Learning Across Sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices - Earli

For EARLI members only.
Not for onward distribution.
132 A.-C. Eklund et al.
The reporting procedure is, on this occasion, a joint reading of the text, explicitly
guided by SL and his finger moving along the text (turns 1 and 5). That the text
entry is insufficient is suggested in turn 1 and 7 where SL’s formulation and intonation
communicate that the information is incomprehensible. It is met by a short
yet noticeable pause followed by laughter (turn 8). SL concludes an agreement
of the suggested vagueness of the text by “well, welcome to the club” (turn 9),
which convey them all into the category of unaware persons. The issue of what is
esteemed unclear is then elaborated:
Excerpt 4
10 SL: so it will [we need a document]
11 SE1: [((laughs))]
12 SL: cause when- they might just call and say (.) do this, just like
that (.) [what will]
13 SE1: [I thought] they would do that themselves (.) there [at]
14 SL: [yes]
15 SE1: RISLEY [but]
16 SL: [yeah]
17 SE1: well but if we should do [it then]
18 SL: [but] this whole project is very enlightened in: dusk so I’ve got
to say that I don’t understand very much of all this (.) (xx) do
¤testcom¤ but but hello (.) wha:t
19 SE1: no [me] neither-
20 SL: [what eh:] what are the IP addresses [an:d all of that]
21 SE1: [yes exactly]
22 SL: don’t know anything
23 SE1: I didn’t even know we should do it
24 SL: no
To SL, the problem seems to be an insufficiency in what the text entry implies
in terms of action. After a few turns of coordination of the problem they jointly
align against the text and the information. This starts out in turn 18, where SL
says he does not understand the relevance of the information to which SE1 agrees
(turn 19). This is further emphasized in the following two turns (20 and 21) that
shows a similar pattern of questioning the lack of information in the text followed
by an agreement. As they continue to elaborate on the issue, instead of moving
on to the next issue on the shift report, they give an account of their willingness
to deal with the situation, i.e. to act upon the unclear, but still in some sense
available, information.
SL, for instance, notices the absence of a document for dealing with the potential
task (turn 10) yet sticks to the expectation that the team has to be prepared for
action (turn 12). The kind of document asked for, and information missing, is
taken for granted. SL also notices an absence of “what are the IP addresses [and