ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Systematic observation of participatory interaction in university lectures: a multiple case study with a mixed methods approach.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In order to improve and innovate the face-to-face instructional task in postgraduate and doctoral university teaching encompasses different formats of participatory interaction (PI), considered to be social medium facilitators of deep learning, including the development of autonomous expert activity. The purpose of this article is to establish the use of systematic observation and lag sequential analysis as a conceptual-methodological choice to base the review of social-constructivist instructional practice that is taught in an expository format prepared by the teacher. Method: The systematic observation of the expert's expository session from its inception to its conclusion was approached from a mixed methods perspective as a subject of multiple case studies. A total of four postgraduate teachers were selected. A purpose-built observational instrument was constructed. The data quality was evaluated with intra-observer agreement tests by calculating Cohen's kappa coefficient (k). After the data matrices for each case were obtained, all possible file aggregations of the data were performed to detect the existence of common structures in the patterns through lag sequential analysis. Results: The sequential patterns of replicated and common lags of the multiple cases describe the chaining of the observed events, which characterizes the participatory interaction. Twelve lag sequential patterns have been identified that function as dialogical links, generated by the probability that the category "question" is linked to the conditioned events of "speech direction" and "exchange orientation." Discussion: Having constructed a theoretical interpretative scheme of the replicated patterns, we discuss the results. First, the significant results of the lag sequential analysis as examples of basic patterns extracted from their way of conducting expert expository sessions. As such, they can be reviewed with the formative purpose of reflecting on their potential for change when they are understood as dialogical links of participatory interaction committed to deep learning and the development of expert autonomy. Second, there is a training step consisting of the use of self-observation and the observation that teachers can make of the expert expository task. Finally, we conclude that non-intrusive systematic observation is a good choice when channeling the gradual and renewed improvement of participatory interaction with an expert expository format (§EF) and a mixed methods methodology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.