Systematic observation of participatory interaction in university lectures: a multiple case study with a mixed methods approach

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.

1 Introduction

Despite not overlooking the issue of the conceptualization and measurement of student learning throughout academic education in the countries of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008), it is of great interest to education centers and their professional teams to come up with novel ideas to help create educational experiences that provoke deep or expert learning (Hattie, 2015; Houser and Hosek, 2018; Stobart, 2014).

This article, which complements previous publications on instructional communication by employing an expert expository format derived from the university lecture (Tronchoni et al., 2018b; Tronchoni, 2019; Tronchoni et al., 2021, 2022), falls within the chain of joint efforts made by an education center and its teaching staff to enhance their teaching practice, firmly committed to an active social-constructivist vision of the learning process (Chi, 2009).

Within the framework of participatory action research (Elliot, 1991), our research commitment with the center and participating lecturers consisted of analyzing how the teachers—in their interactions with the attending students—gave expert expository lessons. These lessons were designed as a mode of participatory interaction (PI) based on a kind of listening (Barker, 1971; Rogers, 1984) that entails the recognition of the dialogic experience (Bakhtin, 1981) of the overlapping, nested, crossed, or defined alternation of speaking-speaking turns, together with confirmatory sympathy (Watzlawick and Weakland, 1977), and the sharing of the active-comprehensive state of the interlocution (Pérez Fernández, 2008; Van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983) initiated, maintained, and closed by the expert format.

The research-educational focus of the improvement of participatory interaction with an expert expository format (from now on PI§EF) was designed in accordance with the possibilities offered by observational methodology within the framework of the mixed methods paradigm (Bazeley, 2018). The challenge of integrating qualitative and quantitative processes in data extraction and analysis is inherent in non-intrusive observational methodologies, preferably based on systematic methods of diachronic analysis of the continuous stream of behavior events in context (Alvarado-Álvarez et al., 2021). The categories to be observed and coded for later quantitative and qualitative analysis must be well defined and accessible to external observers in order for the study of them to be replicated (Anguera et al., 2021; Izquierdo and Anguera, 2021).

It should be noted that the systematic framework of observation—conceived as a specific way to access the quantification of behavior—is distinguished from other quantitative methodological options present in psychological research in that it incorporates, controls, and verifies the shared criteria of scientific rigor and its connections with the objective of the study. Therefore, it is imperative to consider the sensitivity and conditions that impact the process of obtaining, measuring, and analyzing situated behavior, which must be taken into account, preferably from a sequential perspective (Bakeman and Gottman, 1986). In the Method section, the necessary indications are incorporated step by step to enable understanding of how the research was conducted and to be able to offer a sufficient degree of precision and replicability, although it is not without limitations (Vide, Section 4).

Thus, in the methodological context of systematic observation, we carried out a multiple case study in accordance with the case aggregation procedure (Anguera, 2018) that incorporates the suggestions of Stake (2006) and Yin (2014). Our objective of conducting an intensive inquiry focuses on the momentary and dynamic aspects of PI§EF, with the idiographic aim of exploring the existence of patterned regularities in the multimodal instructional processes shared by the participants (Vide, Section 2.3).

The educational task of teaching and supporting learning (Wertsch, 1988) implies guiding the process of content acquisition via student-teacher interaction in order to achieve the goals of the activity (Van Dijk et al., 2020). In the expert expository task, the instructional communication pivots between “giving” information about what is known and “asking questions”¹ about how it is known. The presence or absence in the participants—total or partial—of this two-fold game of intentions will leave a mark on both verbal and non-verbal modes of activating the lecturer’s expository plan from both extremes of the interaction. In effect, both actions foster the planning and execution of the lecturer’s explanation, and both actions connect with the constructive activity of the students’ active-comprehending listening (Pérez Fernández, 2008; Van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983). It can be inferred that the educational objectives put into circulation by “give” and “question” are spontaneously shared and anticipated by the mere act of executing out the assigned task in the classroom (Goffman, 1974; Poyatos, 1983). It is imperative to be adequately prepared for the PI§EF challenge, given the potential risks and obstacles that may result in a demoralizing outcome.

Our research focuses on the systematic observation of PI§EF on the cognitive and socio-affective processes of active-comprehending listening, which is stimulated by the acts of speaking and discursive and semiotic strategies (Coll and Onrubia, 2001; Sperber and Wilson, 2004; Van Dijk, 1985, 2000; Van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983). This dialogued expository mode is expressed in the verbal and non-verbal behavior of the observable exchanges within the expert’s speaking turn (Duncan, 1973; McCarthy, 2003) and, to a lesser extent, in the rotation between turns (Duncan and Fiske, 1977; Poyatos, 1983).

In accordance with our conceptualization (Tronchoni et al., 2018b), the invitation to dialogical cooperation stemming from active-comprehending listening implies something more than mere factual recognition (Kilby, 2021) of the acknowledgement of the information provided at each point in time. The communicating actors observe, listen, write, ask, answer, etc., and these observable actions can be interpreted within the framework of the declared intentions plan and/or performed by the participants as the tip of the iceberg of the non-mechanical deep processing (Ausubel et al., 1978; Bruner, 1960) of interactive minds (Staudinger and Baltes, 1996). These externalize the internal dialogue manifested in the auditor back channels activities (Duncan, 1973) and in the brief alternate couplings—secondary alternating, alternation filling in, or overlapping—between the students and the teacher, employing verbal and non-verbal language that is almost like shorthand and unique to the group to communicate what is being understood and, therefore, consequently shared (Schön, 1987).

