Example of DA study in reading education

I am currently doing a research review of the state-of-the-art in secondary reading instruction.  I am finding that this is variously referred to as "high literacy," "new literacy," "thoughtful literacy," and "higher-order literacy" (Allington & Cunningham, 2007; Langer, 2002). Discussion, or "intelligent literary discourse" (Langer, p. 1), is central to the development of this idea. So, to that end, I had in mind that I would search for a discourse analysis study that focused on some aspect of secondary literacy instruction, but particularly classroom discussion.

I began by searching the recommended discourse analysis journals listed in BlackBoard. I found that my combination of search terms -- literacy (also tried English), high school (also tried secondary), instruction, teachers, and adolescent -- did not yield many results relevant to my research agenda.  Within Google Scholar, I added the search term discourse analysis, and I had more luck finding what appeared to be interesting studies (to me) but nothing that resembled "pure DA." I changed up my approach yet again, going to the combined archives of two top-tier, peer-reviewed journals in my field: Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy and Reading Research Quarterly, both published by the International Reading Association. I discovered that if I did not narrow the "Learner" field (as seen in the screen capture below), I got 18 search returns:

However, even among these 18 results, nothing quite resembled the DA studies we read last week. Several of the studies I previewed were of a case study design that deployed discourse analytic techniques.  Other studies claimed an ethnographic orientation while applying discourse analysis methods. Is this the bricolage effect (Wood & Kroger, pp. 25-26)?  In the past, I have read philosophical and scholarly commentary that compares the educator's work to that of  a bricoleur, and I am now wondering if that isn't being reflected in the work of educational researchers within the qualitative tradition, or at least within the DA tradition.

At any rate, one study in particular caught my eye because of its focus on literature-based instruction and classroom talk with pre-adolescents.  I chose this study to critique.

Clarke, L. W. (2007). Discussing Shiloh: A Conversation beyond the book. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, 112-122. doi:10.1598/JAAL.51.2.3

• Context and motivation-In fall 2003 five fifth-grade students appeared to be vigorously discussing literature in student-led group, but Clarke noticed segments of conversation within the transcripts that went "beyond the surface level of the discussion" (p. 113).  Both Clarke and the students' teacher believed in the value of literature discussion groups for improving levels of student engagement and higher-order thinking and problem solving, but Clarke wanted to open up this "common instructional practice to a critical analysis" in hopes of informing classroom teachers how student-led literature groups might be restructured to better serve the literacy skills and future employment opportunities of "working class students" (p. 113). [The literary text being used is the Newbery-winner Shiloh (1991) by  Phyllis Reynolds Naylor.]

• DA tradition-Claiming "influences beyond this text" (p. 113), Clarke used Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to connect the students' discussion of Shiloh to classroom, school, and community discourses. Specifically, Clarke drew upon the three-part analytic framework devised by Fairclough: description, interpretation, and explanation.

• Methods/data sources-As part of a larger, three-year qualitative study, Clarke video- and audio-taped many discussions and supplement these tapes with observation, field notes, student interviews, focus groups, and student writing samples and journal entries.  For the study at hand, he chose to zero in on a single conversation between five fifth graders, which he said represented themes found across other groups. He coded this conversation for turn-taking sequences as well as other features (listed below) and then performed a content analysis based on length of turns and gender.  He wrote "data narratives" (analytic memos?) around each code (pp. 114-115). During the interpretation phase, Clarke widened his analytic net to include all the other data sources from his three-year study, which he said "gives power to this small example as an illustrative case"  (p. 115). During the final part of Fairclough's framework, which is explanation, Clarke accounted for his interpretations by connecting them to broader "situational, institutional, and societal influences" and the existing literature base on dominant discourse by boys (pp. 117-118).

• Language features attended to (theoretical constructs)-Following Fairclough's guiding question -- "What interactional conventions are used and are there ways in which one participant controls the turns of others?" -- Clarke decided to  focused on turn-taking systems. He also "coded" for sidetracking, center staging, giving orders, using insults, disagreeing, ignoring, using reinforcement, community building, giving listening responses, and interrupting. In the final phase of analysis, Clarke connected local themes of male-dominated discourse between students to an "underlying ideology of male discursive power" and "hegemony" (p. 117).

• Claims made as findings-Clarke identified three major themes in his analysis of the conversation extract; all three themes essentially had to do with a gender imbalance and the male-dominated nature of the conversation. This led him to conclude that the literature circles as they currently functioned in the fifth-grade classroom were a staging ground for "perpetuating gendered discursive roles" (p. 120).  

• So what question?-  Allowing for the fact that student-led literature circles in theory can make a powerful impact on literacy development and the socialization of students, Clarke suggests teachers rework their approach by more careful and considerate literature selections (texts that explore gender issues, for example), direct instruction on group processes, and "re-inserting" themselves into groups as a facilitator/coach.

• Comments/reflections -I really wanted to learn more about the use of CDA in reading and literacy education, but I don't think this particular study is an exemplary model.  For one, I don't buy Clarke's  generalizations about "working-class students" and his shaky substantive claims about student-led discussion groups as a "common instructional practice." (This is simply not supported in the wider literature base.) Moreover, he makes questionable methodological moves, such as using "student informants" to contextualize video segments with him in a sort of member-checking process and relying on a massive data set to guide his interpretations. His efforts resemble triangulation; although, he does not refer to it as such. Overall, I was reminded of Wood and Kroger's discussion of striking a balance when drawing on different perspectives, lest you fall victim to the "pitfalls of eclecticism" (p. 25).

