Dissecting Anatomy Laboratory Learning,

Naturally!

PhD Candidate: Mu-Sen Kevin Chuang

Supervisors:

Dr. Anna Filipi (Faculty of Education)

&

Prof. Marilyn Baird (Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences)

MUHREC Ethics Approval: CF12/3918–201201875

1

Research Aims 1. Using Conversation Analysis (CA)

understand:

◦ The Process of anatomy laboratory teaching-

learning at one Australian institutional context

◦ The Variety of Semiotics used in that process

2. Lived anatomy laboratory learning

experiences of novice students

2

Fundamentals of Conversation Analysis (CA)

Talk-in-interaction is (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 2008):

orderly and participants orient to that

orderliness (Sacks et al, 1974)

co-constructed and locally managed by

participants

recipient designed to negotiate activities

(e.g. requests, proposals, complaints)

embodied practice (Goodwin, 2000; Hutchins 1995)

◦ utterances + other semiotics (e.g. objects,

gestures, and body orientation

3

Letting the Data Speak…

CA Approach:

Uncover the interactional organizations of

social interactions by asking:

◦ ‘What actions are being produced?’

◦ ‘Why that now?’

Produce and analyze transcripts of

naturally-occurring talk

◦ “Unmotivated Looking” (Sacks, 1995)

◦ Next-turn proof procedure Uses show how participants understand and orient to the actions

produced in the previous turn. 4

Data Collection (1 year)

5

Year 1 Radiography Students

Observation Recordings

6 Sessions

(4+2)

234 minutes

(~3.9 hours)

Video Stimulated Recall Interviews

(n=3)

17 Sessions

(6 /participant)

1604 minutes

(~27 hours)

The

Anatomy

Laboratory

6

Work

Tables

Specimen

Shelves

Laboratory

Entry

Computer

Workstations

Door to Hallway & Storage Shelves

Participant Characteristics Characteristics Students Tutors

Anatomy Expertise Novice Expert

Education Experience Recent School Leavers Completed Medical

Degree

Experience using

Anatomy Lab

Little to None Expert

Anatomy Teaching

Experience

Little to None Little to None

*Combined inexperience creates a real transitional space in many

respects where participants have to:

• draw upon their relevant previous experiences

• locally manage and co-construct the turn-by-turn unfolding of talk-in-

interaction 7

8

Membership Categorizations

(Mondada, 2013)

Epistemics

(Heritage, 2012)

Sequential Organization

(Sacks et al, 1974; Schegloff 2007)

Sequential Organization Laboratory

Introductions

1. Getting Ready and

Demonstrating Readiness to Begin

2. Establishing Recipiency

• Tutor Initiated

3. Instruction Proper

4. Instruction Wrap-up/Closing

9

Epistemic Status

K+ (Knowing) K- (Unknowing)

10

Epistemic Stance

◦ May be Aligned/Not

Aligned to epistemic

status

◦ Creates epistemic

gradients

Characteristics

◦ Displayed in moment

to moment unfolding

of utterances

11

S1W1L1 Tutor Nadia

12

Sample 1 S1W1L1 Session Introduction Tutor Nadia

1 Nadia: <hey guy::::s::> (.) u::m::: so I don't know if you

guys

2 all:: know: each other> pretty [well:]::?

3 (S): ((from off screen to the right)) [ya: ]

4 Nadia:

sharp head turn to SF1

5 SF1: [((nods head and gazes at tutor))

6 {nods head and looks at SF1 who increases frequen-

cy of nod

7 Nadia: [{ye::p, tsk•hhhhh {>>if we can just go quickly

around so I can get to know you guys a little bit=

8 =so my name is Nadia I'm one of the doctors at the

(royal) hospital

9 .hhhhh uh::::m:: and I am going to be doing

10 anatomy and radiology tutorials for the next three

MONTHs::

K-

K-

K+

13

Sample 1 Cont’d

14

14 Nadia: what year are you guys in?

15 SF1: [°firs::t:° ]

16 (S): [>firs::t< ]

17 {nods head

18 Nadia: {First yea::r (.) awesome=

19 {gaze jump from student to student to right

20 Nadia: {>so have you done much< {anatomy at all::::?

21 SM: [ya::. ]

22 { students' awkward

expression

23 SF1: [(too much]{thi Hhh s(hhh)week hhhh)

24 Nadia: s::wee::::t > so yu gonna be <pro:::::z: >=

K-

K-

Implications

Laboratory teacher training

◦ better understanding of the socio-cultural

process of knowledge construction

VS

knowledge transmission

Improved understanding of reifying a

curriculum

◦ Process involves the display and negotiation of

membership categories and epistemics

15

Significance / Contribution Generate Empirical Evidence of the Anatomy Learning

Process

First longitudinal qualitative study to track the construction of anatomical knowledge in a social interactional setting

Provides an alternative lens and paradigm to understand anatomy teaching and learning

Theorization

◦ Understanding learning as an interactional phenomenon involving people and objects

Application ◦ Develop training programs to improve effectiveness of teaching and learning

◦ selection, timing and deployment of anatomy resources to support student learning

16

References Bergman, E. M., Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2011). Why don't they know enough

about anatomy? A narrative review. Medical Teacher, 33(5), 403-409. doi:

doi:10.3109/0142159X.2010.536276

Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics,

32(10), 1489-1522. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X

Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevendon, UK; Tonawanda, USA;

Toronto, Canada: Multilingual Matter Ltd.

