Towards a Methodological
Approach for the Analysis of Issues of Communication and Control in Networked
E-Learning Discourse
Jenny Gustafson1,
Vivien Hodgson2, Louise Kehler3, Sarah Mann4,
and Sanne Fejfer Olsen5
Göteborg
University1, Lancaster University2, IT University of
Denmark3, Glasgow University4, Learning Lab Denmark5
jenny.gustafson@ituniv.se, v.hodgson@lancaster.ac.uk, kehler@studentergaarden.dk,
s.mann@admin.gla.ac.uk,
sanne@lld.dk
This paper investigates how relations of power and the exercise of
control reveal themselves in the discourse of collaborative networked
e-learning. It reports on the use of an
adapted methodological approach from Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to
analyse the discourse of two different e-learning pedagogic events. It draws
conclusions from this for communication and control issues in networked
e-learning and the relevance of CDA to
networked e-learning research.
communication, control, critical discourse analysis
There is thus a need for some way of analysing
language which can disclose such processes, so that people become aware of them
and eventually also become more likely to resist or change them. This becomes
especially important when it comes to networked e-learning, where different
kinds of written discursive practices, such as knowledge sharing dialogue,
knowledge construction dialogue, information sharing chats etc., play a crucial
role as the main channels for interaction and collaboration in online networked
learning environments. This is especially important as such collaborative work
is based on assumptions of co-operation, equalisation of power relations and the
social construction of knowledge for the purpose of learning.
An analytic approach is required that takes account
of power and control and the socio-cultural context which frames interaction.
In our opinion, such an approach is best served by the developing field of
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Fairclough, 2003), where the aim is to make
explicit relations of power and the exercise of control in discourse.
CDA entails detailed linguistic analysis of text,
generally requiring deep background knowledge in linguistics. Our work has
therefore focused on developing an understanding of the CDA framework as
developed by Fairclough (2003) and choosing certain aspects that we feel are
most important when analysing networked e-learning discourse. In doing this, we
have adapted Fairclough’s frameworks and developed our own methodological
approach for analysing communication and control in networked e-learning. Our
aim is to make this approach meaningful to networked e-learning researchers and
more readily available for use by practitioners who do not have an expertise in
linguistics.
According to Fairclough, language allows us to do
three things: represent reality (Representation); act together (Action); and
form identities (Identification). He
proposes a detailed framework for the critical analysis of discourse which
would reveal how unequal relations of power and control manifest themselves in
language within these three areas. He also aims to reveal how we can intervene
as agents within this process. In aspiring to make this methodological approach
more accessible, we have identified four questions which aim to capture these
three aspects of social reality. These are:
1. What
is assumed to be ‘common ground’ in the discourse?
2. How
is this common ground legitimised within the discourse (i.e. how
does it become accepted by participants)?
3. How
are different identities constructed in the discourse?
4. How
are topics selected, changed and responded to?
The first two questions are intended to capture the Representation
aspect, while the third question focuses on Identification and the fourth on
Action.
In order to illustrate how these questions could be applied to actual
on-line discourse, we present two vignettes taken from different networked
e-learning environments. Both vignettes are examples of how participants
respond to a particular pedagogic situation and how they negotiate between
themselves their assumptions about how to respond to the situation, their
particular approaches and identities within this.
Each vignette shows how a different researcher applies the four questions
to a particular instance of discourse. In this way, we hope to throw light on
two things: 1) the kinds of issues of communication and control that can arise
in networked e-learning environments; and 2) the relevance of this approach to
analysing online learning discourse.
The chosen discourse is taken from an online seminar that was part of a
course in ICT and learning given at master’s level at the IT University of
Göteborg. The original Swedish transcript has been translated into English. In
the seminar, the participants were instructed to first write down a reflection
based upon a book that was part of the course literature and then to read the
other member’s contributions and respond to them. I have chosen to focus on a
discussion between two of the participants. One of the participants (X) is the
oldest and most experienced member of the seminar group, and her interlocutor
in the discussion is the youngest member of the group, a man (Y). The author of
the book that the seminar is based on, Z, will also give a lecture later in the
same week.