Our vision of the role played by PI§EF is rooted in the educational principles of social-constructivist psychological development (Coll and Onrubia, 2001; Wertsch, 1988); in addition, we are also concerned about universal design for learning (UDL) principles (Mottet, 2015; Novak, 2016). When we talk about the construction of expert knowledge, we refer to the socio-affective/cognitive learning changes and the micro changes or small steps that the actors experience and express as dispositional movements and/or instrumental tools. These changes contribute to the growth of autonomous expertise. We have identified the involved mechanisms of educational support as fluid or sequential scaffolding (Bruner, 1978), depending on the contribution of both extremes in the interaction, and as teacher-planned scaffolding aided by high or low technology (Yelland and Masters, 2007). In the context of co-constructive (Monereo, 2009) step-by-step improvement, diachronic systematic observation provides us with consistent lag sequential analysis results, enabling us to advance—in our case—in the formation of fluid scaffolding and the preparation and execution of planned scaffolding.

To be more precise, and by way of summary, so far we have referred to: (a) the fluid otherness sustained by the motives and baggage of previous experiences and knowledge that nurture cooperation in the organization of active-comprehending listening shared by both extremes of the interaction; and (b) the collaboration via the use of strategies and abilities linked to the problems anticipated by the teacher and those that arise that shake the socio-cognitive/emotional adjustments of the PI§EF (Tronchoni et al., 2021).

The scientific and professional interest that this approach to PI§EF—based on expert learning with global and dynamic social-constructivist modeling—might have for university lecturers (Mandl et al., 1996) has been subjected to a process of systematic review (Tronchoni et al., 2022).

The results obtained are unfavorable, despite the fact that the framework of systematic evidence employed verified the scientific visibility of the existence of a determination to renew the expository lecture format prevalent across different continents. This is supported by higher education institutions and educational research centers, and it is recognized and demanded by a wide range of existing fields of knowledge. The suggestion for this renovation is limited to Incorporating ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) and the use of strategies, techniques, and practices that foster motivation, commitment, and active learning. These are certainly improvements, but they are also at risk of reducing the expert expository format to a mere anecdote since no value is placed on the dialogued condition of active-comprehending listening.

Hence, it can be asserted that despite having established the existence of a widespread interest among universities over the five continents in transforming the expository format inherited from the lecture class, no specific formative treatment has been identified for the comprehensive, in-depth development of the principle of activity linked to the processes of construction and interaction of learning (Chi, 2009) with an expert expository format (§EF). This vacuum is what has driven us to develop and obtain evidence about PI§EF.

Finally, we conclude this section by establishing the prerequisites of the expert expository format and furnishing PI§EF with an operational definition. The §EF rules that we have taken into consideration are: R1, the rule of shared commitment between both extremes of the interaction, with active-comprehending listening; R2, the rule of “give-receive/receive-give” in accordance with the expert’s fundamental actions of give/question; and R3, the rule of the asymmetric constriction of the speaking time in the students’ turns.

We conceive the expert expository moment—independently of the duration of the explanation—as a PI experience lived and relayed by the listeners with these words: speak, speak, and do not stop (S), because we follow you (F) and you understand us (C) and also follow us (G)… In this way, together we will learn to be experts (PI§EF).² By using the algebra of sets, we have:

$\mathrm{PI}\S \mathrm{E}\mathrm{F}=\mathrm{S}\cap \mathrm{F}\cap \mathrm{C}\cap \mathrm{G}$

where, PI§EF = x/x ∈ S ^ x ∈ F ^ x ∈ C ^ x ∈ G. In accordance with this expression, we define participatory interaction (PI), made up of the rules of the expert expository format (§EF), as a set of values assigned to the properties or attributes common to the four components: (1) the teacher speaks (S), (2) the students follow (F), (3) the actors feel the confirmation of the relationship (C), and (4) the actors share the help that guides the learning (G). The intersection of the four components encompasses the following attributes: the direction of the speech (K), the illocutionary action of the intervention (L), the modality of the response (M), and the orientation of the exchange (N) (Vide; Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Representation of the intersectional relationship (∩) between the four structural components of Participatory Interaction (PI§EF) and the values considered for the attributes of the expert expository format in the framework of the diachronic observational study carried out. Own production.

Finally, from the point of view of union (∪), the disjunctive attributes (˅) include the specific and distinctive elements of each component in accordance with the situations covered (Vide, Section 2.2).

2 Method

The existence of systematic observation in the disciplinary field of analysis of social interaction involving multimodal human communication is due to important methodological advances tied to conceptual, statistical, and computer aspects (Anguera and Izquierdo, 2006; Sackett, 1980).

In this section, we incorporate, on the one hand, the advantage of having bridged the gap between the qualitative and the quantitative by allowing the observational records of interactive behavior—that are categorical in nature—to undergo a quantitative treatment through the construction of an organized data matrix in accordance with certain parameters. This is made possible through the use of novel robust techniques of quantitative analysis applicable to social interaction (Anguera et al., 2021).

On the other hand, the incorporation of a multiple case study as a methodological aim (Anguera, 2018) has allowed us to go deeper into the proposed observational problem without losing intensity; i.e., lag sequential analysis (Sackett, 1980) applied to the data matrix of each lecturer participating in this research (n = A, B, C, and D) is completed by verifying the existence of identical structures in the behavioral patterns detected via the aggregation of data from the four participating lecturers: A, B, C, and D; AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, and CD; ABC, ABD, ACD; BCD; and ABCD (Anguera, 2018; Yin, 2014).

2.1 Design

An applied observational design is N-I/P/M (Anguera et al., 2001). The study is characterized as nomothetic on a primary level of analysis due to the presence of four lecturers, idiographic on a secondary level due to the presence of multiple cases, punctual with intra-sessional follow-up due to the recording of a single session per teacher from the start to the finish of the class, and multidimensional due to its theoretical framework and its structure in two macro dimensions.

