Putting Semantics to work in analysing pedagogic practice: Studies of Law and Political Science

1. Putting Semantics to work in analysing pedagogic practice: Studies of Law and Political Science Sherran Clarence University of the Western Cape sherranclarence@gmail.com 17 October 2014

2. Orientation to the study • PhD study – two disciplines : Law and PoliSci • Data generated in two courses over one semester – interviews, documents and classroom observation • Particularly focused on pedagogy • Research question: kinds of pedagogic practice than can enable and/or constrain cumulative and relational knowledge-building over time • Study used Specialisation and Semantics to analyse the data

3. LCTSemantics • Semantic gravity (SG) – level of connection between meanings and contexts • Semantic density (SD) – condensation of meanings with terms, concepts, symbols etc • Coding moments within the teaching semester – looking specifically at semantic waves where SG and SD move inversely to one another – limited selection of data • Use of semantic profiles to look at how lecturers are connecting/relating (or not) parts into more cohesive ‘wholes’ to enable more relational understanding of the discipline and the knowledges within the course they are teaching

4. Overview of courses chosen • Two first year, first semester courses • Smaller semantic ranges and waves expected • Both courses, however, do expect increase in semantic range by end of first semester (14 weeks) • Lecturers all fairly ‘young’ in their academic careers – range of semantic ranges here, but lower in PoliSci than in Law in terms of lecturers’ own knowledge of subjects they were teaching

5. Law • Law of Persons – foundation for other courses students will take as they proceed through the degree programme • Tightly framed classroom – lecturer very much in role of expert, and students expected mostly to listen and take notes • Small opportunities to ask questions, and to contribute through summarising cases etc– quite a passive student space • Packed curriculum – content-heavy with more telling than showing, and lots of facts and theory for students to learn and remember (although application and analysis is expected)

6. Political Science • Introduction to Political Science/Intl Relations • Split course into two modules – one more ‘Political Theory’ and one ‘International Relations’ • Two lecturers share the course • Much more active and ‘chatty’ lectures – students asked to do lots of ‘buzzing’ and also debating – more loosely framed • Less packed curriculum, but more focused on issues and narratives than introducing students to more disciplinary field of study, yet analysis and critical engagement with issues is also expected of students

7. Law waves

11. PoliSci waves

14. Swell, waves and learning to surf • Metaphor of learning to surf – first year students • Need to start on smaller, gentler waves and move incrementally to larger, scarier waves • As waves get steeper so does swell – you need to understand and use the swell to help you become more a proficient surfer • Need an expert guide to let you try and fail and try again with feedback – lots of practice needed to become proficient esp. with a cultivated code • Surfing works nicely here because it could be seen as a knower or a knowledge code depending on what you value and emphasise (I think)

15. Broad findings • Law swell was application of legal principles to problems/Pol swell was using concepts or theory to analyse particular issues more critically • In both cases, semantic ranges started out fairly small, but in Law there was a greater sense of trying to increase this, especially after the 1st test midway through semester; Pol waves tended to stay fairly small overall esp. in term 1 • Waves in Law tend to be ‘higher’ up the profile –lecturers very focused on ‘teaching the theory’ • Waves in PoliSci tend to be ‘lower’ on the profile – lecturers more keen on ‘getting students excited about Politics’

16. Broad findings • In both cases curriculum is ‘stuffed’ but not enough with the things students need to shift down more (Law) or up more (Pol) • I.e. the means are not necessarily well-aligned with the claimed ends (too much loose discussion in Pol; no or little discussion and modelling in Law for example) • E.g.: • To be able to argue coherently • To raise controversial issues and back them with facts • To be able to write academically • To be able to stand up and defend a point you make (Mike, Political Science, field notes, 2013).

17. Broad findings • In Law more than in Pol the waves seem steeper going in – starting quite ‘high’ with theory and principles and coming down towards examples and cases, but lecturer rather than student focused so theory quite detached from more concrete applications • Pol started more with stories, issues, current events and pulled concepts in as needed to discuss the events – theory quite detached from its application • Similar problem, but in Law coming down is important in practice, and in Pol going up is more important.

18. Putting Semantics to work in changing pedagogy • Where I am now: starting to feed back to lecturers, their depts and their faculties the findings of the study • Using SG to work with student-tutors helping them to think about making tutorials more about developing understanding and ‘connecting dots’ than rehashing lectures or just doing homework – mostly successful • Need to work out how to make the more theoretical approach of the PhD practical to start working with lecturers to change pedagogic approaches and possibly also curricula ***

19. Challenges of using Semantics in a big study • Profiles – how to draw a series of lectures, or disconnected (but also connected) parts of one lecture; how to show more close-up detail with a fairly nebulous heuristic (esp. with knowledge codes that like precision quite a lot) • Working a lot on own judgement and ‘gut’ feel when drawing the profiles – does this decrease the validity of the profiles/data?