McQuade2018

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
McQuade2018
BibType ARTICLE
Key McQuade2018
Author(s) Robert McQuade, Sally Wiggins, Esther Ventura-Medina, Tony Anderson
Title Knowledge disagreement formulations in problem-based learning tutorials: balancing pedagogical demands with 'saving face'
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, formulations, pedagogy, tutorials, student interaction, tutorial learning, problem-based learning, disagreements
Publisher
Year 2018
Language English
City
Month
Journal Classroom Discourse
Volume 9
Number 3
Pages 227–243
URL Link
DOI 10.1080/19463014.2018.1495089
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

As a pedagogical approach that aims to develop students’ group-working skills and to challenge their current knowledge, problem-based learning (PBL) provides a unique setting in which to examine disagreements in interaction. Previous research on disagreements in classrooms has typically examined tutor–student interaction or student–student interaction in which a tutor is present. This paper, however, examines tutorless PBL tutorials and focuses specifically on those moments in which knowledge claims are challenged by other students. The data comprise 30 h of video recordings from 24 chemical engineering PBL tutorials in a Scottish university. Conversation analysis was used to identify 101 disagreement formulations, many of which follow the format seen in other classroom settings (e.g. agreement-prefaced disagreements). A subset of disagreement formulations manage epistemic responsibility through invoking expert sources (e.g. tutor-provided worksheets and academically superior out-group members). Through invoking an expert source in this way, students attend to the pedagogical activities – without tutor assistance – while minimising the conversational trouble associated with the act of ‘doing’ disagreement (i.e. indirectly enacting disagreements whilst maintaining a neutral stance). This paper thus contributes to CA literature on disagreements, while providing a unique insight into PBL tutorial interaction. Directions for future research are suggested.

Notes