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