Cover not available
Article published In:
Genre and Disciplinarity
Edited by Tim Moore, Janne Morton and Steve Price
[Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 41:2] 2018
► pp. 157–184

Knowledge building

How interdisciplinary understandings are realised in team negotiation

| The University of Sydney
Successful research and teaching of discipline genres is based on collaboration among language and learning specialists with expertise in applied linguistics, and subject area specialists with expertise in the knowledge and communication practices of their disciplines. These interdisciplinary collaborations involve experts coming together around an area of shared interest in a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), where members are committed to building relationships to learn from each other, and in this process build new knowledge (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). This paper aims to identify the kinds of knowledge building negotiations involving a team of discipline staff, academic literacy specialists, and e-learning specialists as they collaborate in the design of online learning materials to support students in writing the laboratory report genre in the discipline of physiology. The data consist of recordings of team members’ spoken interactions, with or without other artefacts, such as storyboards, over a period of nine months as the design for the website evolved. Initial discourse analysis of transcripts, based on the metafunctions from Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) (Halliday, 1985a), is used to identify phases where the emphasis is on the negotiation of ideational, or content meanings, enabled by interpersonal and textual meanings. A sample of these phases is then analysed in detail using exchange structure (Martin, 1992) to identify possible genres which build new knowledge and embody it in the online resources.
Keywords: discourse analysis, spoken interaction, interdisciplinary knowledge building, team meeting genres
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and background
  • 2.Broad theoretical framework
  • 3.Analysis of talk in institutional meetings
  • 4.Data and participants
  • 5.Analysis
    • 5.1Negotiating knowledge
    • 5.2Disputing knowledge
    • 5.3Explaining knowledge
    • 5.4Towards a meeting genre
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • References
Published online: 10 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.00008.dru
References (54)
References
Akkerman, S., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Akkerman, S., & Bruining, T. (2016). Multilevel boundary crossing in a professional development school partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 240–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, J. (1997). Managing language. The discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: One concept, two hills to climb. In S. C. Tan, H. J. So & J. Yeo (Eds.), Knowledge Creation in Education (pp. 35–52). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K., Flowerdew, J., & Jones, R. H. (Eds.). (2008). Advances in discourse studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Briguglio, C. (2014). Working in the third space: promoting interdisciplinary collaboration to embed English language development into the disciplines. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government, Office for Learning and Teaching, Department of Education and Training.Google Scholar
Christie, F., & Maton, K. (2011). Disciplinarity. Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Clifton, J. (2006). A conversation analytical approach to business communication. The case of leadership. Journal of Business Communication, 43(3), 202–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cober, R., Tan, E., Slotta, J., So, H. J., & Konings, K. D. (2015). Teachers as participatory designers: Two case studies with technology-enhanced learning environments. Instructional Science, 431, 203–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coffin, C., & Donohue, J. (2014). A language as social semiotic based approach to teaching and learning in higher education. Malden, M.A.: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
De Silva Joyce, H. (Ed.). (2016). Language at work: Analysing language use in work, education, medical and museum contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
(2012). Clinical handover as an interactive event: Informational and interactional communication strategies in effective shift-change handovers. Communication and Medicine, 9(3), 215–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finlay, L., & Gough, B. (Eds). (2003). Reflexivity. A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J., & Costley, T. (Eds.). (2017). Discipline-specific writing theory into practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gardner, S. (2012). Genres and registers of student report writing: An SFL perspective on texts and practices. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 111, 52–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, R., & Willey, K. (2016). “It’s not my job to teach writing”: Activity theory analysis of [invisible] writing practices in the engineering curriculum. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 10(1), A118–A129.Google Scholar
Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 21, 27–50.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985a). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
(1985b). Spoken and written language. Victoria: Deakin University.Google Scholar
Handford, M. (2010). The language of business meetings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, A., & Ashton, J. (2011). Embedding and integrating language and academic skills: An innovative approach. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 5(2), A73–A87.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action. Interactions, identities and institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in social discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iedema, R. (2003). Discourses of post-bureaucratic organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iedema, R., & Sheeres, H. (2003). From doing work to talking work: Renegotiating knowing, doing and identity. Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 316–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. (2009). Multiliteracies for academic purposes: A metafunctional exploration of intersemiosis and multimodality in university textbook and computer-based learning resources in science (Doctoral Thesis, University of Sydney, Australia). Retrieved from [URL]
Jones, J., Bonanno, H., & Scouller, K. (2001, November 29–30). Staff and student roles in central and faculty-based learning support: Changing partnerships. Paper presented at Changing Identities: 2001 National Language and Academic Skills Conference, University of Wollongong.
Kali, Y., Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2011). Researching design practices and design cognition: Contexts, concretisation and pedagogical knowledge-in-pieces. Learning, Media & Technology, 361, 129–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kali, Y., McKenney, S., & Sagy, O. (2015). Teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning. Instructional Science, 431, 173–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Learning Centre, The University of Sydney. (2012). Write reports in science and engineering (WRiSE). Retrieved from [URL]
Manathunga, C., & Brew, A. (2012). Beyond tribes and territories: New metaphors for new times. In P. Trowler, M. Saunders & V. Bamber, (Eds.), Tribes and territories in the 21st century. Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education (pp. 44–56). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2014). Professional work and knowledge. In S. Billett, C. Harteis, & H. Gruber (Eds.), International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning (pp. 79–106). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
(2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Factoring out exchange: Types of structure. In M. C. Coulthard, J. Cotterill, & F. Rock (Eds.), Dialogue analysis V11: Working with dialogue. Selected papers from the 7th IADA Conference Birmingham 1999 (pp. 19–40). Tubingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 24(1), 8–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nielson, F. M. (2013). “Stepping stones” in opening and closing department meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 50(1), 34–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, J. (2017). Teaching writing for science and technology. In J. Flowerdew & T. Costley (Eds.), Discipline-specific writing theory into practice (pp. 95–114). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skillen, J., Merten, M., Trivett, N., & Percy, A. (1998). The IDEALL approach to Learning Development: A model for fostering improved literacy and learning outcomes for students. Retrieved from [URL]
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trowler, P., Saunders, M., & Bamber, V. (Eds.). (2012). Tribes and territories in the 21st century. Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as structure and process: Discourse studies volume 1. A multidisciplinary introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Ventola, E. (1988). The logical relations in exchanges. In J. D. Benson, & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic functional approaches to discourse (pp. 51–72). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills’. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 457–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Oliver, Rhonda, Honglin Chen & Sender Dovchin
2024. Review of selected research in applied linguistics published in Australia (2015–2022). Language Teaching ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.