McQuade2018
| 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 | |
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