Example of DA study in reading education

On serendipity and design: Notes for Sept. 22

As in most research, serendipity is important: it helps to be alert for unexpected opportunities. -- Wood & Kroger, Doing Discourse Analysis

A serendipitous data collection opportunity

This week I will begin observing collaborative faculty meetings held each Thursday morning at a local high school where I use to teach. This is one of two data collection options I am exploring this semester for Discourse Analysis. Unlike my Plan A context, in which I am essentially a researcher-participant, I had to negotiate entry into the high school site, and I am still not entirely certain if and when I will be able to obtain discourse recordings there.

As I have described in previous reflections on research contexts, this opportunity to do fieldwork came about through a chance encounter with a good friend and former colleague who happens to chair the collaborative team. As such, I am just trying "to roll" with this one! I am going to try to assume the stance of an explorer, who might use "whatever data" I can lay my hands on (ten Have, p. 71).

But it's hard not to anticipate what I might find!

Once a perennial low-performer with roughly 80 percent low-SES student population, the school in question began a massive reorganization four years ago upon threat of state takeover. It is now divided into vocational learning communities, and I will be observing collaborative talk between teachers and support staff who work in what is referred to as "the health sciences learning community." Last year, for the first time since the inception of the No Child Left Behind law, the school posted annual yearly progress in all areas. So, to some extent at least, the reforms are working, and by all accounts the school is a more energizing and exciting place to work and to learn than it ever was in the six years I was there.

It is impossible to overstate the level of teacher dis-empowerment that existed when I left the classroom in 2005. Opportunities to work or even to talk collaboratively were few and far between. You might say "professional talk" occurred, but it was more like venting, griping, and "sounding off," usually over rushed 25-minute lunches or while standing in line to make photocopies.  Time was not carved out during actual contract hours for teachers to work face-to-face with their peers. 

This semester in Dr. Allington's REED 605 (Organization and Administration of School Reading Programs), we are studying how schools can transform into places of "thoughtful literacy" through a number of reform measures, including professional dialog and distributed leadership models. This leads me to wonder about the impact of the collaborative team meetings on the quality of literacy instruction at my former school.

Has the emphasis indeed shifted from "minimum literacy competencies" to "higher-order literacy" (Allington & Cunningham, 2007, p. 129)?  Will this be reflected in the collaborative team dialog? Is there a connection between collaborative, problem-solving dialog among teachers and collaborative, problem-solving dialog among the students they teach?


And there I go, formulating ridiculously ambitious questions that cannot possibly be answered within the short scope of this data collection exercise. Worse, I fear I am so blinded by my own narrow interests and expectations that if I were lucky enough to stumble upon some analytically worthy chunks of data, I won't recognize them.  After two years of intense, graduate-level study, far removed from the participants and contexts I claim to "know" so well, will my vision re-adjust to the outside world? Or, am I permanently handicapped by the researcher's lenses? Some form of theoretical myopia?

For these reasons, I took to heart the summary of ethical issues and the final cautions about data sources in Wood & Kroger's Chapter 4. In a case such as mine, where I have "happened upon" discourse in serendipitous fashion, it is best to "open up" the questions and maybe let go of them entirely. I also need to be content with understanding the discourse where it is situated, between professionals around a conference table. As much as I want to explore connections to classroom instruction and teacher-student interactions, this is not the route for doing so.

On a slightly different note, insofar as the actual recording procedure goes, events in the last few days have especially sensitized me to the "ethical and practical concerns that require the modification of ideal practice" (p. 64). I have been advised by the principal/gatekeeper to not record during my first few observations, so as not to interrupt the participants' collaborative flow. I spoke to the chair of the collaborative team about this stipulation, and she remarked that she couldn't think of a single member who would object to being recorded. They are, she said, a fairly "unbridled and brazen bunch." As a former teacher, I can relate to this. Because so much of our work day is routinized, scripted, regimented, and timed, we embrace opportunities for collegial interaction -- perhaps too much! Teachers tend to let loose when in each other's company. And that, of course, may be the very reason why the principal wants me to go slow and make my presence known.

Designing a transcript

Serendipity is great for data collection, but not so much for transcription, I think. A novice who attempts Gail Jefferson's approach of noting every feature "because it's there" will surely go mad before completing a transcript! Somewhere between collection and transcription, a researcher must begin to focus her goals, aims, and objectives.

This week's readings on the topic of transcription gave me a chance to revisit some of the concerns I raised in my earliest DA post: namely, just how is it you prepare a transcript with such attention to detail and NOT have a clearly defined research question?

According to Elinor Ochs, you don't. She says, "...the transcript should reflect the particular interests -- the hypotheses to be examined -- of the researcher" (p. 44).

I can see now that it is less a matter of defining questions as it is continually refining questions, such as the "spiralling fashion" noted by ten Have (p. 69). To that end, Wood and Kroger's advice about "initial readings" was especially helpful for identifying an analytic approach as well as segments of data to analyze; although, it implies an even greater time investment for the transcription process than I had initially calculated. I also will the "strategy of reversal," in the event I end up with an uninspiring data set, which is entirely possible due to my narrowing window for data collection.

Of all the readings, I found ten Have's discussion of the "practical aspects" of transcription to be the most accessible, particularly the sections on timing of silences and formatting issues. His process of going in "rounds," starting with a verbatim rendering that grows increasingly descriptive with the systematic layering of "how's," made a lot of sense, especially in light of the practice sessions conducted in class.

I found the Ochs chapter to be the most challenging. It was the way that she described selectivity as a desirable outcome of transcription and not just an inherent problem of transcription that really made me think! After reading Jefferson, I was struck by Ochs' statement that a transcript should not have "too much information.... A more useful transcript is a more selective one." Over and over again in the literature, we are warned about the impact of researcher bias in the production of transcripts. Yet, Ochs seems to recommend we embrace selectivity -- but with our eyes open. Ochs' less-is-more advice sets up an interesting contrast to Jefferson's "if it's interesting put it in" approach.

