7.4 Adolescent Communication of Navigational Information The third research question was “what are the mechanisms which adolescents employ to coach their peers to successfully navigate alien environments?” These mechanisms have been documented and analyzed at length in Chapter Three. It was clear that students who were successful in completing the orienteering task employed certain kinds of discourse types (for example, ‘directed tips’ and ‘questions seeking elaboration’) more frequently than those who were not. For example, Table 6 shows that on average, successful leading pairs used 11.000 interactional scaffolds per task, compared to 5.667 for those who were not successful in helping their peers navigate the orienteering route. This difference in means was significant (significance = 0.012, F(1, 18) = 7.712). Similarly, Table 7 shows that successful following pairs used 4.000 follow-ups (such as ‘demands for information’) on average, per task, compared to only 1.909 for those who were not successful in deducing the given route. Again, this difference in means was significant (significance = 0.044, F(1, 17) = 4.721).
This dialogue between the teacher-figure and the learner, which is so central to learning, has been modeled by Laurillard (2001), in her so-called ‘conversational framework’. Itself based on the work of Pask (1975, 1976), her framework distinguishes between theoretical representation and experiential environment, through the lenses of both teacher and learner. She sees this distinction as critical to an understanding of higher level learning, through the linkage of theory with practice. 
As depicted in Figure 31, the distinction between theoretical representations and experiential environments is represented by the two main rows in the figure, while that between the teacher and student is represented by the two outermost columns in the figure. The numbered flows in Figure 31 correspond to a general sequence of instruction, teaching and learning. Thus, for example, flows 1 to 4 indicate that generally, instruction first takes place as a mediation between the teacher’s and student’s respective theoretical representations, and is initiated by the teacher. Through flow 5, the teacher then enacts the transition of the learning process from theoretical representations to their respective experiential environments. Flow 10 represents how the student reshapes his theoretical representation, as a result of having participated in the experiential environment; while flows 11 and 12 represent the metacognitive interplay, in both the student’s and the teacher’s worlds respectively, between theory and practice.
Of particular relevance to the present study is the interaction between teacher and student in the experiential environments. In Laurillard’s model, this interaction is captured in flows 6 to 9, and is elaborated upon in the following paragraphs.
Laurillard recognises that depending on the nature of the mathemagenic activity (that is, the activity which “gives birth” to the mathemos [Gk, “that which is to be learned”]), different parts of the conversational framework would come more into focus than others. These focuses would be dependent upon the strategies and learning experiences designed by the teacher. In the context of the present study, the learning experience which most closely corresponds to the intervention is what Laurillard (2002: 90) terms as investigating and exploring.
The most appropriate strategy which she sees fit for such investigations and explorations is a so-called interactive strategy, in which students act, and receive feedback, within the task environment (Laurillard, 2002: 78). In such interactive strategies, it is the interactions between teacher and student in the experiential environment (or, more accurately in the context of the present study, between the leading pair and the following pair in the orienteering activity) which are especially relevant (Laurillard, 2002: 113). These are highlighted in the model presented in Figure 31.
For example, a discriminant analysis revealed a group of discourse types – ‘interactional scaffolds’ – that the former group used significantly more of (F(1, 18) = 7.712, p = 0.012). As elaborated upon in Chapter Three, interactional scaffolds include discourse types such as ‘directed tips’ and ‘questions seeking elaboration’. Such discourse types correspond well to Laurillard’s (2001) flow 8 – ‘teacher’s world gives feedback on action’. This is depicted in Figure 32.
As for the ‘follow’ pairs, a discriminant analysis revealed that those who were successful in deducing the correct route during the orienteering task used significantly more ‘follow-ups’ (F(1, 17) = 4.721, p = 0.044) – corresponding to Laurillard’s (2001) learners modifying actions in light of feedback – than the unsuccessful pairs. This is depicted as flow 9 in Figure 33. 
An example of the interactions depicted in Figures 32 and 33 can be taken from an eight-minute extract from one of the messaging transcripts (Figure 13) from Case Two , which was first presented in Chapter Five. This extract is reproduced in Figure 34. 
Note how the initial task frame from time index 1512 (corresponding to flow 6 in Laurillard’s framework) prompted the ‘follow’ pair to seek clarification (flow 7). The task frame was thus subsequently augmented by a scaffold (flow 8) at time index 1517. This resulted in the successful completion of this portion of the task (flow 9) and a request by the following pair for information pertaining to the next step.
