CIICPD 2023

This incident is to a great extent a reporting narrative, which is written by a student. The text covers a period of time of about one semester. The narrator does not give any information about the origin and number of the participants. Only the gender of the coordinator is indicated. After a very short orientation (“At the beginning of our project, I and another group member have started working on the project, […]” (line 1)) follows an undramatic description of two sequences of events that are categorised as a “problem” (line 3) and “failure” (line 5) and which cover around half of the text. The second part of the text covers a shorter period and is dedicated to the interaction with the coordinator (line 5–9). This interaction leads to a solution: “And surprisingly the suggestion worked […]” (line 8–9), which can be considered as a positive plan break, a feature, which is rather an aspect of scenic-episodic narratives. The second last sentence completes the time horizon of the narrative (“since then, we worked […]” (line 9)) and is followed by an evaluative coda: “So it was a happy ending for everyone in our group” (line 10) which has already been anticipated in the title. The narration of the interaction with the coordinator is highlighted through its length due to the use of indirect speech (“She told as that […]” (line 6)). It is also noticeable that there is a potential for misunderstanding in the description (“[…] and to do so, she suggested, to remind the other group members about their tasks […]” (line 7–8)). Here, the narrative does not make clear whether this suggestion is carried out by the coordinator herself or the students. The great surprise about the success could be considered as a strong indicator that the suggestion comes from the latter, which is why we focus on that interpretation for the following description of the positioning activities. The narrator does not differentiate between him/herself and the other actively working group member. Both of them are positioned not only as active but also as pro active in contrast to the rest of the group, which does not react but needs a prompt (“just need[s] a push” (line 7)). The narrative shows the negotiation of high agency (proposing different platforms), being an undergoer (no one was replying) and again high agency (we contacted our coordinator). Surprisingly, and in contrast to the other cited examples, the text does not at all focus on creating a strong difference to the non-reactive group members. Their description remains technical while the presentation of the coordinator takes a lot of space giving her even an indirect voice (line 6–7). The coordinator is depicted as competent and of high agency. With the expression, “surprisingly” (line 8) the narrator shows that initially the students did not believe in the success of the coordinators’ suggestions but despite their doubt, they follow the advice. Stimuli for further pedagogical use: – You are a group leader. How would you invite the other members to join MS Teams for virtual group work? Write your invitation. – Is it the task of a student team leader to remind the other group members about their tasks or is this the responsibility of the coordinator? – The narrator expresses his/her surprise. What did s/he probably expect from the other group members?

63