This study conforms to the characteristics that establish the profile of observational methodology: (1) the study of spontaneous and perceptible behavior is studied, in the usual contexts where it occurs; (2) the subsequent stages that follow on from the establishment of the design consist of the construction of an ad hoc instrument, computerized registration, data quality control, and data analysis; (3) the custom-built instrument is non-standard, and its laborious preparation necessitates the proposal of certain dimensions based on the theoretical framework and reality that can be deployed in sub-dimensions, each of which produces a comprehensive and mutually exclusive system of categories; (4) the computerized record is tailored to the categorical nature of the data; (5) data quality control ensures the agreement of the records of different observers (inter-observer) or of the same observer at different moments in time (intra-observer); and (6) the data analysis is tailored to the stated objective, taking into consideration the categorical nature of the data.

2.2 Participants, context, and setting of the multiple case study

The context of the multiple case observation is a Mexican university that conceives learning as significant at the base of the processes of teaching, learning, and assessment processes. The department responsible for teacher training has expressed concern regarding the instructional communication between teachers and students via the offer of training that includes different workshops and a diploma in communicative competence. The institution’s informed idea about the expository class reveals the apprehension about the effectiveness of teaching with this prevalent format at the Master’s Degree level.

The participants in the observed class sessions included 4 teachers and 70 students from urban and semi-urban districts, aged between 23 and 56 (mean 39.5). The teaching staff has an average age of 51.5 (between 40 and 63), is committed to the university education project, and is familiar with instructional communication via basic theoretical training. Furthermore, the lecturers have broad professional teaching trajectories and, in particular, are interested in the effectiveness of teaching about student learning. They are willing to achieve effective encounters.

The work plan was developed in front of the group in an ordinary classroom on a Saturday, with each class session lasting 3 h each. The classrooms are equipped with basic technology, including a computer, projector, and one digital whiteboard. There are between 20 and 30 desks in each classroom—both individual and longer for two or three students—and normal seats or stools. The chalkboard or whiteboard occupies a significant portion of one wall of the classroom, covering various meters, and the arrangement of seats, in general, is traditional.

The observed situations introduced new concepts belonging to two different fields of knowledge within the Master’s Degree. Cases A and D were from two 4-month subjects from the fifth year, theoretical-practical in nature from the Master’s Degree in Mathematical Education. The Mathematical Education lecturers emphasize the value of the expository class with the aim of presenting and developing a great quantity of content progressively in a demonstrative way. In this way, the board and screen play a fundamental role. Cases B and C pertain to two second-year subjects that mainly comprise theoretical material from the Master’s Degree in Pedagogy. The pedagogy lecturers employ new methods of distributing the students in the classroom and activities in an expert expository format. Table 1 summarizes the main heterogeneous characteristics of the four cases³.

Table 1

Table 1. Description of the observed situations.

From a perspective of class session observation, Table 2 synthesizes the aspects of each case: the duration of video recordings, the number of contributions, and frequencies by category.

Table 2

Table 2. Aspects framing the observation in each case.

The recordings required technical material that was installed in each classroom: an omnidirectional microphone, a Sony Action camera with a wide-angle lens, and a Canon camera with a fixed-focus lens. Sound and image editing and montage were carried out by specialized technicians with the Quicktime reproducer and the Final Cut X program, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Example of filmed images in Case D.

2.3 Systematic observation instrument

Based on the theoretical conceptualization of the object of study in instructional contexts and in systematic observational methodology (Tronchoni et al., 2018b; Tronchoni, 2019; Tronchoni et al., 2021), the instrument LUniMex-2017 was developed (Vide; Figure 3). This approach combines field format with category systems that meet the conditions of exhaustivity and mutual exclusivity for the study of the two macro dimensions: (I) the organizational contributions of the interaction, and (II) the regulation of participation in the construction of knowledge.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Multidimensional conceptualization and category systems of the systematic observation instrument LUniMex-2017 (Tronchoni et al., 2018a). Own production.

2.4 Procedure

First of all, authorization to develop the study was sought from the Dean of Social Sciences of the university, and written informed consent was obtained from the lecturers and students in order to carry out the video recordings. The study received the necessary ethical permission for it to be carried out by the institution. The issue of observation was the lecturers’ interactive behavior during a class session with an expository format. The unit of record was the alternating intra- or inter-turn contribution (Duncan and Fiske, 1977), with a minimum duration of 1 s per turn. A passive observation, sampling, transcription, and systematic record of the filmed sessions were executed. Class sessions were coded using the observation instrument LUniMex-2017. The data matrix derives from the systematic record of the categorical coding within the open-access program LINCE (http://observesport.com/; Gabin et al., 2012; Table 3). The concordance calculation and lag sequential analysis were performed using the open-access program GSEQ (https://www.mangold-international.com/en/products/software/gseq.html; Bakeman and Quera, 2011). We then examined the records of the four cases in conjunction with the aggregation of files into 15 groups and through four aggregation levels in order to carry out a lag sequential analysis and detect the possible existence of common patterns PI§EF.

Table 3

Table 3. Illustrative example of the recording and coding processes.

To guarantee the quality control of the observational records, initially, a consensus agreement was carried out by two researchers possessing extensive knowledge in the subject matter in order to ensure that the content of each category was precisely established and comprehended. During the recording, Cohen’s kappa coefficient (1960) was used to obtain a satisfactory intra-observer agreement of 0.90.

2.5 Data analysis

In accordance with the previously outlined observation instrument (Vide, Section 2.3), we coded the multiple events observed in each of the episodes that make up the sequential chain of the development of the observed PI§EF sessions.