Helpful though Laurillard’s framework is in shedding light on the precise nature of the discourse between participants in this study, it is not without its own limitations. For example, her original conception of the idealized learning environment represented by Figures 32 and 33 was not fieldwork, or even online conferencing. Instead, Laurillard originally envisaged interactions between the respective experiential environments of ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ as best typified by the guided exploration of ‘interactive multimedia resources on CD or DVD’ (Laurillard, 2002: 113). It is thus apparent that a contribution which the present study makes to the field of discourse analysis and conversational frameworks is that it serves to extend the envelope, not only of what constitutes the ‘teacher-learner’ relationship, but also of the very nature of the possible learning environment – beyond the dry confines of the computer laboratory into the neighbourhood of the everyday.
One implication of the present research would therefore be that students should be explicitly taught to use the discourse types which have been proven to be of utility in contexts of peer collaboration. Thus, abstracting from the very specific case of pairs of students teaching and learning from each other about wayfinding using messaging technologies, to what extent can discourse types such as those listed in preceding paragraphs (which have been shown to have been effectively used by students who were successful in completing the orienteering task) be explicitly taught to other students so that they can improve the quality of collaborative learning in peer-mediated groups in general? That is to say, although collaborative learning is a popular pedagogical strategy in many classrooms and learning environments, might this strategy benefit from a focus not only on role-differentiation between the various protagonists, but also on helping the students learn how to teach and learn from each other more effectively?
For example, the significant correlation between the use of ‘task frames’ and time taken to complete the orienteering task (Tables 24 and 25), regardless of whether the participants were in the role of either the ‘tutor’ (‘lead’ pair; correlation = 0.517, p = 0.007, N = 26) or the ‘tutee’ (‘follow’ pair; correlation = 0.588, p = 0.002, N = 26), would seem to corroborate Rogoff’s (1993) assertion that, particularly with the complex exchanges expected in peer-coaching and peer-scaffolded learning environments, clear communication of task expectations and of shared understandings are critical to successful outcomes through guided participation. This is especially so given the correlation between the use of ‘clarifications’ and time taken, as well (correlation = 0.603, p = 0.001, N = 26).
In particular, the use by ‘lead’ pairs of ‘task frames’ – highlighted in the preceding paragraph – corresponds well to Laurillard’s (2001) setting of task goals (flow 6 in Figure 31). This indicates that as the task progressed, members of successful ‘lead’ pairs perservered in guiding their peers along the given route. They did not give up. As for the ‘follow’ pairs, the preceding paragraph has reminded us of the significant correlation between the time taken to complete the task and the use of both ‘clarifications’ and ‘task frames’. In other words, as the task progressed, members of successful ‘follow’ pairs, while growing increasingly anxious as to their chances of success, nevertheless persevered and used the ‘task frames’ (flow 7 in Figure 31) to complete the route within the allotted time. These ‘task frames’ include ‘questions seeking elaboration’, ‘questions seeking purpose’, ‘exploratory and procedural questions’, and ‘statements or questions seeking to either verify or report attainment’. The lessons for teachers and learners would seem to be clear: when faced with a challenge, do not give up but instead continue to ask particular types of questions and give feedback to the teacher about the perceived progress of the learning.
Such exhortations are at once supported by, yet go beyond, prior work on the teaching of geography through cooperative learning strategies. For example, Chang (unpbl.), investigating the use of webquests as a tool for cooperative learning in geography, cautioned that although the roles of the students might be clearly spelt out in the webquest instructions, the teacher often plays a critical role in providing guidance on individual accountability and encouragement to adhere to these very roles. Likewise, Tan, Sharan, and Lee (2005), on the use of the strategy known as ‘Group Investigation’ in geography, noted that “cooperative group work in the classroom will generate many problems for the students unless teachers have the time to provide the proper training for their students”.
Teachers designing collaborative learning activities should therefore take care to coach in, and model for, members of both ‘expert’ and ‘novice’ groups the use of specific modes of discourse which this study has strongly suggested to have been instrumental in the successful communication of procedural knowledge from one group of adolescents to another.
Coaching and modelling, as opposed to explicit instruction, are especially important given both Rogoff’s (1995) work on guided participation and Gee’s (2001) caveat that social languages are typically acquired through immersion in meaningful practice. As a corollary of using these particular modes of discourse (for example, those under the category ‘task frames’), learners should also be encouraged to practise the habit of mind of perseverance. In doing so, they would be practising what Rogoff has identified as participatory appropriation within their respective ZPDs.
<- 7.3 Adolescent Communication of Environmental Understanding -> 7.5 The Role of Messaging in Augmenting Environmental Understanding |
