Abstract
While the focus of this book is generally to explore whether multivocal analysis of the same dataset can lead to productive interactions among researchers and possible theoretical and/or methodological developments that this may bring about, this chapter explores whether such multivocality would have meaningful implications for practice. Our analysis demonstrates that irrespective of the analysts’ theoretical or methodological constructs, whether the work has pedagogical relevance depends largely on the purpose and focus of the analysis. A meaningful analysis from the practice perspective can be made by researchers who do not themselves generate the data, and using analytical methods that are grounded on theoretical frameworks different from the ones underpinning the pedagogical practice contexts from which the data were collected. Pivotal moments that are directly linked to the subject matter domain being studied are likely to be easily appreciated by teachers as relevant to their practice. However, not all pivotal moments have direct relevance to pedagogical practice. Further, this preliminary study as provides substantial evidence that the multivocality in interaction analysis can be productive in providing valuable insight and pedagogical support to teachers interested in implementing collaborative learning in their everyday practice. Overall, we find that multivocal interaction analysis can contribute to two types of relevance to practice: those that can inform more immediate pedagogical decision-making and those that provide more general insight and understanding to the processes and outcomes of learning and knowledge building in collaborative contexts.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fisher, E. (1993). Distinctive features of pupil-pupil classroom talk and their relationship to learning: How discursive exploration might be encouraged. Language and Education, 7, 239–257.
Flanders, N. (1970). Analyzing teacher behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kumpulainen, K. (1996). The nature of peer interaction in the social context created by the use of word processors. Learning and Instruction, 6, 243–261.
Kumpulainen, K., & Wray, D. (2002). Classroom interaction and social learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359–377.
Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.
Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problems of human relations. Washington, DC: Nervous & Mental Disease Publishing Co.
Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2006). Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., pp. 1370–1373). New York, NY: Macmillan Reference.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
UNESCO. (2011). ICT competency framework for teachers. Paris: Author. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002134/213475e.pdf
Valli, L. (Ed.). (1992). Reflective teacher education: Cases and critiques. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Law, N., Laferrière, T. (2013). Multivocality in Interaction Analysis: Implications for Practice. In: Suthers, D., Lund, K., Rosé, C., Teplovs, C., Law, N. (eds) Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 15. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8960-3_35
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8960-3_35
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8959-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8960-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)