In order to analyze the transitional probabilities of the multi-event data and verify their significance, we utilized lag sequential analysis (Anguera, 1997; Sackett, 1980). According to the indications of Bakeman and Gottman (1986) and the user instructions for the GSEQ program for the construction of the lag contingency association tables (Bakeman and Quera, 1996, 2011), it is a good idea to limit the number of conditioned behaviors, adjusting them to the aim, and, in addition, to also limit the number of lags. Thus, we have selected 12 categories of interest that have been proposed as conditioned behaviors (Table 4). Each one of these codes belongs to one of the four basic dimensions of the coded observation, and as a given behavior (GB), we focused on the illocutionary action of the QUESTION (Vide, Section 1). The given behavior “question” is defined as a verbal and nonverbal message that communicates the need to carry out an action linked to the moment of active comprehension. This is an act of demand or exhortation about something with the possibility of being received or not as answers and replies (ask, ask for, demand, request, invite, etc.).

Table 4

Table 4. Codes used in the lag sequential analysis with Given Behavior and conditioned behaviors.

In terms of the chaining Lag [L] of pairs of events (antecedent-criterion [c] with subsequent events [s]), expressed as p(s_+L/c₀), it was fixed at five lags (Bakeman and Gottman, 1986). The perspectives analyzed are both prospective (Sackett, 1980) and genuine retrospective (Anguera, 1997).

The rules used to determine when a sequential pattern of behavior conventionally ends were: (a) when there are no more lags with significant behaviors, (b) when there are two consecutive empty lags, and (c) when there are various significant behaviors in two consecutive lags. In this case, the initial of the lags is considered MAX LAG, which marks the interpretative end of the obtained structure (Anguera et al., 2021; Sackett, 1979).

3 Results

The results of the file aggregation are presented in table format. The category-given behavior is located in the central column, and the patterns PI§EF are classified in accordance with their structural characteristics: temporal orientation (retrospective/prospective), temporal position of the link of the event conditioned for GB (the five lag positions), nature of the link associative to the event conditioned with GB, and type of conditioned event (positive/negative). Each table contains an interpretative description of the patterns found, based on the positive and negative associations identified.

3.1 Lag sequential analysis

3.1.1 Aggregation of the files corresponding to ABC, ABD, ACD, and BCD

Twelve significant sequential patterns were selected (p < 0.01). We identified four retrospective positives, two retrospective negatives, four prospective positives, and two prospective negatives. Out of 12 sequential patterns, 8 patterns (2 retrospective positive, 2 retrospective negative, 2 prospective positive, and 2 prospective negative) were replicated in the 4 groups of 3, and the 4 remaining were replicated following this distribution: one prospective positive in the case of ABD; one prospective in the cases ABC, ACD, and BCD; one retrospective positive in the case of ABC; and one retrospective positive in the cases ABD, ACD, and BCD (Table 5).

Table 5

Table 5. Classification of PI§EF patterns (p < 0.01) for each case: ABC, ABD, ACD, and BCD.

Positive sequential associations are developed in exchanges that mobilize the global attention of the class group and relational and instrumental strategies (prospective) in the four cases. There exists a possibility of being able to observe the illocutionary PE action subsequent to having observed a global communicative moment and relational and instrumental strategies (retrospective).

Negative sequential associations are the values “global/particular” of the speech direction event that were observed much fewer times than expected by chance in alternate positions for each value.

3.1.2 Aggregation of files corresponding to ABCD

The search for replicated patterns culminated with the aggregation of the data obtained in A, B, C, and D. Once again, 12 significant sequential patterns were obtained: 3 retrospective positive, 3 retrospective negative, 3 prospective positive, and 3 prospective negative (Table 6).

Table 6

Table 6. Classification of the PI§EF patterns (p < 0.01) in the ABCD file aggregation.

Positive sequential associations: the action “question” is developed in exchanges that mobilize the global attention of the class group, and relational and instrumental strategies (prospective) in the four cases. There exists the possibility of observing the illocutionary PE action in R0 when lag-positive associations have previously been observed before (-R1 a -R5) between PE and DG, PE and IPC, and PE and CCO.

Negative sequential associations: the values “global/particular” of the speech direction event were observed much fewer times than expected by chance in alternate positions for each value. The same thing happens with the “prior knowledge” instrumental strategy of the social framework.

3.2 Theoretical interpretation of the replicated patterns in the aggregation of files ABCD

If the social and scientific commitment derived from the analysis is to establish the level of intervention understood as a co-constructive method, it is imperative to summarize—without omitting any pertinent information—the adjustment model found among the most replicated patterns (Vide; Table 4) shared by the four observed cases (Vide; Table 5), within the restriction of limiting: (a) the associations conditioned by PE to the positions -R2 or -R1 and +R1 or +R2, (b) the relationships of inhibition to those values that did not obtain retrospective or prospective positive presence in other lagged positions, and (c) the unnecessary repetition of events.

The adjustment issuer-receiver/expert-learner is related to different categories of instrumental and relational content that, in order to be received or taken with a view to being negotiated and shared at different comprehension levels, need to be provided in accordance with the discursive moment of the exchanges and their combinations: establish bridges, give meaning, and elaborate relationship networks (Tronchoni et al., 2018b).