Heritage, J. (2012). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.

Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30-52. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685

Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge : Polity.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America:

Massacusetts Institute of TEchnology.

Mondada, L. (2013). Displaying, contesting and negotiating epistemic authority in social interaction:

Descriptions and questions in guided visits. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 597-626. doi:

10.1177/1461445613501577

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-

Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge : Cambridge

University Press.Stokoe, E., Benwell, B., & Attenborough, F. (2013). University students managing

engagement, preparation, knowledge and achievement: Interactional evidence from institutional,

domestic and virtual settings. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(2), 75-90. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2013.01.001

17

Sequential Organization and

Embodied Practice

18

Basic CA Transcription Symbols

Symbol Description

Brackets [ ] Indicates utterances produced by two or more speakers that overlap

Equal sign =

Indicates no break or gap and may be used to break up an through-

produced talk by one speaker for convenience of transcription

Timed silence

(1.8)

Intervals of silences (i.e. pauses and gaps in and between speakers’ turns

at talk respectively) are measured in tens of seconds, and represented by

numbers enclosed in parentheses.

Micropause (.) A timed pause of less than 0.2 seconds.

Colon(s) :

indicates sustained enunciation of a syllable. Longer enunciation can be

marked using two or more colons.

Greater

than/Less than

signs

> <

< >

Portions of an utterance delivered at a noticeably quicker (> <) or slower (<

>) pace than surrounding talk.

Degree Signs ° ° Marks speech produced softly or at a lower volume.

Capitalization HEY Represents speech delivered more loudly than surrounding talk.

Unerscored text hey Underscoring indicates stress on a word, syllable or sound.

Underscored

colons ::

Indicates intonational contours, and it indicates that the sound at the point

of the colon is 'punched up'. So it gives a 'down-to-up' contour. 19

Data Generation and Analysis

Data

Video Recordings:

◦ CA Transcripts

◦ CA Analysis

Characteristics

Cyclical (revisits original

data)

Interview Recordings:

◦ Verbatim Transcripts

◦ Thematic analysis

Data Analysis Software:

Nvivo 10

◦ Initial coding and

identification of relevant

sequences

Transana

◦ Transcription of sequences

◦ Create, analyze and

organize of data clips

20

Key Analytical Questions

How do novice anatomy learners and

instructors transition to manage the co-

construction of learning in the anatomy

laboratory?

How do participants transition into the

task of anatomy learning?

What are the patterns in who has the

right to speak and how do they get it?

21

Lab 1 Recording (TBD)

•Interviews (1 week)

Lab 3 Recording (TBD)

•Interviews (1 week)

End of Year

• Complete Data Collection

Data Collection-2013

Orientation Week (Feb 25-Mar 01)

•Pilot Lab Recording (Feb 28)

•Participants Recruitment

Lab 1 Recording (Mar 08)

•Interviews (Mar 08-14)

Lab 2 Recording (Mar 15)

•Interviews (Mar 15-21)

Lab 4 Recording (Apr 12)

•Interviews (Apr 12-19)

Lab 6 Recording (May 3)

•Interviews (May 3-9)

Semester Break

•Students Clinical Placements

Semester 1 – Record 4 out of 7 Possible Anatomy Labs

Semester 2 – Record 2 out of 4 Possible Anatomy Labs

22

Data Collected Semester 1 (10 Weeks)

Weeks

1 2 5 7 8 9

Lab Session Lab 1 Lab 2 Lab 4 Lab 5 Lab 6 Lab 7

Observations 1 2 3 Backup 1 Backup 2 4

Data Length

(minutes)

23 34 28 51 28 46

*Week 6 – computer based Mid semester test (1 Hour)

Semester 2 (10 Weeks)

Weeks 2 3 6 7

Lab Session Lab 1 Lab 2 Lab 3 Lab 4

Observations 5 Backup 3 Backup 4 6

Data Length

(minutes)

54 52 55 49

*Week 6 – computer based Mid semester test (1 Hour)

Semester Break Student Hospital Work Placements

23

Data Summary Semester 1 Semester 2 Total

Observations 4 2 6

Data Length

(Minutes)

131 103 234 (~3.9 Hours)

Backup

Observations

2 2 4

Data Length

(Minutes)

79 107 186

Total Minutes 210 110 320

Interviews 11* 6 17*

Data Length

(Minutes)

1026 578 1604 (~27 Hours)

*One participant missed the first week of interviews 24