To answer the question about common ground, there
first needs to be an understanding of what the expression ‘common ground’
entails. Here, ‘common ground’ is taken to mean the assumptions that need to be
made in order to make sense of the text. This means that common ground is
something that isn’t explicitly in the text, but can be read between the lines.
Fairclough (2003) differentiates between three kinds of assumptions:
existential assumptions (assumptions about what exists), propositional
assumptions (assumptions about what is or what will be) and value assumptions
(assumptions about what is good or desirable).
In his first contribution, Y writes (in bold letters):
Y: I
will open this seminar with one sentence that says the most about the book:
It is the individual that uses intellectual and physical tools and who
communicates and creates new social practices. The individual, the tools
and the socio-cultural practice form together an undividable unit in the
socio-cultural understanding.
Figure 1
This statement is based on an existential assumption that there actually
is one sentence that can describe most of the book, that Y knows this and also
knows how to formulate this in a good way. Y’s contribution is responded to by
several people, but there is only one person, X, who actually builds on what Y
wrote. The other people only add their own reflections on the book, without
saying anything about Y’s initial paragraph.
In X’s first response to Y, she
validates that Y’s contribution rests on an existential assumption, which I see
as confirmation of this assumption. X writes: In relation to your total summary on 4 – 5 lines, Z’s 250 pages might
either make me totally exhausted or totally excited (since it spares me
reading, I can choose that myself) if I chose to accept your summary as the
answer to the problem. In writing this, she assumes that there is agreement
that Y’s contribution is seen as an exhaustive summary of the whole book. I see
her use of the value verb spare as a
case of irony. She is most likely being ironic in saying that she is spared
from having to read the whole book herself.
Later, X makes a few other value assumptions. By writing What you said translates to me as “I know
the answer” and that is where you lost me in the end of your first sentence.
and in choosing the value verb lost,
she is making a value assumption that it is undesirable to write in such a way
that excludes people or makes them feel outside of the discussion. Indicating
that Y made her feel lost right from the start is a value assumption that Y’s
form of writing is disagreeable and negative. Later in her first contribution,
X writes: If everyone but me understands,
can I still be part of the group without feeling left out? which further
supports my claim of her making a value assumption.
In the discussion between Y and X, what needs to be assumed in order to
make sense of the messages, is that there are unspoken rules for how to behave
in this form of communication and that X thinks Y is breaking these rules. The
context framing the seminar is that the group is learning about socio-cultural
practice and the intention is therefore that the participants should practice
what they are learning about, i.e. adopt the collaborative learning approach
and learn together as a group.
The conflict that arises from Y’s first contribution, i.e. that he is
trying to sum up the whole book in one paragraph and that he is taking a
position of authority in relation to the other participants, breaks the
unspoken rules of communication. In order to make sense of the responding
contribution made by X, the common ground has to be an understanding of how she
perceived Y’s message and why she is reacting to it as if it was offensive to
her in some way. The tone in X’s message is quite harsh and this, in addition
to the content of her message, indicates that she found Y’s message provocative
or even insulting. My analysis is therefore that the conflict between the
participants reveals that common ground in this case is a contested understanding
of what is proper behaviour in a virtual seminar: to work collaboratively as a
group, and not as an isolated individual.
In the text, there are different things that I think
support my analysis that Y assumes that he knows more than the others on the
subject. His position is legitimised in several ways. One of the other
participants excuses herself for not knowing as much on the subject as Y by
writing the following as a response to the long list of questions: I don’t seem to have the same background
knowledge as you. I only ALMOST understand the concept of phenomenology. Y
introduces the concept of phenomenology in one of his questions, without giving
any explanation to what it means. The concept was not part of the literature
that the seminar is based on, but the way that Y formulates his question
assumes that everyone already knows its meaning. The other participants, with
the exception of X, don’t even attempt to dispute Y’s initial statement about
the whole book. They simply let him stand unquestioned.
X, on the other hand, challenges Y’s authority by
writing:
X: Where
do you come up with everything? You are like a living dictionary! How do
you have the time to formulate all of these questions and at the same time
answer them yourself? Because you already seem to have thought of an
answer, or am I wrong?? You seem to me as a nestling, just waiting for
someone to feed you.