The discoveries from the aggregations of the files ABC, ACD, and BCD coincide in incorporating the prospective pattern PE IPC, and the retrospective pattern PE ECO forms part of the cases ABD, ACD, and BCD. The prospective pattern PE CCO is shared in the four cases. On examining the sequential patterns, taking into account the aforementioned restrictive rules, we discover (Figure 4):

a. The reflectivity-continuity before/after a mode of IPC relationship that guides the CCO exchanges.

b. The prospective positive association of PE with CCO which provides the IPC relationship with instrumental content.

c. The retrospective positive association of PE with ECO which provides the IPC relationship with instrumental content.

d. The global preceding-consequence DG contribution is positively associated with the category PE.

e. The diminution or blocking of both the retrospective and prospective negative association of CIN PE CIN.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Conceptual-interpretative scheme of adjustment model about experience and knowledge sharing in the classroom: PE ECCOipc§EF. Symbols: prospective (P), retrospective (R), positive association (continuous arrow); negative association (dashed arrow). Own production.

4 Discussion and conclusions

The evaluative-formative objective of this research into instructional communication situates the discussion of the presented outcomes with the realm of educational intervention. In line with a relational vision of the communication that takes place via languages and psychosocial relationships, the interactive process has been designed to recognize the speakers’ participation, i.e., both extremes of the interaction listen and transact (Anguera and Izquierdo, 2006; Izquierdo, 1996; Izquierdo and Anguera, 2021; Izquierdo and Perinat, 2010; Watzlawick and Jackson, 2010; Winkin, 1981).

The principles of communication (Grice, 1975; Marc and Picard, 1989; van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983; Watzlawick and Weakland, 1977) that support the instrument of systematic observation, LUniMex-2017, are (Tronchoni et al., 2018b): (a) the concept of feedback and its various functions, (b) the dialogism inherent in verbal interaction, (c) the situation and the activity’s objectives, (d) the exchange of meanings, (e) the multimodal construction of meaning, (f) the reciprocity or recognition of the other as a valid interlocutor, and (g) mutual influence.

The reading of the PI§EF process was contextualized from the educational viewpoint in the principles of social constructivism, which structure the educational discourse (Coll, 1996; Coll and Onrubia, 2001; Coll et al., 1992; García-Fariña et al., 2018; Prados and Cubero, 2005; Rogoff, 1990) around the teacher-student shared task of adjusting the expert explanation and the activity of active-comprehending listening as a process of guided and conscious dialogical inquiry (Ur, 1994; Fernández and Cuadrado, 2008).

The detection by aggregation of cases (Anguera, 2018) of shared significant patterns in the analyzed combinations of triples and quaternary (see other examples, Alarcón-Espinoza et al., 2024; García-Fariña et al., 2018) has enabled us to concentrate the descriptive return of the observed instructional behavior into a theoretical-interpretative diagram showing the complexity of the exchanges motivated by the illocutionary action “question” (PE). The educational assistance identified in the significant and replicated link between PE and the categories “speech direction” and “exchange orientation” includes: (a) regulatory dialogical sequences of how we communicate and what we share, (b) dialogical sequences of attention opening and subject advancement, and (c) dialogical sequences of closure with significance.

The communicative mode PE is further complemented by the communicative mode “give” (DA). Both modes of communication attempt to identify both instrumental and relational issues of adjustment between the attending students and the expert teacher (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Adjustment problem between the communicative acts Questions and Gives. Own production.

We comprehend that these two distinct movements of educational support pertaining to language are generated in different ways. Maintenance of the fluid deployment of the sequential or planned educational support in PE mode is fed by the lecturer’s (D) search for information about the course of the interaction to assess what questions to ask in order to reinforce and channel the students’ active-comprehending listening (E). However, when the teacher executes action DA, the search for information is centered on the evaluative behavior displayed by the students (E) minute by minute throughout the explanation. It is noteworthy that the critical position of D in DA is not altered by educational support; it does not modify the course of the instructional communication dialogue until the lecturer incorporates the listeners’ message received in DA.

The instructional intervention, supported by a systematic observation study and envisaged as a constructivist learning environment via the viewing of the produced digital videos, involves (Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy, 1999) returning the results incorporated into the theoretical-interpretative diagram, exposing the filming to dialogued self-observation, and establishing a plan of improvement. The use of video analysis in education and in sports training (Chicote et al., 2009; Cushion, 2006; Hernández-Mendo and Anguera, 2000; Lemyre et al., 2007) provides evidence about the benefits it can bring. In our case, it is worth mentioning that self-observation and the discussion of the video recordings connect with the expectations and interests of the teachers involved.

Four examples are presented, one for each case, interpreted according to the theoretical interpretative diagram of the adjustment model PE ECCOipc§EF (Vide; Figure 4). The examples are accompanied by: (i) the adjustment model of experience and shared knowledge in class (ECCO) based on feedback, (ii) the scaffolding mode—sequential or planned, and (iii) a descriptive framework that places each example in the temporal phase of the class session (start, middle, or end), the didactic moment it corresponds to (introduction, development, or closure) and the subject, followed by the subject.

These examples of the adjustment model PE ECCOipc§EF are reflected in the different realities lived and experienced by the four lecturers and embody the interpretative diagram based on the knowledge adjustment shared in class and the analysis of the multiple cases. Therefore, within the framework of participatory action research (Vide, Section 1), the professional educational task requires the teacher to self-observe via the viewing of filmed sessions, moving backward and forward, and stopping in exemplifying situations to describe feedback management and the sequential and planned structure of PI§EF.

The instance of Case A takes place within a scenario that seeks the confirmation (when do we have to hand in the portfolios?) of established rules regarding the study and autonomous development of the work. The situation in Case B corresponds to a dynamic feedback that connects and mobilizes the thematic plan of the course (Last week we talked about the Middle Ages), and it is anticipated that active listening will be established (the students are in preparation mode, taking out material) on what follows and commences the session. Both accumulative examples, owing to their sedimentation of the ongoing work, correspond to a planned scaffolding that guides the conduct of the exposition.

