already answered the following electricity-related questions:

Session 4: What is a dynamo and how does it work? Session 5: How does a dynamo generate energy? Session 6: How to power a lightbulb with wind?

Session 7: How can you generate electricity with potatoes? Session 8: What conducts electricity better: a lemon or a potato?

126

Session 12: Why do solids conduct electricity better than liquids?

Session 13: Why don't all fish die when lightning strikes the sea? Explain Therefore, students were already acclimated with the concept of electricity as well as performing searches, typing the question and other activities common to SOLE

sessions. Spatial organization (i.e. SOLE laboratory), SOLE rules, and allocated time to answer the big question remained the same as in all other sessions.

The group had only two participants for most of the session, a boy and a girl.

Participants sat together on one bench and both were able to see the information on the screen. One participant took control over the keyboard and mouse and read for the entire session while the other participant did not oppose to it. It was noted that when information was being loaded in the screen, the boy was asking the girl personal questions about celebrations and holidays. He invited her to a playdate and they had a conversation about different things they do at home. Despite the focus on personal information, there were several attempts to find answers to the question, however, highly controlled by the girl.

The participation structure in this segment focused on scouting through links to find a suitable website answering the big question. A participant looked and discarded websites until she found one she liked. However, when a second participant disagreed with her choice, she quickly clicked on a link of her preference.

127

Transcript Type of Skill or Ability Observation Screenshot

[Mouse click] Ann continued doing a couple

more searches but could not find an answer that satisfied her.

This is a Google Search screen showing results for the question, “How can you use natural resources to light up a Christmas tree?” The first link is a news article reporting the switch from traditional to LED lights in Christmas trees. The second link is a personal narrative. The third is a PDF document with advice for buying the first

Christmas tree. The last is a link to a website with information for visitors to the lighting of the Christmas tree ceremony in Washington, DC

. Ann: I'm going to have popcorn

for movie night. [Mouse scrolling] I think I found it.

Chatting, pointing out a link

Boy 2 Oh really? Acting surprised, acknowledging comment

[Making noises]

Ann: No! [Mouse scrolling] No! [Mouse scrolling] No! [Mouse scrolling]

Reading silently, discarding links

[Making noises]

Ann: Yes! Acknowledging finding a link Boy 2 I, I was pointing to that. Pointing out a link

[Mouse click] Using link, ignoring comment

Boy 2 No! No, but that’s a ceremony.

Making a request, explaining information, making an inference from text

128 Description of Participants’ Interactions

The segment began after Ann typed the rephrased question and clicked the Enter key. She was chatting with James when she announced she found a helpful link (Chatting, pointing out a link), to which James replied, “Oh really?” (Acting surprised,

acknowledging comment). Ann did not respond to James’' comment, but silently read (Reading silently) information in links, which can be inferred by Ann repeatedly saying, “No!” followed by sound of a mouse scrolling down the page (Discarding links). She discarded three links until she said, “Yes!” (Acknowledging finding a link), but James told her he was pointing to a different link (Pointing out information a link), and Ann quickly clicked on a different link than the one James was pointing to (Ignoring

comment). James told Ann that the link she had chosen referred to a ceremony (Making a request, explaining information), inferring that information was unrelated to the big question (Making an inference from text).

Description of Participants’ Interactions with Artefacts

The group was confronted with three artefacts of interaction: size of TV screen, mouse, and Google Search links. Size of TV screen allowed both participants to read links and also to track each other’s’ actions. For instance, when Ann placed mouse on a link, she did not have to say which link she was pointing out since James could see the cursor resting on it. This saved time and allowed group to focus on the content of the links. The mouse also played an important role: Ann had full control of mouse and ignored James’ choice and comment by just clicking on a link of her choice. Finally, links regulated the participants’ actions: the group manoeuvred around texts based on the big question.

Interpretation

It is evident that Ann and James were both trying to find the answer to the question. However, Ann was doing this search independent of James, that is, she imposed her choices and James did not stop Ann’s actions. As a result, group did not form networks that might have led to better text comprehension and ultimately to a better choice of link.

As in other sessions, participation structure was centred on answering the big question, and thus navigating webpages and reading different texts. This session was mainly

129

characterised by the lack of participants’ turn-in-interaction. It began with three participants and soon thereafter one left. Of the two remaining, one participant

maintained full control over reading, mouse, and keyboard for the entire session while the second participant mostly watched the other making all the choices and rarely intervening to provide his own opinion. Comprehension networks in SOLE are highly dependent on connections forming in interaction. However, when control is exerted over information and/or materials, groups do not form networks and comprehension becomes problematic and limited to the person controlling the interaction, as in session 14. Since one of the participants refused to consider the ideas presented by the other, a graph representing the interaction is unnecessary: Self-organisation did not occur here.