Problems of selectivity vary from discipline to discipline, according to the researcher's phenomenon of interest. For example, like the other theorists, Ochs discusses strategies for the representation of verbals and nonverbals, but not in the manner I had come to expect after reading ten Have and Wood and Kroger. Unlike the other theorists who warn against privileging nonverbals, Ochs warns against "verbal foregrounding," which, understandably, poses a problem in her field of study, child language acquisition.

In sum, selectivity is inescapable; it is only problematic in the absence of researcher reflexivity. Regardless of one's field, a lack of reflexivity during the transcription process has "consequences," a point Ochs makes repeatedly. It reveals our biases about spatial organization, contingent relationships between utterances, directionality, verbal and nonverbal behavior, and adult communicative models.

References: 

Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. M. (2007). Schools that work: Where all children read and write (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson. 

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Development pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.

ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. 

Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

On serendipity and design: Notes for Sept. 22

Reading notes for Sept. 13

This week's post is a review of discourse analysis (DA) studies from the field of education. First, some overall reflections:

• Most (all?) of this week's articles dealt with the constraints and resources of talk in institutional contexts. The Benwell study gives a nice theoretical frameworks.  Of all the articles, I wish I had read it and the Young and Miller study first.  These authors did exceptional work describing their frameworks.
• Substantively speaking, it's interesting that the object of study in the Buttny and Rath (2007) and Benwell and Stokoe (2002) articles is participant reliance upon talk resources in response to blurred boundaries between school culture and contemporary society. The Cromdal et al. study also examines how participants confront blurred distinctions between once rigidly defined social orders; although, this time it's the peer group and the adult world within the school context.  I think it's exciting the way DA work occurs at the point where cultures collide. A lot of interesting research in my area of interest -- adolescent literacy development -- focuses on "collisions." As a rite of passage, adolescents regularly negotiate boundaries between adult and youth and school and home, with additional tensions produced by membership in cultural, racial, and linguistic minority groups. 
• One methodological move I noticed across all the studies is that findings are not so much asserted as they are suggested.  Claims are worded like inferences or educated guesses and are couched in terms such as "perhaps," "we might," "this may," and "this suggests." 
• Something else I wonder about regarding methodology is this business of attending to "language features." Sometimes I am confused about what is a specific device or feature of talk and what is a broader category or frameworks. However, the Young and Miller (2004) article, which I read last, did a nice job of clarifying. Language is used to create an "interactional architecture" around a common talk practice.  (I like that!) I think I have a better understanding now but wish I had read Young and Miller first.
• A new pedagogical practice introduces a "new routine" (Cromdal et al., p. 205) -- I like to think that's what this blog is generally about!!!

Buttny, R., & Rath, S. K. (2007). Discursive practices in talking problems during a school–family meeting. In A. Hepburn & S. Wiggins (Eds.), Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction (pp. 247-262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Topic/audience/need for the study-This study examines how participants draw on "conversational resources" (p. 248) when dealing with delicate topics and personal matters during a school-family meeting. According to the authors, it is now more commonplace for school  personnel to confront the "private and interpersonal realm of relationships that may pose problems" in the lives of students (p. 247), whereas, in the past, school officials primarily focused on the academic and vocational pursuits of students.        
Methods/data sources-A "discursive analysis" method was applied to excerpts from a videotaped session between a teenage mother and her family and several school staff members upon the girl's return to school.
Language features attended to-discursive constructions of school and family, social norms and cultural taboos as "conversational resources" that provide "boundaries" (p. 248); agenda statements (see p. 250 for other possibilities); practice of raising "candidate problems" and "candidate problem plus query" (p. 250,251, 252, and in detail on pp. 260-261) and "candidate positioning" (p. 252); false starts and self-repair (p. 251); delicate objects (p. 248 and 251); lexical choice and indexical terms (top of p. 252) used "to construct the issue as a delicate object"; anger, "affect terms," and "the grammar of emotion discourse" (p. 253); co-telling (p. 253); three-part list (p. 253); non-verbal responses and additional transcription to "capture some aspects of gaze" (p. 255); sequential context and accountability sequence (p. 256); proverbial/idiomatic expressions (p. 256); extreme case/apocryphal formulation/exaggeration (p. 259); competence assertions (p. 259). Whoa!
Claims made as findings-The co-director relied on a discursive practice known as "formulating a candidate problem along with a query" to invite family members into dialog about the sensitive issues surrounding teen parenting. The co-director also used "indexical terms" and exaggeration in reference to delicate topics, such as the young woman's sexual activities.  These practices allowed the co-director to probe into delicate topics and areas once considered private, family matters (p. 261).
So what question?-"A problem staff members may face is getting participants to open up and engage in discussing and examining problems" (p. 252) This study describes practices that counselors and school personnel might recognize as being effective or ineffective in dealing with personal and family problems within institutional contexts.  As the authors noted, this analysis is based on a "one-shot" meeting between participants (p. 262), so there is no way to know if the co-director's efforts at opening a dialog, exploring issues, and providing advice will have any lasting impact or positive effect.
Comments/reflections-By attending to different segments/excerpts and different language features, the analyst can conduct multiple studies from the same talk. In passages such as the paragraph at the bottom of p. 251 and again at the top of p. 253, it seems the authors take an interpretive stance using elements from the text to support their claims.  This reminds me of a plot and character analysis in literature. Each time claims are made about a talk feature, the literature is cited, such as the commentary on the grandmother's use of a "three-part list" as appraisal of the improved situation -- Jefferson (1990) is referenced. The pattern seems to be extract, interpretation with supporting evidence, and summary.