Case C is within a scenario that seeks to ensure the correct reception (to the consulting and clinical [model], right?) of thematic content (models of educational orientation) studied prior to the filmed class session. The situation in the Case D example corresponds to revitalizing feedback mobilized through the act of questioning (Do you know why?), in which the lecturer knows the difficulties the students might have in the action of listening-comprehending, reducing the cognitive distance (because it could be a rule of mathematical correspondence). Both examples—Cases C and D—correspond to a sequential structure plan derived from an in situ interactive sequence between the lecturer and the students.

In terms of the four examples provided here, there are some advanced guidelines to assist the teacher to address basic and important issues, such as: the need to plan autonomous work and study together with the students (Case A); the importance of preparing the necessary resources that affect attention from the beginning of the session, and adopting WE BEGIN mode (Case B); to strengthen objectivism about the circumstances, conditions, and consequences related to learning consolidation (Case C); and mediate cognitive distance with the incorporation of longer pauses following a question that permit the students to establish connections between their prior knowledge through oral contributions (Case D).

The work of teacher self-observation is guided by the discussion of the results from the practiced systematic observation and used as a support of the lived experience in viewing the filmed sessions. This training exercise process involves the conscious, deep, and reflexive vision of the teacher, channeled toward a plan of improvement of what is being done and how it is being done in terms of educational support. As previously stated in the introduction, the objective of PI§EF is to generate and cultivate the expertise of the listener as a communicative actor and as a learner of academic content.

In light of the above, it can be concluded that there exist two key moments in the pursuit of improving the preparation of the expert expository class. These are the updated, substantial, and well-documented moments of assembling the expository plan of curricular content and the moment of preparing communicative interaction, i.e., how to communicate it in the face of the communication-learning problem (Vide; Figure 2), via mechanisms of feedback and the discursive strategies on which the asymmetric commitment of the actors relies.

By way of conclusion, the above examples of the PE ECCOipc§EF adjustment model demonstrate the instructive potential of revealing what was previously hidden from the participants because they did not have the conceptual and analytical tools to objectively deal with the complexity of PI§EF. The four examples form a narrative of the captured images. The results of the observational research conducted are presented to the professional forum responsible for assessing the efficacy of the instructive proposal based on video analysis, backed by a previous systematic observation study conducted within the framework of the mixed methods approach with a multi-case study.

The limitations of this study are twofold: first, it is imperative to augment the number of trained observers; second, it is imperative to adhere to the training and consensus guidelines of the work and evaluate the agreement between observers until the application of the statistics specific to observational methodology. However, the instrument is clear and transparent and therefore has great potential for communication with the scientific and professional community. Furthermore, the laborious work of delimiting, naming, and defining the categories means that it is adaptable to different educational contexts. Furthermore, it allows us to progress through the molecularization of category systems in the morphology of comprehensive attention of the interpretative parts of the expository class, for the benefit of teacher training.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation (Spain: Art. 11 of RD 99/2011, published in BOE 10/2/201) and institutional requirements (University of Barcelona: 21/7/2014). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author contributions

HT: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. CI: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. MA: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.

Funding

The author(s) declare no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

MTA is grateful for the support of the Generalitat de Catalunya Research Group, GRUP DE RECERCA I INNOVACIÓ EN DISSENYS (GRID). Technology and multimedia and digital applications to observational designs [Grant number 2021 SGR 00718] (2022-2024). MTA gratefully acknowledges the support of the Spanish government project Integration between observational data and data from external sensors: Evolution of the LINCE PLUS software and development of the mobile application for the optimization of sports and physical activity beneficial for health [EXP_74847] (2023). Ministry of Culture and Sport, National Sports Council, and the European Union.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1410486/full#supplementary-material

Footnotes

1. ^From now on we will use “question” to refer to ask for, ask questions, request, demand, invite, etc.

2. ^§ specific rules for implementing the expert expository format (EF).

3. ^For more information about the participants, the context, and the scene, consult the following references: Tronchoni, 2019; Tronchoni et al., 2021.

References

Alarcón-Espinoza, M., Samper, P., and Anguera, M. T. (2024). Emotional regulation in the classroom: detection of multiple cases from systematic observation. Front. Psychol. 15:1330941. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1330941

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alvarado-Álvarez, C., Armadans, I., Parada, M. J., and Anguera, M. T. (2021). Unraveling the role of shared vision and trust in constructive conflict management of family firms. An empirical study from a mixed-methods approach. Front. Psychol. 12:629730. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629730

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Anguera, M. T. (1997). “From prospective patterns in behavior to joint analysis with a retrospective perspective” in Méthodologie d’analyse des interactions sociales (Paris, France: Université de la Sorbonne).

Google Scholar

Anguera, M. T. (2018). “Del caso único al caso múltiple en el estudio del comportamiento humano [From single case to multiple case in the study of human behavior]”. in Academia de Psicología de España, Psicología para un mundo sostenible (Pirámide), 31–50.

Google Scholar

Anguera, M. T., Blanco-Villaseñor, A., and Losada, J. L. (2001). Diseños observacionales, cuestión clave en el proceso de la metodología observacional. [Observational designs, a key issue in the observational methodology process]. Metodol. Ciencias Comport. 3, 135–160.

Google Scholar

Anguera, M. T., and Izquierdo, C. (2006). “Methodological approaches in human communication: from complexity of perceived situation to data analysis” in From communication to presence. Cognition, emotions and culture towards the ultimate communicative experience. eds. G. Riva, M. T. Anguera, B. K. Wiederhold, and F. Mantovani (Amsterdam: IOS Press), 203–222.