Figure 2
Figure 2
By writing this, X is challenging that Y knows more on the subject than
the others. At the same time, she is also legitimising the common ground that Y
has broken the rules for behaviour in adopting a position of authority and by
excluding the group. Fairclough writes about four different types of
legitimation in discourse: authorisation, rationalization, moral evaluation and
narrative. In X’s message in Figure 2, she is legitimising her own position and
her right to challenge and question Y by using a moral and evaluative
narrative. She does this by using the metaphor of the nestling, by saying that
Y is waiting for someone to feed him. This challenges Y’s authority since it
puts X in the dominant position, that of the mother being the one to feed the
nestling, and it lowers Y’s status as it brings him down from his chosen
position of authority to a lower level, where he is reduced to being the
younger one, depending on others to provide him with the answers (‘feed him’).
In Y’s next response, the common ground is negotiated further. In his
response, I find that Y is legitimising himself by using both authorisation and
rationalization:
Y: Of
course I have thoughts about what the answers will be but like all of the
others in the scientific paradigm I don’t want to be hasty and answer my
questions myself. How good is it to go into this already knowing the answer
to my question? Where is the logic in doing that? Then I never will see any
alternatives to my own answers. What I wanted to do was to throw my questions
out there and primarily direct them at
Z, to whom my questions were intended in the first place. Then he or
you can answer them without me colouring your intellect and thoughts.
Figure 3
By referring to prominent persons in the scientific paradigm, Y is
positioning himself next to them, on the same level as them. In doing so, I
think he is both legitimising himself by authorisation (referring to the
scientific paradigm in itself as an authority) and by rationalization (by
rationalising his own behaviour, as if saying “if the others in the scientific
paradigm do this, it makes sense for me also”). He is also using
rationalization by referring to what would be a logical (or illogical)
behaviour in this particular context, and choosing to be logical by not
answering his own questions.
Also, by acknowledging that he already knows the answers to his own
questions, but doesn’t want to give them away yet, he is validating himself as
an authority figure. He does this by formulating that he has thoughts about
what the answers will be. This is a
propositional assumption that there is a definite and absolute answer to each
question and that he might already know it. Also, assuming that he is in a
position to colour the other participants’ intellects is also legitimising the
assumption that he sees himself as above the others on this subject. Another
way that Y is legitimising himself as an authority figure is his way of
primarily addressing the author of the book, assuming that he is most likely
the one who will be able to answer, and not the other participants. Again, by
doing this, I see him trying to distinguish himself from the others, putting
himself on the same level as the authority figure Z, the author of the book.
I have already indicated that I am suggesting that X
perceives Y as taking on an authoritative position towards the rest of the
group. I will now elaborate on this, as it clearly connects with the third
question about construction of identities in the exchange of messages between
these two participants. In my analysis of identity construction, I have chosen
to take a closer look at modality choices, since Fairclough points out how
these closely relate to construction of identity in discourse. It soon becomes
clear that Y uses non-modalized assertions in almost every statement that he
makes. In his first contribution (Figure 1), there isn’t a single modality
marker that I can identify in this piece of text, as he is exclusively using
non-modalized assertions and doesn’t use any modal verbs or modal adverbs (for
example, may, might, could, possibly etc.).
In the long list of questions that follows Y’s initial contribution, Y
doesn’t use hypothetical modality in any of the questions, but asks all of them
in a very direct way.
Y’s contribution in Figure 3 is the response to X’s questions in her
second statement. Even when questioned, Y doesn’t change his assertive style of
writing, but he continues to use non-modalized statements and questions. The
identity that takes form in Y’s style of writing is, in my interpretation, that
of a confident, assertive person, who has strong opinions about what he has
just read, doesn’t doubt the validity of those opinions and is therefore not afraid
to share them with the others in a confident tone of voice.
Shifting focus to X’s identity and looking at her way of responding to Y,
she starts off with a modalized statement by writing: If I interpret what you are saying by looking at what you have written,
in my opinion, it might come out like this. Here she is using
intertextuality in her language by writing that she is interpreting what Y
wrote. She is also modalizing the statement by the modal verb might and by adding in my opinion to the statement. The rest of X’s first contribution
is mainly made up of other modalized assertions (the clarity I seemed to
arrive at, 250 pages might either make me totally exhausted
or totally excited, how interpretations might
be perceived). The next contribution that X makes (Figure 2), is a response
to the long list of questions that Y has added to the seminar. Here, X seems a
little irritated and is using non-modalized language in her three first
sentences. Then she changes her rather harsh style, and shifts to modalized
language, by using the modal verb of appearance seem twice in two sentences.
