In the preceding section, I presented findings about the AME of APT moves in relation to epistemic outcomes that occurred infrequently in Nephrotex design meeting discourse. In this section, I present an analysis of AME findings with regard to epistemic outcomes that occurred at more moderate levels in student discourse. As previously noted, such evidence is related to student contributions that included aspects of: (1) Data Analysis (Epistemology, Knowledge, and Skill); (2) students’ Identity (as interns and as engineers); and (3) students’ Professional and Collaborative Skills.
Data Analysis
First, I present findings related to data analysis, evidence of which was found in anywhere from 2% to 7% of utterances in design meeting discourse. The most common outcome for the epistemic element of data was students’ incorporating their Knowledge
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 Pr edi cted Pr ob ab ili ty (PPr )
of data in their design thinking (i.e. references to numerical values, results tables, graphs, or research papers). This was followed in frequency by evidence of students’ Skill with data (i.e., using/applying their knowledge of data), and lastly, students’ use of data to justify design decisions (i.e., Epistemology). Analysis of logistic regression results indicated that although many APT moves were significant predictors of such outcomes, they are not unique as was found with the outcomes discussed above (i.e., the Client). In other words, when APT moves were found to be significantly associated with epistemic outcomes related to data analysis, they were found to be so among conversational moves of other types (i.e., Proposals, Declarations, Eliciting, Administrative), and often, with smaller predicted probabilites. A brief summary of these findings for the epistemic element data in the domains of Knowledge, Epistemology, and Skill are presented below.
Knowledge of Data. Findings indicated that some APT moves were significantly associated with evidence of this outcome in the first and fourth design meetings (see Figure 4.11, below), though not as strongly as other types of conversational contributions. In particular, four APT moves were found to have significant predictive probabilities in Conversation 1 (see red markers), though none of them had stronger practial effects compared to other moves from the Declaration (black markers), Proposal (blue marker), Administrative (orange markers), and Eliciting (green marker) categories of
Figure 4.11. AME results associated with evidence of Knowledge of Data.
This suggests that overall, it was more probable that students’ contributions that reflect conversational moves from these types of contributions would include evidence of data knowledge, more so than would APT moves. However, it is important to note that in Conversation 4, one APT move was among the moves with the strongest practical effects predictive of this outcome. Specifically, the APT-C move, Restate (i.e., at utterance that provided a summary of what someone else said, something the group decided, etc.), had an average marginal effect of 0.134 on the probability that evidence of Knowledge of Data would be presented. This finding suggests that this conversational move, compared
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160 0.180 0.200 Pr edi cted Pr ob ab ili ty (PPr )
to other types of moves, may be an imporant type of syntactic contribution regarding whether or not students include knowledge of data in their design thinking and discourse, in Conversation 4.
Skill of Data. This outcome was evident in student contributions that referenced how to use and/or apply data (i.e. references to numerical values, results tables, graphs, or research papers) in their design thinking. Only two APT moves were found to be
significantly associated with evidence of the Skill of Data in design meetings
contributions. Both of these moves were found in Conversation 1 and had relatively low marginal effects relative to other types of conversational moves. Specifically, the predicted probability (PPr) of skill of data being present in a student’s contribution was 0.034 for utterances that were coded as the APT-Facilitative move Challenge, and 0.046 for those coded as the APT-Conversational move Say More. This finding suggests that, overall, it is more probable that students’ use of conversational moves that were
characterized as Declarations (i.e., Activity, Present, Inform), Proposals (i.e., Process, Response, Approach), and Administrative (i.e., State, Pose) in nature would yield evidence of this outcome in design meeting discourse, compared to APT moves.
Epistemology of Data. Similar to findings related to the knowledge of data, significant associations were found for APT moves in Conversations 1 and 4 (see Figure 4.12, below). Specifically, of 16 conversational moves significantly associated with this outcome in Conversation 1, almost half (7) were APT moves (indicated by red markers).
Figure 4.12. AME results associated with evidence of Epistemology of Data.
Of these, the probability that evidence of Epistemology of Data would be present in a student’s contribution increased by 0.190 if the utterance was characterized as APT-C: Share Reasoning, the strongest marginal effect of all moves associated with this outcome in this conversation. As previously noted however, this association is not particularly surprising given the nature of the Share Reasoning move (i.e., the rationale/justification of why one thinks something). Lastly, in Conversation 4, this same move was one of only two moves, second in predicted probability to the Declaration move, Activity (i.e., an utterance that conveys information to the group about the actions one, or someone else, has taken relevant to the completion of the task).
