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