Questions-"Discursive analysis" is the same as "discourse analysis"? 

Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. H. (2002). Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: shifting dynamics and identities. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 429-453. doi:10.1177/14614456020040040201

Topic/audience/need for the study-According to the authors, little research has been done on "tutorial discourse in higher education," but in what few studies that have been done, the evidence indicates that the traditional pattern of a teacher-led hierarchy shifts to the control of the tutor with a slight degree more of flexibility afforded to students (p. 431). The authors contend that in their extended analyses, they have observed a more substantial shift in dynamic. To learn more about this shift, they focused on "task-setting sequences" initiated by the tutor, which they say is an under-explored area of tutorial discourse (p. 431).
Methods/data sources-"Classes from three higher education institutions were audio- and video-recorded. The resulting data, which included both tutor-led and peer group discussions, were transcribed and analysed using conversation analysis (CA)." (from the Abstract, p. 429). The first data set includes eight one-hour, undergraduate tutorial sessions from a variety of disciplines. The second data set consisted of  small-group work sessions with three to six participants faciliated by a tutor. The data sessions were transcribed using Jeffersonian transcription. The authors used CA and a "linguistics-based discourse analysis" approach (p. 432).
Language features attended to-The authors pursued "two analytic trajectories" (p. 432): patterns and "three-part structure" (classic IRE) of task-orientation sequences and issues of politeness and "face" based on Goffman's theory (1967). Other features include "features of politeness" and "situated face wants" (p. 435).
Claims made as findings-Two broad themes are discussed: (1) the pedagogical function of tutors' task formulations and turn-taking within those interactions and (2) student resistance to assuming academic identity (briefly introduced on p. 433). While seeming to set a tutor-dominated tone, the three-part formulation may in fact have a student-centered function, as summarized on pp. 441-442. That students make "resistance moves" may be an overall shifting in interactant dynamics within higher education. The authors suggest that these findings challenge conventional thinking about who controls tutorial discourse.
So what question?-In their discussion Benwell and Stokoe take up broader points that go "beyond the local dynamics of educational talk," such as the shift in higher ed culture in which students assume a consumer stance toward courses and institutions. What students seem to want is the old-style, "transmission"  instructional mode, which rejects constructivist-informed pedagogy and may reflect an overall societal hostility to intellectualism. The authors, however, caution against such pat interpretations, saying that this is more than just another example of "dumbing down." Instead, they argue that the students and tutors are acting strategically as a response to the influence of "wider cultural imperatives" on traditional academic identities and contexts (pp. 449-450). 
Comments/reflections-This study gives a nice theoretical frameworks, which is not always provided in articles. The tutors' reformulations of tasks upon failure of student uptake (signified by pauses), makes me think of the pedagogical concept of increasing "wait time" before and after student responses. It's supposed to be something like 5 seconds. You rarely see pauses of that length in the transcripts here, even though the topics (such as quantum physics and postmodernist literature) certainly suggest a need for more wait time!!!!

Questions-"Task formulations," as defined by Garfinkle & Sacks (1970) is a broad category with many variations within it??? Also, is it a common move for the researcher to simply say, "This talk feature is 'functionally ambiguous' and here is my guess as to what's going on"? (See top of p. 441.)

Cromdal, J., Tholander, M., & Aronsson, K. (2007). “Doing reluctance”: Managing delivery of assessments in peer evaluation. In A. Hepburn & S. Wiggins (Eds.), Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction (pp. 203-223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Topic/audience/need for the study- Cromdal, Tholander, and Aronsson posit that while a lot has been written about the existence of "social orders in schools," very little has been said about the practices that allow adult and peer cultures to co-exist (p. 203).  In this study, they examine "merging points" between school/adult and peer cultures within a teacher-led peer evaluation exercise among eighth graders. Like the participants in the Benwell and Stokoe (2002) study, these students display reluctance to the task, and their teacher must call upon certain "interactional devices" to deal with this (pp. 203-204). According to Cromdal et al., all of this is an outcome of the "collaborative turn" in education in which problem-based learning and student-centered instruction puts more responsibility for learning on the students.  Students are caught up in a weird tension between the requirements for membership within their peer group and the new institutional order within the school. This study specifically focuses on the practices of participants to deal with this dilemma.
Methods/data sources-The basis for the authors' analysis is a 20-minute excerpt from a peer evaluation session between five eighth-graders and their teacher.
Language features attended to-the teacher's use of "psychological construct" in task formulation and re-formulation (pp. 206-207); the teacher's sequential organization of the task; a variety of student practices for resistance of task, such as humor, emotion, outright objection, passivity, stalling maneuvers, loss of eye contact, non-precise qualifiers, and humming (pp. 207-209 and again on p. 213)
Claims made as findings-The students feed off each other's talk resources to avoid the socially sensitive task of group critique. The students' collaborative displays of reluctance "orient to an underlying moral order of the group, a form of group solidarity against the institutional requirement of more elaborate and critical comments" (p. 215). Cromdal et al. relate this to Wiedner's (1974) "telling the code," a way of vocalizing group solidarity (p. 219). The teacher successfully exploits shifts between purpose and tone of the interaction in a way that suggests he wants to help the students save face; although, "face" is not a theoretical construct invoked in the study.
So what question?-Administrators and instructional leaders might use these findings to inform implementation of problem-based learning within classrooms and across institutions. The public and teacher-dominated manner of the peer-evaluation sessions "presents a range of practical concerns for all parties involved" (p. 219). In other words, before implementing the "institutional agenda," it's important to  attend to required shifts in curriculur focus and teacher preparedness/professional development.
Comments/reflections-Researcher jargon: how would you like to be described as "massively indexed"?  Ha, ha. I don't know why, but that term just strikes me as so funny. I prefer more colloquial or idiomatic expressions like, "wearing one's heart on one's sleeve" or "I could read her like a book." But I guess there isn't a place for that in scholarly write-ups. I do like the term "culture contact," attributed to Mackay (1975) and Speier (1976).  