In X’s style of language, she commits herself to
challenging Y’s position of authority. In her language, she is confident and
strong in addressing Y and she doesn’t let him get away with his overconfident
way of expressing himself and his bid to control the seminar. At the same time,
she is tentative in the way she addresses the group, as she is modalizing most
of her own opinions in a very careful way. In my opinion, this indicates that
she wants to take on an identity that is more cautious in assertion of
authority. At the same time, she is not being too careful, since she dares to
question Y. This becomes especially clear in X’s choice of using the nestling
metaphor to challenge Y’s identity, by positioning her own identity above Y in
that sentence.
So far, I have focused on the exchange of messages between two of the
participants, but to answer this question, I need to look at the bigger
picture, and include the other participants as well. In the group, there are
seven participants all together. This seminar, however, is dominated by the
exchange of messages between X and Y, since their discussion thread is the most
active one. Y’s initial contribution and his list of questions are responded to
by most of the other participants, but only X questions what Y has written. Two
others choose to introduce their own ideas as a response to Y, two only make
very brief comments on Y’s enthusiasm and perceived depth of knowledge.
The most striking thing is the difference between how Y’s contribution is
responded to and how the separate threads set up by other participants are
dealt with. The contributions made by the other participants in separate
threads are dealt with in a direct way, whereas Y’s contribution isn’t
responded to in a direct way at all, with the exception of X’s response. Y’s
initial statement and list of questions both receive answers, but those answers
are not actually dealing with the content of Y’s contributions. Instead, they
are generally introducing new concepts as a response, or aren’t long enough to
deal with anything that Y wrote. This may be a result of Y’s assertive writing
style and expressing himself in a way that seems to excludes other members from
joining in the discussion. It is clear, however, that this is X’s opinion, and
that she isn’t going to let Y get away with that without an open discussion
about it. It is also interesting to note that Y doesn’t respond to any of the
other contributions made outside of his own thread. He only engages in the
discussion with X and leaves everything else without comment.
In the analysis of this discourse, I first looked at
the underlying assumptions present in the contributions made by the two most
active participants. I found that the common ground is revealed in the conflict
that arises between the participants. This conflict relies on two main
assumptions, the first being Y’s assumption that it is appropriate to make an
authoritative statement expressing an individualised approach, and the second
being X’s assumption that the basis for the seminar should be an approach of
collaboration. The conflict reveals the contested nature of the common ground
around what is considered to be good behaviour when engaging in this kind of
virtual seminar, i.e. to practice collaborative learning in the socio-cultural
spirit, or to act as an isolated individual.
Further on in the analysis, I tried to reveal how the
common ground is legitimised in the discourse. I found that this is done by the
different ways that the two participants negotiate their respective positions
and attempt to control the seminar. For example, Y uses rationalization and
authorisation to maintain his own position, whereas X challenges his authority
by using a moral and evaluative narrative to gain control of the seminar
herself.
I also looked at identity construction in the
discussion between the participants and found that Y’s style of writing reveals
an authoritarian identity, as he mainly uses non-modalized statements and
non-hypothetical questions associated with a non-dialogical style (see
Fairclough, 2003, p. 162, pp 41-44).
I also looked at how topics were dealt with in this discourse and found
some interesting differences between how Y’s contributions were responded to,
compared to the other topics. The other contributions were picked up and
discussed by the other members, while Y’s contributions were left unanswered in
any real way, with the exception of X’s replies. It is interesting to see how
Y’s own behaviour actually excludes HIM from the group, as he is ignored by
almost everyone apart from X, who challenges him and questions his position and
tries to get him to change his behaviour in order for him to be able to be part
of the group. Instead of controlling the seminar, Y ends up being the one left
out of the collaborative group learning activities.