Google Scholar

Anguera, M. T., Portell, P., Hernández-Mendo, A., Sánchez-Algarra, P., and Jonsson, G. K. (2021). “Diachronic analysis of qualitative data” in Reviewer’s guide for mixed methods research analysis. eds. A. J. Onwuegbuzie and B. Johnson (London: Routledge), 125–138.

Google Scholar

Ausubel, D., Novak, J., and Hanestan, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A cognitive view. 2nd Edn. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Google Scholar

Bakeman, R., and Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. New York: Press Syndicate of University of Cambridge.

Google Scholar

Bakeman, R., and Quera, V. (1996). Análisis de la interacción. Análisis secuencial con SDIS y GSEQ. [analysis of interaction. Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ]. Madrid: RA-MA.

Google Scholar

Bakeman, R., and Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Google Scholar

Barker, L. (1971). Listening Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar

Bazeley, P. (2018). Integrating analyses in mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Oxford: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar

Bruner, J. S. (1978). “The role of dialogue in language acquisition” in The Child's concept of language. eds. A. Sinclair, R. J. Jarvelle, and W. J. M. Levelt (New York: Springer-Verlag).

Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Top. Cogn. Sci. 1, 73–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chicote, J., Morante, J. C., and Vaquera, A. (2009). Propuesta metodológica Para el análisis táctico de las acciones ofensivas en equipos profesionales de baloncesto. [a methodological proposal for the tactical analysis of attacking actions in professional basketball teams]. Cuadernos Psicol. Deporte 9:75.

Google Scholar

Coll, C. (1996). Constructivismo y educación escolar: ni hablamos siempre de lo mismo ni lo hacemos siempre de la misma perspectiva epistemológica. [Constructivism and schooling: we neither always talk about the same thing nor do we do it from the same epistemological perspective]. Anuario Psicol. 69, 153–178.

Google Scholar

Coll, C., Colomina, R., Onrubia, J., and Rochera, M. J. (1992). Actividad conjunta y habla: una aproximación al estudio de los mecanismos de influencia. [joint activity and speech: an approach to the study of the mechanisms of influence]. Infancia Aprendizaje 15, 189–232. doi: 10.1080/02103702.1992.10822356

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Coll, C., and Onrubia, J. (2001). Estrategias discursivas y recursos semióticos en la construcción de sistemas de significados compartidos entre profesor y alumnos. [discursive strategies and semiotic resources in the construction of systems of meaning shared between teacher and student]. Invest. Escuela 45, 21–31. doi: 10.12795/IE.2001.i45.02

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cushion, C. (2006). “Mentoring. Harnessing the power of experience” in The sports coach as educator: Re-conceptualising sports coaching. ed. R. Jones (London: Routledge).

Google Scholar

Duncan, S.Jr. (1973). Toward a grammar for dyadic conversation. Semiotica 9, 20–26. doi: 10.1515/semi.1973.9.1.29

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Duncan, S. D., and Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods, and theory. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.

Google Scholar

Fernández, I., and Cuadrado, I. (2008). ¿Son conscientes los profesores de secundaria de los recursos comunicativos verbales y no verbales que emplean en el aula? [are high school teachers aware of the verbal and non-verbal resources that they use in the classroom?]. Rev. Iberoamericana Educ. 46, 1–13. doi: 10.35362/rie4661938

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gabin, B., Camerino, O., Anguera, M. T., and Castañer, M. (2012). Lince: multiplatform sport analysis software. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 46, 4692–4694. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.320

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

García-Fariña, A., Jiménez, F., and Anguera, M. T. (2018). Observation of physical education teachers’ communication: detecting patterns in verbal behavior. Front. Psychol. 9:334. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00334

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row.

Google Scholar

Grice, P. (1975). “Lógica y Convers08ación”. in L. M. Valdés Villanueva (Comp.), La búsqueda del significado (pp. 511–530). Madrid: Tecnos.

Google Scholar

Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. Psychol. 1, 79–91. doi: 10.1037/stl0000021

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hernández-Mendo, A., and Anguera, M. T. (2000). “Aportaciones del anàlisis secuencial a las acciones de juego en deportes sociomotores”. [Contributions of sequential analysis to game actions in social-motor sports] in Actas del V Congreso de Metodología de las CC. Humanas y Sociales. eds. A. M. L. Jiménez, J. L. Ruiz, and R. M. Rodríguez (Kronos), 53–58.

Google Scholar

Houser, M. L., and Hosek, A. M. (2018). Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives. 2nd Edn. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Google Scholar

Izquierdo, C. (1996). “La reunión de profesores. Participar, observar y analizar la comunicación en grupo” in The teachers’ meeting. To participate, observe and analyze group communication (Barcelona: Paidós).

Google Scholar

Izquierdo, C., and Anguera, M. T. (2021). The analysis of interpersonal communication in sport from mixed methods strategy: the integration of qualitative-quantitative elements using systematic observation. Front. Psychol. 12:637304. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.637304

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Izquierdo, C., and Perinat, A. (Coords.) (2010). Investigar en psicología de la comunicación. Nuevas perspectivas conceptuales y metodológicas. [Researching the psychology of communication. New conceptual and methodological perspectives] Barcelona: Amentia.

Google Scholar

Jonassen, D., and Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 47, 61–79. doi: 10.1007/BF02299477

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kilby, B. (2021). Dialogic pedagogies: defining and analyzing four types of dialogue in education. Anal. Teach. Philosop. Praxis 41, 106–121.