Graff, N. (2009). Classroom talk: Co-constructing a “difficult student.” Educational Research, 51(4), 439-454. doi:10.1080/00131880903354782

Topic/audience/need for the study-Graff takes up the issue of "difficult" relationships with students and how these students come to be "constructed as 'problems.'" He says that the largely "White, middle-class teaching force" can especially relate to this issue in this era of heightened sensitivity to learning differences and cultural diversity. Many studies have already explored broad patterns of talk between teachers and students; Graff seeks to align his work with a smaller body of literature that examines the impact of talk on individual students. He asserts that most studies to not focus on how talk constructs teacher-student relationships. In the study at hand, Graff looks at one teacher-student relationship through three talk excerpts. He is guided by the following research question: What role does the public nature of classroom talk play in casting the relationship between a particular teacher and a particular student as "difficult"? (p. 440)

Methods/data sources-Graff collected field data for two weeks as a participant observer, taking field notes and talking informally with teacher and students.  Then, for eight weeks he videotaped the class using field notes to cue times on the tapes. He created Jeffersonian transcripts from audio tapes, using the video tapes to fill in non-verbals. Graff employs a "systems perspective" (p. 441) that views all behavior and interactions as meaningful communication and that is based on three levels of interaction: message, interaction, and pattern (pp. 441-442). Specifically, Graff performs a conversational analysis on the message-level of  three episodes between a "difficult" student, Hugh Jass (hahahaha), and his teacher, Ms. Martin. He also draws on the work of Goffman's (1981) "participation frameworks" (p. 440). 

Language features attended to-Generally, the IRE/IRF mode of instruction is a predominant factor in this study. Other features mentioned: Hugh's public "by-play" (p. 446); peer responses during and after exchanges between Hugh and his teacher, which serve to create "sides" and cast Hugh as an outsider of the classroom learning community (p. 447 and again on pp. 450-451); pronouns used by both student and teacher (p. 450)

Claims made as findings-Graff claims that the "public nature of interactions" between teacher and students during whole-group instruction gives rise to "complications" that can result in some individuals (such as Hugh) being cast as outsiders to the classroom learning community (p. 445 and again on p. 451). Two patterns of interaction seem to complicate Ms. Martin's relationship with Hugh in the classroom: 1) how she reinforced norms of participation to maintain classroom order, and 2) how she attended to the "rightness or wrongness" of Hugh's answers (p. 445).

So what question?-Based on his initial observations of Ms. Martin and Hugh interacting in the eighth-grade classroom, Graff wondered about the nature of "difficult relationships" and how they form. Through close examination of teacher-student interaction he seeks to answer these questions. Graff suggests that the more a student is perceived as "difficult," the more likely it is he or she will decline "opportunities for productive participation" (p. 451). Thus, the pattern of difficulty is exacerbated in a downward spiral. There are many implications for teachers, not least of which is a re-examination of our use of the IRE/IRF.  According to Graff, his study provides evidence that teachers should vary instructional modes.  Additionally, teachers should exercise "awareness" and allow interpersonal and affective considerations to enter into their decision-making in and around their interactions with particular students who might otherwise not experience success (p. 452). 
Comments/reflections-I am interested in Goffman's work as it is described here and is cited within many of the other readings. I would like to learn more about his work. 

Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519-535. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-16-.x

Topic/audience/need for the study-This study is about how a Vietnamese ESL student learned a new discursive practice: revision talk during a writing conference.  Rather than make claims about observable gains in English proficiency, which is commonly done in ESL research, the authors drew on situated learning theory to explore how the student and his writing instructor changed their participation over time. 
Methods/data sources-Young and Miller videotaped and transcribed four weekly writing conferences. Their method is informed by "the twin traditions of conversation analysis and ethnography" (p. 520).
Language features attended to-The researchers decided to focus on the following "recurring tokens of revision talk": sequential organization of acts, boundaries for openings and closings, and role construction within the "participation framework" (p. 521). Other features mentioned: "candidate revisions," "turn management," and "a designedly incomplete utterance [DUI]"
Claims made as findings-The two participants changed their roles over time.  The student especially evolved from peripheral to fuller participation, per Lave and Wenger's theory of situated learning: "...[H]e showed he had mastered the interactional architecture of thepractice by performing all acts except those that uniquely construct the role of instructor" (p. 533).
So what question?-There is an implicit message here for instructors to re-orient themselves to the role of "co-learner." Instructors can scaffold self-directed learning by managing "a division of participation that allows for growth on the part of the student." The authors are trying to open up a dialog about "the situated perspective on learning" within the field of L2 acquisition" (p. 533).
Comments/reflections-The first several pages of this article helped me consolidate some of my thinking about CA and DA and all the terminology. As I noted in my opening reflections, I was confused about what exactly constituted a "language feature" versus "interactional resource" versus "a pattern" and so on. Just a little bogged down in jargon. Young and Miller write, "Participants co-construct a discursive practice through a configuration of interactional resources that is specific to the practice." So, now I am beginning to think of a "practice" as a recurring episode or pattern of talk made up of the nuts-and-bolts of language (grammar, syntax, tone/emotion, and all the other non-verbals).   The examples of discursive practices given by Young and Miller (lab meetings, Maya divination, a language proficiency interview) remind me of "genres" in the linguistic sense, such as Mercer described in Words and Minds.

Questions-On page 520, Young and Miller say that practices can be characterized by a "configuration" of six "discursive resources." I get all but the last one: "the ways in which participants construct meaning in a specific discursive practice, analyzed using the methods of systemic functional linguistics." Does this mean they are using a blended methodology of CA and DA, with "systemic linguistics" being a tradition of DA???

I am grateful for the prescribed response structure for this post -- I do not think I could pull off a coherent synthesis of the readings this week!!

Reading notes for Sept. 13

Update on data collection

My back-up data collection plan within the high school context hit a snag late last week. The assistant principal of the school notified me that I could not conduct my research project on the collaborative team meetings without first obtaining the permission of "downtown." This means contacting the head of research and evaluation for Knox County Schools and submitting a written research proposal. I don't perceive this as being given the run-around, just an unfortunate side effect of the highly centralized, top-down administration for which KCS is well known.

I submitted my research proposal just under the wire, as all requests are reviewed on the second Monday of each month.  How long it takes for a reply remains uncertain. Based on the wording of the KCS policy, I fear my request will be declined because of the potentially sensitive nature of the collaborative team meetings I wish to audio record.  I suspect the fact that I am assuming a learner's stance and that the project is for fulfillment of a course requirement, not publication, will not serve to mitigate KCS's strict interpretation of the policy.

Here are the first few lines from "Regulations and Procedures for Conducting Research Studies in Knox County Schools":

Knox County Schools desires to keep abreast of changes in educational technology, results of current educational research, and innovative educational programs. Therefore, we welcome the opportunity to be a part of the development and testing of innovative ideas and quality research in education. However, it is the obligation of Knox County Schools and the research committee to protect the interests and learning opportunities of its students, teachers, and stakeholders. These interests and opportunities will not be sacrificed in order to establish a setting conducive to research. Thus, each proposal to conduct research will be examined carefully on the basis of whether it contributes significant new and useful information to the educational program of Knox County Schools and public education as a whole. In general, permission to conduct research may be denied when the study is deemed: (1) to interfere with instructional time, particularly when student responses are required; (2) to be too socially or politically sensitive; (3) to have little or no educational research value; or (4) to be too great of a burden on Knox County Schools personnel.

Update on data collection

Reading notes for Sept. 8: Confessions of a "talk junkie"

This week I helped chaperon an elementary school learning expedition (a "field trip" from the days of yore). It was a great opportunity. I was eager to get to know my son's new teachers and classmates, and I observed and interacted with them in the classroom, on the bus, at the zoo, and at lunch. It was a full day.

I had hoped to "check out" for a while and not do any thinking of the academic variety -- no blogs, no emails, no journal articles, and especially no discourse analysis in social psychology.

But, as the morning progressed, I couldn't stop thinking of discourse, or, in this case, the constant effort to squelch it: the "quiet zones," the "duck tails and bubbles" method of line management, the mountain of copy paper in the teacher workroom that bespoke the sheaves of worksheets that my son will bring home this year in his Kindergarten backpack.

The worst offender of all was the zookeeper, who, when a little girl said, "I saw a dart frog on T.V.," admonished the child by saying, "That's not a question. That's a story. Do you have a question?"

I didn't mean to turn the Kindergartners' learning expedition into my own little research expedition, but over and over again, I was struck by the "resources and practices" of those "engaged in mundane life" (Edwards, 2006, p. 43). Or, more specifically, I was struck by the absence of resources and practices in a place that should be engendering them -- K-12 education.

So, why am I having such a hard time connecting with conversation analysis (CA)? Along with discourse analysis (DA), it is a field that focuses on the "interaction-oriented work done by talk and text" (Edwards, p. 42), and yet what I've read so far about CA just doesn't appeal to me. How will that affect my fledging efforts in DA?

At the beginning of the semester, I was admittedly very confused about the difference between CA and DA. Now, especially after reading Paul ten Have's interesting and well-written historical account of the origins of CA, I have a better perspective on how the two traditions connect. I think I understand the "basic analytic function" of CA as ten Have describes it. Or, as Edwards (2006) puts it: "...[R]ather than asking is there a way of seeing below the surface to motives, ideas, thoughts, and experiences, we can ask: are there procedures that participants have, for dealing with those notions?" (p. 43).

I am starting to think of the conversation analysts as topographers, providing the map on which the discourse analysts can stake their claims. Considering the discourse analysts' preoccupation with variability (which I like), it seems they need the conversation analysts more than the conversational analysts need them.  CA defines the rules of "interactional social order" so that it is easier to locate and identify the chaos and the disorder when it invariably happens.  I hope that is a good way of thinking about the CA and DA connection.

Now that I have a clearer sense of the interests and commitments within each method, I must say that my confidence as a novice research is shakier than ever! The more I learn about CA the more certain I am that I am not cut out for it. But what does that imply for my work in discourse analysis??

As I read (or tried to read) CA studies excerpted by Wood & Kroger and ten Have, the problems being explored and the analytic distinctions being drawn struck me as so fine grained, so specialized, that I just didn't care. Perhaps "getting it" will come with practice and additional readings of full-blown studies (Lord, help me). At the opening of Chapter 3, I found myself literally nodding in agreement with ten Have's acknowledgment of CA's "image" -- obsessed with details, resisting the obvious.