This finding suggests two things. First, the use of this APT move is particularly salient with regard to whether a student’s contribution justified a design decision with the
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 Pr edi cted Pr ob ab ili ty (PPr )
use of data, in the last design meeting (i.e., Conversation 4) prior the submission of student’s final devices. Second, while the evidence indicates that both of these moves are significantly associated with evidence of the Epistemology of Data in student discourse in this conversation, the probability of such evidence being present is associated with two characteristically different types of contributions. More specifically, the use of the APT- C: Share Reasoning move characterizes a type of contribution that provides a substantive contribution to interactive discourse about how data should be used in students’ design thinking as they make decisions about their device design. In contrast, the DECLARE: Activity move reflects a different type of contribution to discourse, namely one that supports the group’s process because it is informing others about the activities of the group related to the completion of their task.
Identity
Having presented findings about the practical effects of APT related to data analysis (above), I now turn to a presentation of the practical effects of these moves with regard to epistemic evidence in student discourse about students’ Identity as Interns and as Engineers. As previously reported, such evidence in design meeting discourse was found in moderate amounts in anywhere from 1% to 4% of student contributions. Results of logistic regression suggested that APT moves had little predictive power with regard to evidence in the epistemic domain of Identity. The interpretation of AME results
indicated that only one APT-C move, Share Reasoning, had a practical, though limited, effect in relation to these outcomes, and is briefly descibed in what follows.
First, findings indicated that conversational moves found to be significantly associated with evidence of Engineering Identity (i.e., utterances in which students self-
identified as an engineer, member of a team, working for company, etc.) had very low predicted probabilities overall (PPr range: 0.020 – 0.082). In this model, the average marginal effect of the APT-C: Share Reasoning on the probability of evidence of this outcome was 0.038, in Conversation 3. This suggests that Declaration moves (Activity, Present), Proposal moves (Process, Approach, Response), and Administrative moves (Pose, State, Action) are all better predictors of this outcome in student discourse. However, analysis of AME results indicated that with regard to Intern Identity (i.e., utterances in which students self-identified as an intern, staff member, or claimed
ownership of professional items), the only move found to be significantly associated with such evidence was the APT-Conversational move Share Reasoning in Conversation 4. In this singular instance, the probability that evidence of this outcome would be present in a student’s contribution had little practical effect (PPr=0.008), though still more than any other conversational move. This suggests that it is more probable that students will express their identity as an intern in discourse in the context of providing reasoning or clarification about why s/he thinks or believes something, than students would via other types of syntactic contributions.
Skills of Collaboration and Professionalism
Finally, the remaining two types of epistemic outcomes that occurred with a moderate frequency in student contributions are those for the Skills of Collaboration and of Professionalism. As indicated previously, these outcomes were evident in from ~1% to 6% of utterances in design meeting discourse. As above, results of logistic regression suggested that APT moves had little predictive power with regard to evidence in these outcome. The interpretation of AME results indicated that APT moves, with one
exception, had limited, practical effect in relation to these outcomes, as will be described below.
Skill of Collaboration. As found above for outcomes related to Identity, the effects of conversational moves predictive of collaborative skill is student discourse (i.e., indications in contributions that students are engaging in collaboration or participation in a team meeting) are small and the only significantly associated APT move was APT-C: Share Reasoning. Specifically, in Conversation 2, the predicted probability of an
utterance providing evidence of this outcome was 0.022 greater for utterances that shared students’ reasoning than for most other conversational moves, with the exception of the Administrative moves Pose and Action. This suggests that it was more probable that evidence of students’ collaborative skills would be evident in student contributions that asked teammates about what they were supposed to be doing (i.e., what was required of them) or informed group members about what s/he, will, should, or had done with regard to the “technical” business of the activity/task. In Conversation 3, however, APT-C: Share Reasoning was the strongest predictor of all conversational moves associated with this outcome. Specifically, the average marginal effect of this move on the probability that the associated utterance would also include evidence of the skill of collaboration was 0.083 (see Figure 4.13, below).
Figure 4.13. AME results associated with evidence of Skill of Collaboration in Conversation 3.
Skill of Professionalism. Finally, analysis of AME results indicated that only two APT moves had a significant association with this outcome (i.e., utterances that convey that a student is using the company website, email, staff pages, etc. related to the internship). Specifically, in Conversation 1, the APT-Facilitative move Press for Reasoning had an average marginal effective of 0.072 on the probability that the associated utterance would also include evidence of the Skill of Professionalism. In Conversation 3, the predicted probability (PPr) of evidence of the Skill of Professionalism being present in a student contribution that was also coded as the APT-Conversational moves of Share Reasoning or Add More were 0.042 and 0.059, respectively. However, overall, moves associated with non-APT categories of talk (i.e., Administrative,
Declarative, Proposals, Eliciting) yielded stronger predicted probabilities, than did APT 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 Pr edi cted Pr ob ab ili ty (PPr )
moves, that evidence of this outcome would be present in student contributions in design meeting discourse.
4.6.3 Effects of APT moves related to epistemic outcomes with high evidentiary