posted on 2017-03-20, 01:09authored byMu-Sen Kevin Chuang
Anatomy instructional
methods research and the persistent debate regarding dissection have been
criticised as being overly emotive and lacking the support of empirical
evidence in both numbers and quality (Bergman, Van Der Vleuten, &
Scherpbier, 2011; Winkelmann, 2007).
This doctoral thesis applies conversation analysis (CA), a
qualitative research method, to reveal the extent to which social-interaction
profoundly shapes laboratory teaching and learning. The aim is to describe the
defining features of the radiography anatomy laboratory community of practice,
a term originally coined by Lave and Wenger (Hellermann, 2008), in order to
understand how members (i.e. demonstrators and students) enact and renew their
participant roles through interaction. This applied-CA investigation examines
how previously identified social interaction principles that guide everday
conversations are altered and adapted in an institutional setting such as the
anatomy teaching-learning laboratory.
In particular, this thesis builds upon the works of Benwell
and Stokoe (2002, 2005), who in the context of university education in the
United Kingdom (UK), have investigated how university tutors and students display
and negotiate teaching-learning agenda and institutional membership roles,
identities, and relationships during the tutorial openings. Similarly, the
present investigation examines the social identities and relationships that are
made relevant, embodied, and negotiated by the participants in the anatomy
laboratory context. To study this, the CA method was applied to six video
records of anatomy laboratory sessions. The recordings were made at
pre-selected time points throughout the first-year radiography program at an
Australian university. The CA analyses are grounded in previous investigations
that conceptualise interaction as complex multi-layered social and cultural
actions, which the participants co-construct and make sense of by drawing upon
and making relevant a variety of interactional resources such as body language,
sentence structure, tone, membership, affiliation and the local interaction
contexts (Drew, 2012a; C. Goodwin, 2013; Mondada, 2007; Streeck, 2009).
This investigation demonstrates that the seemingly ‘messy’
teaching-learning processes that often characterise laboratory classes can be
systematically analysed and understood. Analyses show that participants
collaboratively organise interactions by orienting to a set of implicit social
and cultural principles that lead to emergent regular structures and patterns
of interaction. Furthermore, data suggests that participants develop evolving
cultural practices that are indicative of the formation of a community of
practice. By making these practices visible, CA provides a means for anatomy
educators to study, reflect upon, and reconceptualise their laboratory teaching
practices. Additionally, guidelines may be recommended to educators to improve
the quality of their pedagogical interaction. Most importantly, instructional
approaches may be more accurately described before jumping to conclusions and
interventions without a thorough understanding.