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