The document summarizes a study on a blended learning course for psychology students in Italy. It analyzes student discussions at the beginning and end of the course using dialogical discourse analysis. At the beginning, students positioned themselves as passive learners against the university system, but by the end saw themselves as more collaborative and active in the blended course, enacting supportive roles. Their discussions showed a shift from positions dominated by teachers to more democratic relationships between voices in the blended learning context.

1. UN CORSO DI APPRENDIMENTO
BLENDED COME CONTESTO A
SUPPORTO DELL’ESPRESSIONE
DEMOCRATICA DI SÉ
F. Feldia Loperfido
Università degli Studi di Bari
E-mail: feldialop@gmail.com

2. Theoretical perspective (1)
• A whole-person approach concerning identity, motivation
and higher mental functions is needed to educate for
sustainability (Podger, Mustakova-Possardt and Reid,
2000);
• Sustainability is about cultural identities, equity, respect,
society-nature relationships, development, justice, peace,
conflicts, and human rights (Wals, Jicklin, 2002);

3. Theoretical perspective (2)
– Dialogism
(Bakhtin, 1930/1981, 1941/1965,
trans. 1986) as a lens to understand the dynamic
and intersubjective structure of the Self;
– Concepts
of
polyphony
(simultaneous
association of voices) and chronotope (the
inseparable connection between space and time,
always colored by values and emotions);
– Magistral, Socratic and Menippean dialogue
(Bakhtin, 1961/1986) representing the power
relations among the first, the second and the
third voice;

4. Theoretical perspective (3)
– Magistral dialogue  asimmetry of interlocutors
due to the asimmetry of power, discourse
toward a correct meaning;
– Socratic
dialogue  questionning and
challenging of voices;
– Menippean dialogue  the third voice is
completely mocked and rejected by the second
one.
– The Dialogical Self. The multiple, dynamic, and
polyphonic presence of several I-positions and
the unity of the Self (Hermans, 2002; Hermans,
Kempen, 1993);

5. Aim
• To investigate how the three forms of dialogue feature the
Self over a blended learning experience

6. The context
• Two blended learning courses held at the University of
Bari (IT) (2008-09 and 2009-10 academic year) involving
52 burgeoning psychologists (2008-09 academic year:
four males, 12 females, average age 23 years; 2009-10
academic year: 10 males, 30 females, average age 27
years)
• Each course was based on the Blended Collaborative and
Constructive Participation (BCCP) model (Ligorio &
Cucchiara, 2011)

7. The BCCP model

8. Data collection
• Eight focus group discussions about learning and identity
– First course: one discussion held at the beginning (N=10) and
another at the end (N= 5);
– Second course: three discussions conducted at the beginning (N =
36) and three at the end (because of the higher number of
students) (N = 34).
All of the discussions have been audio-recorded and transcribed by
using the Jefferson notation system.

9. Data analysis
• Dialogical discourse analysis (DDA) (Wortham, 2001) looking at
both narrated (what people say)and storytelling (what people act
when they narrate) events;
• Two steps:
• 1) reading the whole data corpus to have a global view of the utterances
context and to detect indexical clues (references and predication,
metapragmatic descriptors, quotations, evaluative indexicals, and
epistemic modalization)
• 2) re-reading the data looking for interpretative inferences taking into
account the context of the discourse
• Two researchers first performed the two steps of analysis
independently, later they compared and discussed the analysis
involving a third researcher in case of divergence (about 15%).

10. Overview of the results
Beginning
End
Narrated
event
- Actual positions: passive, not practical,
traditional – other learning contexts;
Potential
positions:
critique,
collaborative, active learners – the
blended context;
- The first voice requires how and what
the second voice has to learn and to
behave;
-The second voice recognizes the third
voice as a system to be criticized
- Actual positions: Individual, independent
and traditional learners – traditional
learning chronotopes; collaborative, active
and critical learners – the blended course;
-The first voice decides how and what the
second voice has to learn. The teacher of
the blended course allows the group
positions and a critique approach to
learning;
Contradiction
between
learning
chronotopes, similarity between blended
and job chronotopes
Storytelling
event
- Power relations researcher/students
defined by the researcher
When students talk about the university
system they enact a collective actor
against the system (a “Menippean-WePosition)
Individual positions;
When students talk about the blended
learning strategies they enact supportive
and collective voices

11. Beginning of the course 2008 – 09, narrated event;
The second voice against the first and the third one

12. End of the course 2009 – 10, narrated event;
A collaborative second voice against the
individualism

13. End of the course 2009 – 10, storytelling event;
A collective voice in the learning course

14. Conclusions
• The Magistral dialogue is associated to the previous learning
•
•
•
•
•
experiences;
System of the Self constituted by the first voice (teachers), the
second one (students) and the third one (the university system);
The Menippean dialogue is related to the blended course and allows
students to position themselves as more collaborative, active, and
able to self-defined their own learning activities;
The first voice of the teacher of the blended course is perceived as
opposite to the third voice;
Both narrated and storytelling events change over the course as, at
the end, students refer to a new structure of voices and enact at the
interactional level those collaborative, critique, and active positions
related to the blended course;
The participation in the course based on the BCCP model sustained
the formation of more democratic relationships and the distribution of
power among the three voices