Clearly, ten Have's purpose is to enlighten, not feed resistance to CA.  So, it's me who has the problem. I think I lack the patience and "analytic mentality" necessary for this kind of work (p. 10). Moreover, ten Have makes no apologies for the fact that the CA community is mostly content to study "social life" without taking a stand on social issues (p. 27). In the absence of serving some socially significant cause, I wonder how one summons the will to do this work, to devote a career to it?

On the other hand, I was talking to my colleague, Renee, and we discovered that in Wood & Kroger's Chapter 1, we were both draw to the emphasis on variability and the implications this has for the practical side of DA.  This is probably owing to our backgrounds as classroom teachers, where variability is the order of the day (despite reformers' efforts to endlessly standardize and script). We were intrigued by the idea that DA "thrives on variability" (p. 10) and briefly discussed what that would mean for our work as novice analysts. I, for one, am energized by the prospect of performing research that can be applied to my own future practice as a teacher/learner and that might serve others in similar contexts. 

This idea of variability as an "essential feature" to be studied, not a problem to be controlled, reminded me of a powerful literacy study we read last year in REED603: Advanced Studies and Theoretical Models of Reading. The authors zeroed in on students' unconventional interpretations of text during classroom literature discussions and teacher-student conferences. Specifically, they took up a DA approach to look closely at one student, who responded unexpectedly to aspects of rural poverty as portrayed in a poem.  During teacher-student conferences the "mismatch" between the student's performance and the teacher's expectations were explored in great depth (Hull & Rose, 2004, pp. 268-269).

The resulting discourse analysis revealed that sometimes a student’s seemingly inappropriate response is highly situated in his or her personal history and social identity. Teachers can learn a lot from the results of the analysis, beginning with the implications for text selection. A second lesson revolves around what to do when students inevitably put forth unexpected responses to literary selections. The implication is clear: talk about it!

Two years of doctoral study have taught me one thing: I have a fundamental, epistemological orientation to dialog. I think I may be addicted to the "'methodological' use of discourse" that Edwards somewhat disparages in his article (p. 42). Simply put: I'm a talk junkie. A talk-aholic? And two back-to-back semesters of intro to ethnography didn't help matters. A year of interactive interviewing, participant observation, and co-reconstructing of experience have perhaps ruined me for good. Maybe I am too much the egotist, wrapped up in my own well-meaning agenda, but I want to engage and ask questions. I want to converse with participants. 

So, can an incurable conversationalist be a conversation analyst? Probably not.

Other questions:

• I am curious about "categories" as produced in discourse, not pre-existing (Wood & Kroger, p. 17).  Is this the emic vs. etic distinction? A priori vs. in vivo? 
• How does an analyst choose a "phenomenon of interest," a research context, participants, guiding questions, if everything hinges on what is said by participants? It seems you must always suspend your next analytic move, your orientation to the literature -- all of it -- until you've been in the field long enough to see/hear/observe talk in action.

References:

Edwards, D. (2006). Discourse, cognition and social practices: The rich surface of language and social interaction. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 41-49.

Hull, G. & Rose, M. (2004). “This wooden shack place”: The logic of an unconventional reading. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (5th ed., pp. 268-280). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.  

ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

 

Reading notes for Sept. 8: Confessions of a "talk junkie"

Reading notes on Mercer, chapters 5-7

In Chapter 6 of Words and Minds, Neil Mercer asks, "Have you ever felt, during a conversation with a child, that a shift in their understanding has taken place as a result of gaining some new information?" 

Well, yes, yes I have. 

It is soooo tempting to share out-of-the-mouths-of-babes stories to illustrate language development in children rather than try to synthesize my reactions to the diversity of topics in the last half of Mercer's book. These chapters discuss communities of practice, virtual communities, computer mediated communication, language development, and kids -- all areas of personal and professional interest to me.

Suffice it to say, I could fill an entire blog post with a response to Mercer's question, but I'll save those anecdotes for Facebook.  Instead, I will share some of my reactions to a few of the numerous implications for teachers, researchers, and teacher-researchers contained within chapters 5-7. [Note: See below for a cute photo and gratuitous kid-and-computer-mediated-communication anecdote all rolled into one.]

Still pondering context...

On p. 108, Mercer writes that "'explicitness' is a relative concept, a matter of context" and "the relevant consideration is whether matters are made sufficiently explicit by the participants to each other." This is exactly what we discussed in class last week, with the example of a teacher who may not know her students and what is or is not relevant to them.  If the teacher doesn't effectively contextualize the instructional content, she will be able to tell by students' facial expressions, body language, visual cues of engagement and disengagement, and (we hope) their questions.  

But, again, one would HOPE that in instances of teaching and learning, contextualizing is a joint venture between all participants (teacher and students). What about the researcher who is located on the other end of the participant-observer spectrum? I am beginning to come around to the idea that the researcher's compulsion to interview participants may be missing the mark insofar as discourse analysis (DA) is concerned, but the idea of simply acquiring audio in some disengaged fashion -- leaving the recorder on and walking away -- that's still hard for me to understand.

This issue of context came up again late last week, when I ran into a friend and school administrator at a local eatery.  She was grabbing breakfast to go and said she was off to a collaborative team meeting at a local high school, the same high school where I use to teach and still know several faculty, including the head principal.  She said (with the ulterior motive that I would apply for a current job opening there), "You should come to one of these meetings.  We talk about everything."  It was only after she rushed off that I realized, job opportunity aside, she had just offered me entree into an authentic data collection site, one where securing permission and developing rapport with participants would be relatively easy.

So, I immediately texted her with my own ulterior motive: to secure a back-up data collection site, just in case my first choice does not yield enough interesting data. (See related post on DA data collection plans.) I simply asked her via text, "Tell me about the kind of content discussed in a collaborative team meeting."

Here is her exact reply: "We do s-teams for a variety of reasons (pregnant sts, truant sts, students who may need to be tested for ld or ed); we also discuss students on the f-list and interventions. Every once in a while we actually discuss instructional issues: strategies, cross-curricular issues, etc." 

While allowing for the fact that text messaging is terrible medium for "contextualized joint activity" and "track laying," I think this is a great example of "alien jargon," what Mercer might call "teacherspeak." I am a teacher, and a former teacher within the potential research site being discussed, and I think it's safe to say that is the only reason I "get" 90 percent of her reply as well as her ironic tone at the end. But even I'm not entirely sure what "the f-list" is because no such term was ever used or discussed during my 6-year tenure at the school; I can only assume it's a list of failing students, which would make sense to most reasonable observers, I guess.

I am in the process of acquiring the principal's approval and the informed consent of team members to audio tape their collaborative meetings, but I feel like a relative outsider.  I haven't taught at the school in question since 2005; that's six years out of the loop, out of the "long conversation." I'm nervous about the "hidden contexts" and the inevitable jargon that will likely swirl through 30 to 45 minutes of rushed professional discourse. Mercer says this is a "profound problem" for analysts (p. 175).

Understanding and using discourses as "rhetorical tools"

I enjoyed the story about Sokal who used discourse as a "rhetorical tool" to ignite a debate between two academic fields, one of which he clearly did not respect.  It made me think of when others take up specialized discourses for even less-than-savory aims: to hoodwink, to propagandize, to denigrate a community or a people. There are lots of hoaxes on the Internet to this end, and, in recent years, a bit of hysteria about needing to teach "information literacy" to Internet users, especially children. I would argue information literacy is simply literacy and can be achieved by facilitating numerous and meaningful reading and writing experiences for learners of all ages. 

The Sokal story also made me think about literary genres, where the author's ability to "take in" readers and listeners by "saying something in the right way" (p. 112) is not the object of suspicion but a measure of sincerity and truthfulness. Speaking convincingly in various discourses is an enviable talent in literary circles and the source of much successful poetry, fiction, satirical writing, and social commentary. 

According to Mercer, "'recreational' genres" nurture "interthinking" by helping us make sense of and explain our own lives. There are just so many implications here for my field (literacy and reading education). For example, Mercer writes, "Genres are templates for interthinking, which, like all social conventions both facilitate and constrain what we do" (p. 170). The affordances and constraints of convention are exactly why we must encourage young people to pursue a varied and balanced reading diet. There is also compelling argument here for reading educators who seek "literature-based" or "balanced literacy" programs as opposed to the traditional basal approach.

I would add that reading, listening to, and watching a variety of genres should be accompanied with equal doses of writing and other forms of content production, so that learners can practice wielding the complexities of language for their own purposes and gain insight into how authors and other "powerful voices" innovate with and manipulate language. To that end, scholastic journalism, creative writing, and mentor texts are important outlets for learners to safely "try on" genres. I always believed this as a high school language arts teacher. But I realize now that my understanding of "genre" was perhaps too limited. I now see "genre" in the broader linguistic sense. The implications are the same for classroom teaching: expand writing instruction to include a variety of authentic subjects, modes, audiences, and purposes.

Revisioning the role of teacher as "discourse guide"

I am really interested in Mercer's "Talk Lessons" research, which he says is ongoing in Mexico and the UK. I wonder if similar work is being done anywhere in U.S. schools? A year ago in REED 603, Advanced Studies and Theoretical Models of Reading, we discussed the role of discussion as a constructivist tool for developing thought and aiding in reading comprehension, and our professor told us that this is under-researched area in literacy studies. 

I am inspired by this idea of teacher as "discourse guide" who develops each learner's individual capacity for "interthinking." But I wonder how many teachers are themselves versed in and comfortable with ideas of "collective thinking" and "ways of using language"? Many teachers would be offended by ideas in Words and Minds, e.g. memorization of facts as a waste of "cognitive storage space" and the suggestion that the most evolved of our species are those who "use joint communicative effort to recall" (pp. 168-169). I can just hear the old guard protesting, "Sounds like cheating to me!" Several of my former colleagues sneered at group work, and I distinctly remember one who pointedly referred to it as "guided ignorance."

My new dream dissertation: "Developing Teacher Capacity for Guiding and Facilitating Exploratory Talk in the Secondary Classroom."  Wouldn't that be fun?! Something like "Talk Lessons" with self and own students OR "Talk Lessons" with a teacher-participant (or co-hort of teacher-participants -- now I'm dreaming big).  This falls in line with the framework for teacher language developed by Peter H. Johnston in Choice Words: How Our Language Affects Children's Learning. This handbook provides ways for literacy teachers to become more intentional in their teacher talk with the prerequisite assumption that all children deserve “to construct themselves as responsibly literate democratic citizens” (p. 80),

Taking the research community to task?

Mercer says there is very little interest in evaluating outcomes of people's communicative efforts. How can this be true?  I thought that the whole point of DA was to identify outcomes and effects of language in use. In class last week, we talked about the commitment within certain DA camps to examine power differentials and "long conversations" about race and gender. But it seems Mercer is taking the DA research community to task for not doing enough. Or, is this just posturing and puffery so that he may claim his own little niche in the research market? 

I want to give Mercer the benefit of the doubt, especially when he writes about transforming "the quality of education and working life" through "careful analysis" and "applied research" (p. 175). It sounds like the same social justice agenda I mentioned in my last week's reflection. Is Mercer a critical discourse analyst? Is he pressing for more of this vein of analysis? 

"Look, Mommy, Scooter is keeping your ABC's warm!"

Reading notes on Mercer, chapters 5-7