Google Scholar

Lemyre, F., Trudel, P., and Durand-Bush, N. (2007). How youth-sport coaches learn to coach. Sport Psychol. 21, 191–209. doi: 10.1123/tsp.21.2.191

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mandl, H., Gruber, H., and Renkl, A. (1996). “Communities of practice toward expertise: social foundation of university instruction” in Interactive minds. Life-span perspectives on social Foundation of Cognition. eds. P. B. Baltes and U. M. Staudinger (Cambridge: University Press), 394–411.

Google Scholar

Marc, E., and Picard, D. (1989). L’interaction sociale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Google Scholar

McCarthy, M. J. (2003). Talking back: ‘small’ interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 36, 33–63. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Monereo, C. (2009). La formación del profesorado: una pauta para el análisis e intervención a través de incidentes críticos. [Teacher training: a guide for analysis and intervention via critical incidents]. Rev. Iberoamericana Educ. 52, 149–178. doi: 10.35362/rie520615

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mottet, T. P. (2015). Affective learning from a cognitive neuroscientific perspective. Commun. Educ. 64, 508–510. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2015.1064144

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Novak, K. (2016). UDL now!: A teacher’s guide to applying universal design for learning in today’s classrooms. 2nd Edn. Wakefield, MA: Cast Professional Publishing.

Google Scholar

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008). Measuring Improvements in Learning Outcomes: Best Practices to Assess the Value-Added of Schools.

Google Scholar

Pérez Fernández, C. (2008). Acercamiento a la escucha comprensiva. [An approach to listening comprehension]. Rev. Iberoamericana Educ. 45:1. doi: 10.35362/rie4522141

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Poyatos, F. (1983). New perspectives in nonverbal communication: Studies in cultural anthropology, social psychology, linguistics, literature, and semiotics. New York: Pergamon Press.

Google Scholar

Prados, M. M., and Cubero, R. (2005). Construcción del conocimiento y discurso educativo. Una aproximación al estudio del discurso de profesores y alumnos en la Universidad. [construction of knowledge and educational discourse. An approach to the study of university lecturer and student discourse]. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana 23, 141–153.

Google Scholar

Rogers, W. (1984). Communication in action. Building speech competencies. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Google Scholar

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Sackett, G. P. (1979). “The lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity on behavioral interaction research” in Handbook of infant development. ed. J. D. Osofsky (New York: Wiley), 623–649.

Google Scholar

Sackett, G. P. (1980). “Lag sequential analysis as a data reduction technique in social interaction research” in Exceptional infant. Psychosocial risks in infant-environment transactions. eds. D. B. Sawin, R. C. Hawkins, L. O. Walker, and J. H. Penticuff (New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel), 300–340.

Google Scholar

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bas Inc.

Google Scholar

Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (2004). La teoría de la relevancia. Rev. Invest. Lingüíst. 7, 233–282.

Google Scholar

Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.

Google Scholar

Staudinger, U. M., and Baltes, P. B. (1996). Interactive minds: a facilitative setting for wisdom-related performance? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71, 746–762. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.746

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stobart, G. (2014). The expert learner. Challenging the myth of ability. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Google Scholar

Tronchoni, H. (2019). Estudio observacional de la comunicación multimodal en el aula universitaria: Contextos y estructuras de participación discursiva en las sesiones magistrales. {Tesis doctoral}. [an observational study of multimodal communication in the university classroom: Contexts and structures of discursive participation in university lectures] (PhD Thesis) Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona.

Google Scholar

Tronchoni, H., Izquierdo, C., and Anguera, M. T. (2018a). Direct and indirect observation of teacher-student interaction in a university lecture class: a mixed method study. [Paper presentation]. MMIRA international conference. Vienna, Austria.

Google Scholar

Tronchoni, H., Izquierdo, C., and Anguera, M. T. (2018b). Participatory interaction in lectures: theoretical framework and construction of an observational instrument. Publica 48, 81–108. doi: 10.30827/publicaciones.v48i1.733

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tronchoni, H., Izquierdo, C., and Anguera, M. T. (2021). Regulation of participatory interaction in university lectures. Co-constructive training proposal based on observational methodology as mixed method strategy. Publica 51, 89–110. doi: 10.30827/publicaciones.v51i2.20751

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tronchoni, H., Izquierdo, C., and Anguera, M. T. (2022). A systematic review on lecturing in contemporary university teaching. Front. Psychol. 13:971617. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.971617

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ur, P. (1994). Teaching listening comprehension. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Van Dijk, T. A. (1985). “Dialogue and cognition” in Cognitive constraints on communication. Representations and processes. eds. L. V. Vaina and J. Hintikka (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company).

Google Scholar

Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). “El discurso como interacción en la sociedad”. [Discourse as interaction in society] in T. A. DijkVan (Comp.), El discurso como interacción social. Estudios del discurso: introducción multidisciplinaria. Barcelona: Gedisa, 2, 19–66.

Google Scholar

Van Dijk, T. A., and Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.

Google Scholar

Van Dijk, E. E., van Tartwijk, J., van der Schaaf, M. F., and Kluijtmans, M. (2020). What makes an expert university teacher? A systematic review and synthesis of frameworks for teacher expertise in higher education. Educ. Res. Rev. 31:100365. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100365

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Watzlawick, P., and Jackson, D. D. (2010). On human communication (1964). J. Syst. Therap. 29, 53–68. doi: 10.1521/jsyt.2010.29.2.53

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Watzlawick, P., and Weakland, J. (1977). The interactional view. New York: Norton.

Google Scholar

Wertsch, J. V. (1988). Vygotsky y la formación social de la mente. [Vygotsky and the social formation of the mind]. Barcelona: Paidós.

Google Scholar

Winkin, Y. (1981). La nouvelle communication. Paris: Seuil.

Google Scholar

Yelland, N., and Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Comput. Educ. 48, 362–382. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.01.010

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar