Accounting for Hybridized Activities in University Students’ Video-Mediated Breakout Room Interactions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v8i2.150623Nøgleord:
video-mediated interaction, accountability, entitlement, hybridized activityResumé
Using video recordings collected from an online language course, this study examines activities that university students engage in simultaneously while doing groupwork in breakout rooms on zoom. As a method, this study employs multimodal conversation analysis to shed light on the students’ verbal accounts (i.e., verbalizations of the activity) for their hybridized activities, in particular how their verbal accounts make visible varying levels of moral entitlement, and how their peers react to these accounts. The findings show that the students produce accounts at various points in sequences (before the activity, during the activity, or after the activity has ended). Whilst contingent on the situation at hand, the nature of the hybridized activity, as well as the level of entitlement in the account produced affected whether the responses prompted were aligning/affiliating or disaligning/disaffiliating (see Steensig, 2019) in relation to the accounts. Overall, this study contributes to the existing literature on “fractured ecologies” in video-mediated interactions (Luff et al., 2003), while also drawing implications to the lack of monitorability and to what seems to be an increased tolerance towards multitasking in video-mediated educational interactions.
Referencer
Asmuß, B. (2007). What Do People Expect from Public Services? Requests in Public Service Encounters. HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 20(38), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v20i38.25905
Asmuß, B. & Oshima, S. (2012). Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse studies, 14(1), 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427215
Balaman, U. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2022). Navigating the complex social ecology of screen-based activity in video-mediated interaction. Pragmatics, 32(1), 54-79. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20023.bal
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Turn continuation and clause combinations. Discourse Processes, 49, 273-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.664111
Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse studies, 12(4), 419-442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126
Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613
Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219-253. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219
Fox, B. A. (2001). Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11(2), 167-192. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2001.11.2.167
Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of and experiments with ‘trust’ as a condition of concerted actions. In O.J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Approaches (pp. 187-238). Ronald Press.
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1991). Disembodied conduct: communication through video in a multi-media office environment. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '91) (pp. 99-103). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/108844.10885
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000). Animating texts: the collaborative production of news stories. In C. Heath & P. Luff (Eds.), Technology in Action (pp. 61-87). Cambridge University Press.
Heinemann, T. (2006). 'Will you or can't you?': Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1081-1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013
Hepburn, A. & Bolden, G. The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57-76). Wiley-Blackwell.
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 127-144). Sage.
Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., & Haddington, P. (2014). Suspending action: From simultaneous to consecutive ordering of multiple courses of action. In P. Haddington, T. Keisanen, L. Mondada & M. Nevile (Eds.), Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond multitasking (pp. 109-134). John Benjamins.
Licoppe, C., & Morel, J. (2012). Video-in-Interaction: “Talking Heads” and the Multimodal Organization of Mobile and Skype Video Calls. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 399–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.724996
Lindström, A. (2005). Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting M (Eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation (pp. 209-230). John Benjamins.
Luff, P., Heath, C., Kuzuoka, H., Hindmarsh, J., Yamazaki, K., & Oyama, S. (2003). Fractured Ecologies: Creating Environments for Collaboration. Human-Computer Interaction,18 (1-2), 51-84. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1812_3
Luff, P., Jirotka, M., Yamashita, N., Kuzuoka, H., Heath, C., & Eden, G. (2013). Embedded interaction: The accomplishment of actions in everyday and video-mediated environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 20 (1). https://doi.org/10.1145/2442106.2442112
Mondada, L. (2022). Conventions for multimodal transcription. Version 6.0.1. Retrieved fromhttps://www.lorenzamondada.net/_files/ugd/ba0dbb_3978d2a34cf44376adb7a341975d23aa.pdf
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
Oittinen, T. (2020). Coordinating Actions in and across Interactional Spaces in Technology-Mediated Business Meetings. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä].
Relieu, M. (2005) Les usages des TIC en situation naturelle: une approche ethnométhodologique de l’hybridation des espaces d’activité. Intellectica, 2 (41–42), 139-162. https://doi.org/10.3406/intel.2005.1725
Robinson, J. D. (2009). Managing counterinformings: An interactional practice for soliciting information that facilitates reconciliation of speakers' incompatible positions. Human Communication Research, 35 (4), 561-587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01363.x
Robinson, J. (2016). Accountability in Social Interaction. In J. Robinson (Ed.) Accountability in Social Interaction (pp. 1-32). Oxford University Press.
Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31-74). The Free Press.
Sacks, H. (1992a). Lecture 5: Suicide as a device for discovering if anybody cares (Part 1: Fall 1964-Spring 1965). In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on conversation: Volume 1 (pp. 32-39). Wiley-Blackwell.
Sacks, H. (1992b). Lecture 27: A mis-hearing ("a green?"); A taboo on hearing (Part III: Spring 1966). In G. Jefferson (ed.), Lectures on conversation: Volume 1 (pp. 450-455). Wiley-Blackwell.
Salomaa, E., Kohonen-Aho, L., & Martikainen, S. (2024). Navigating Between On-Screen Activities and Discussion: Multiactivity in Video-Mediated B2B Sales Interactions. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v7i4.143519
Schegloff, E. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289-327. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
Scott, M., & Lyman, S. (1968). Accounts. American sociological review. 33 (1), 46-62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092239
Seuren, L. M., Wherton, J., Greenhalgh, T., & Shaw, S. E. (2021). Whose turn is it anyway? Latency and the organization of turn-taking in video-mediated interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 172, 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.11.005
Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic Conversation Analytic Methods. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77-100). Wiley-Blackwell.
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.
Sorjonen, M. (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.70
Steensig, J. (2019). Conversation Analysis and Affiliation and Alignment. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0196.pub2
Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 3–24). Cambridge University Press.
Vatanen, A. & Haddington, P. (2023). Multiactivity in adult-child interaction: accounts resolving conflicting courses of action in request sequences. Text & Talk, 43(2), 263-290. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0165
Downloads
Publiceret
Citation/Eksport
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Copyright (c) 2025 Author and Journal
Dette værk er under følgende licens Creative Commons Navngivelse – Ikke-kommerciel – Ingen Bearbejdede Værker (by-nc-nd).
We follow the Budapest Open Access Initiative's definition of Open Access.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
The journal allows software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)
The journal provides article level metadata to DOAJ
The journal allows readers to read, download, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.
