Jordan and Henderson (1995) introduced Interaction Analysis (IA) as a video-based method for studying human interactions. They argued for the advantages of video-based analysis over traditional methods, such as participant observation and interviews, as it provides a more complete, objective, and permanent record of events. Jordan and Henderson (1995) begin with the definition of IA as “an interdisciplinary method for the empirical investigation of the interaction of human beings with each other and with objects in their environment” (p. 39). This methodology leverages video “technology of audiovisual recording for its primary records and on playback capability for their analysis” (Jordan & Henderson,1995, p. 40).
In my research on instructor development, this emphasis on video as a tool for capturing authentic interactions is relevant. By recording instructors during professional development sessions or in their teaching practices, I can get rich data to analyze their responses to training and integrate new practices. This process enables me to obtain evidence from their real-time activities, enhancing my understanding of their learning. As Jordan and Henderson stated, video technology “allows for a close interrogation required for Interaction Analysis” (p. 39), aligning well with my plan to gain insights from real-time, observable practices.
In addition, Jordan and Henderson (1995) illustrated IA’s collaborative nature, stating, “The prolific generation of observations and hypotheses, the control of analyst bias, and the ability to draw on comparative materials from other tapes all depend on the fact that we meet regularly and work together” (p. 80). This displayed that IA involves collaborative group analysis sessions, where hypotheses about the interactions are proposed and discussed. The authors highlighted the collaborative process as a key strategy to reduce ‘confirmation bias.’ (Jordan & Henderson, 1995). This approach aligns well with my plan to use focus groups or team-based analysis sessions to validate findings and reduce individual bias, thereby enriching the reliability of my insights into ongoing development training.
Bang (2020) discussed the importance of understanding human learning and development as constantly “on the move” and migrating, challenging “sedentarist” biases in education and research that view learning as fixed and unchanging. She (2020) challenged Western education’s ” sedentarism bias,” stating, “Non-movement is a historically accumulating bias that serves the long trajectory of powered struggles in Western knowledge systems” (Bang, 2020, p. 431). By promoting mobilities, migrations, and places, Bang visioned more just, sustainable, culturally thriving future. In her work, Bang (2020) incorporated the 3 quotes from Kimmerer (2013) and Deloria (1999) to emphasize the deep connection between humans and nature, as well as the importance of respect and care. Kimmerer (2013) suggested that “as we work to heal the earth, the earth heals us,” (as cited in Bang, 2020, p.434) highlighting the relationship between humans and the environment. Deloria built on this by stressing that each life form deserves respect and that we can learn valuable lessons from each one and encouraging us to turn this understanding into our daily practice. All three quotes together illustrate that education should teach us to connect with and care for the world around us. Bang (2020) also addressed the challenge of envisioning news, inclusive futures, stating, “Perhaps one of the greatest challenges we face is in our practices and capacities for dreaming what could be from places that aren’t defined by the ontological denials and negations of the past worlds” (p. 440). In addition, Bang (2020) highlighted the importance of relational ethics, suggesting that learning should foster “the relational construals between families and a range of institutions” (p. 440) to create spaces where students feel a responsibility toward others and the natural world. By connecting these insights with Indigenous perspectives, she illustrated that learning is not just about acquiring information but about “bundling data and the many ways in which the making of data bundles is a profoundly ontological act” (p. 442).
Goodwin (2013) examined how human actions are built by different types of semiotic materials, introducing the concept of “substrates,” which are shared elements from prior actions that are reused and transformed to create new actions. He emphasized that “human beings inhabit each other’s actions” (Goodwin, 2013, p. 15). In the context of my research on instructors’ ongoing professional development, I could see this concept that educators can benefit from building on their existing knowledge and experience, which is essential for their effective teaching practices. My research design of the PD training can implement Goodwin’s ideas on “reused and transformed” of prior teaching experience into new strategies. Moreover, Goodwin (2013) stated that “[h] uman action is intensely, perhaps uniquely, co-operative. Individual actions are constructed by assembling diverse materials, including language structure, prosody, and visible embodied displays” (p.8). I believe that “Cooperative” aligns well with the collaborative nature of professional development. My research might explore how instructors learn from one another through shared experiences, discussions, and collaborative projects. This reinforces the need for my study, which encourages collaboration among educators, fostering a supportive learning environment. As Goodwin noted, through apprenticeships, “communities invest their members with the resources required to understand each other” (p. 20). This highlights the importance of social learning within communities, equipping individuals with the necessary skills to participate in and contribute to their community of practices and knowledge.
The three articles from this week share a common interest in the dynamics of human interaction, knowledge creation, and the social environment. Goodwin emphasized the cooperative nature of human action, stating that “individual actions are constructed by assembling diverse materials, including language structure, prosody, and visible embodied displays” (Goodwin, 2013, p. 8). This focus on cooperative social interaction aligns with Jordan and Henderson’s approach in “Interaction Analysis,” which examines how participants use “the social and material resources inherent in their situations for getting their mutual dealings done” (Jordan & Henderson, 1995, p. 42). Both articles reveal the importance of collaborative processes in knowledge. However, Bang’s work situates learning within cultural and ecological contexts, highlighting that “place is always in the making through our movements and relations” (Bang, 2020, p. 434). She stressed the importance of understanding the interconnections between social, cultural, and environmental factors in learning, arguing that “non-movements are social constructions” that reflect historical biases within knowledge systems (Bang, 2020, p. 434).
In terms of supporting my own research on designing professional development for instructors, these three articles offer valuable insights into creating responsive and culturally relevant learning environments, particularly the works from Goodwin and Jordan and Henderson, which directly connect/support my research. Goodwin’s concept of “co-operative transformation zones” highlights the importance of collaborative learning experiences where “distinctive forms of co-operative social organization” arise from the interactions among participants (p. 8). This idea can guide training programs to create spaces where instructors can engage in shared knowledge construction, facilitating adaptive interactions that enhance student learning. Jordan and Henderson in their work on IA, encourage educators to closely observe and reflect on their interactions. They state, “verifiable observation provides the best foundation for analytic knowledge of the world” (p. 41). By applying this method in professional development, instructors can systematically analyze their own and each other’s instructional practices, fostering an environment of continuous improvement. This practice helps educators understand the dynamics of their teaching and refine their approaches based on empirical evidence gathered through observation.
References
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
Bang, M. (2020). Learning on the Move Toward Just, Sustainable, and Culturally Thriving Futures. Cognition and Instruction, 38(3), 434–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2020.1777999
Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003
Leave a Reply