Three women and two men ages 30-50 years old are sitting together in the
same room using the virtual space Active Worlds Education (AWEDU), a widely
used 3D system with avatars which communicate in chat, to see and discuss how
knowledge sharing could take place in a setting designed only for that purpose.
The discussion among the participants was on how possibilities in virtual space
could be used in network learning. The dialogue is a synchronous textual chat
in a visual environment, where the participants can take on different
roles/identity when choosing their avatar. The methodological approach is
applied to a 1-hour chat session.
The assumption that seems to be shared by 4 of the 5 participants is that
the discussion is a professional one, which means that serious engagement is
required, sidetrack discussions are not relevant, and jokes, comments and word
games are not considered appropriate. When questions are asked, serious
responses are expected. This common ground assumption is founded in the setting
not being of the participants own choosing, but a setting planned by
the designers of the explorative
session and so
legitimized by their authority (Fairclough, 2003, p. 98-100).
The 4 participants are engaged throughout the discussion in trying to
communicate in the virtual space. How the common ground is legitimated becomes
clear when the 5th participant (avatar name “Prague”) goes against the common ground assumption and in
this way shows its
legitimacy. Most of the participants engage with good manners in the
discussion, questions are asked and answered, but Prague makes jokes, plays
with words, and makes comments with no relevance to the ongoing discussion
(figure 1). These actions are surprising to the other participants and in the
beginning, they react with questions about what is going on, what the acronym used by Prague means, etc. As the discussion comes to an end, the
participants comment more directly on what they see as Prague’s provoking and
non-appropriate behaviour.
|
192. Beijing: (to Geneva) shall we gang up on Prague? 193. Geneva: Went
to see if there was a relevant object somewhere else. All I could find was a
pillow cos I am quite tired! 194. Beijing: (to Paris) Feel like ganging up on Prague? 195. Sydney: Should we take a coffee break Helper? 196. Prague: Wily, 197. Geneva: Yes, Prague is
definitely stirring things! |
Figure 1: Reactions from participants
One participant (avatar name “Beijing”) tries to create an alliance by
using the whisper feature in the system to get the other participants to team
up on Prague (figure 1, line 192 and 194). Two other participants react
verbally and confront Prague about the
unexpected behaviour. Line 197 in figure 1 is an example of one of the
participants’ (avatar name “Geneva”) reactions. The 4th
participant (avatar name “Sydney”) requests a
different behaviour from Prague, but seems to
feel rejected by Prague and withdraws from the
discussion as a whole.
The choice of vocabulary, input length and
choice of avatar name give each participant an identity in the chat, which the
rest of the participants respond to. Prague takes
on an identity of being the one to comment, joke and provoke. Prague types and reads fast, uses acronyms, makes fun with words, gives nick names to the other
participants, uses chat-language and most importantly divides sentences up in
several short inputs. In figure 2, line 65, 67, 69 and 71 is an example of one
sentence being divided up on 4 lines. These lines and line 72 are also an
example of sidetrack comments, which have nothing to do with the main
discussion, which is going on in line 64 and 66 supported by the Helper in line
70.
|
64. Paris: maybe we should move to the
technological objects –to discover what is hindering our progress here? 65.
Prague: OK, that´s it. 66. Geneva: Yes, so why do not you take us there
Paris? 67. Prague: Paris, your authenticity.. 68. Paris: I need first to find the stage 69. Prague: in this situation is beginning.. 70. Helper: EVERYBODY FOLLOW PARIS TO THE
TECHNOLOGICAL OBJECTS 71. Prague: to feel somewhat suspect 72. Prague: now we have the Helper on our backs
as well |
Figure 2: Style - Dividing one sentence up on several
lines
By dividing a sentence into many lines Prague’s
name is more or less on the screen all the time. By using this chat
style and being the only one doing it, Prague seems to dominate the chat as the
other participants uses a more traditional e-mail style and thus do not appear
as much on the chat-screen. Notice in line 70 that
the Helper is using capital letters to get attention and to visualize shouting.
An example is in figure 3 line 29. This line is a contribution to the
main discussion followed by other participants in line 30 and 31 whereas line
28 is part of a sidetrack discussion, where Prague is
making word games with the avatar name of Paris.
|
28. Prague: no Paris from Paris 29. Geneva: Well I have chosen it because it
represents something we do naturally and I am wondering if what we are doing
now is really necessary to something we do already 30. Prague: genev, you´re not making yourself
clear 31. Sydney: What is it that we do already? |
Figure 3: Style – writing long sentences and presenting it
in 1 line.
Style in writing is one way to identify how the different identities are
constructed in the discourse (Fairclough, 2003, page
159-163). And it seems that in chat the
identity of a participant is determined by the style the participant uses as
well as the way the participant behaves.
The discussion was roughly divided into 4 main topics. These topics were
chosen by the participants themselves as they took turns to introduce their
thoughts. In figure 2, line 64 and 68 is an example of a participant (avatar
name “Paris”) changing topic with help from the Helper in line 70. The 4
participants all introduce a topic and engage in a discussion. Geneva
especially is active in all 4 topics and contributes with questions and
thoughts. Geneva at the same time ignores most of the sidetrack discussion and
comments and so seems to keep the discussions from falling apart completely.
Prague on the other hand participates throughout the session with sidetracks,
which seems to interrupt the main discussions several times. And as the other
participants frequently participate in the sidetrack discussions it seems that
Prague succeeds in interrupting the main discussion.
The common ground assumption about how to engage in a professional
discussion is challenged by one participant and who succeeds in provoking the
other participants to a point where they choose to react and protest. This does
seem to give Prague power of the situation but not control of the setting
because the other participants do not side with the actions of Prague. They
stick with the original common ground assumption and do not start making jokes,
word games, sidetracks, etc. If they had done so, then maybe Prague could have
gained more control than the others. When instead the other participants choose
to protest and even try to make an explicit alliance against Prague, it’s as if
they oppose Prague’s bid for control and subversion of the designers of the
setting’s intentions.
The main discussion was interrupted, but the majority of participants
stayed with the common assumption. Prague’s power seems to be closely related
to familiarity with the medium. This familiarity allows him to have an overview
of what goes on and what is said by whom which thus gives him the potential for
more control. Knowing and using chat language in a set-up where most of the
participants are not familiar with the language, might frustrate other users,
as they are made aware of their own lack of control in the system. The flow of
communicating in chat is improved when sentences are broken up in several
lines, but when only one participant uses this chat “rule”, the participant
might be experienced by the rest of the group as intrusive and
distracting. There is thus an
interaction between communication, the medium and control which Prague seems to take advantage of. Nevertheless
being able to ignore sidetracks and stay focused also seems to be a way to gain
control of the situation, which seemed to be the case for at least one of the
other participants. However, the rest of the
participants do not ignore Prague and the
result is a confusing and disrupted discussion.
CONCLUSION
Despite seemingly clear instructions about the purpose and process of
these two pedagogic events, both vignettes show how participants negotiate
power and control between themselves and between themselves and their
respective ‘teachers/facilitators’, through the different ways in which they
assert their own interpretation of the common ground for the group’s work. They do this through the following:
assertion of different existential, propositional and value assumptions; making
bids to legitimate their positions through authorization, rationalization, and
moral and evaluative narratives; modality or its absence; topic initiation,
avoidance, or change; word play, irony and ‘sidetracks’; bids to form
alliances; choice of avatar names; ignoring moves to change or negotiate the
common ground; and using their own particular competence in the medium.
What might normally be assumed to be a straightforward process of
facilitating and engaging learning
through collaborative online discussion, reveals itself through this kind of
analysis to be a highly complex social process involving the negotiation of
power and control not only between teachers and learners, but also within the
learning group itself. It is as if each individual is engaged in finding a
space within the learning group within which to pursue their own particular
learning agenda and learning style. This reveals itself either as attempts to
assert such a space for the whole group, or to create spaces within the larger
space in which to ‘get on with the work at hand’. Thus participants seem to be
variously exercising control over their different communication capacities and
the communication medium itself in order to fulfil their own particular
learning intentions and needs. What is
not clear from the analysis, is the extent to which this may be influenced by
the online environment as opposed to face to face environment, by the particular
pedagogic event and/or the participants themselves. What is clear however is
the fact that the exercise of power and control is evident in both examples,
and that this exercise of power and control shifts and fluctuates within the
discourse between participants.