Diving in to Discourse Analysis

From the moment I first read the words "discourse analysis" I knew this was a theory and methodology I needed to learn more about.  Something about it just clicked with my own interests and ideas about learning.  I come from a Special Education background, but I've never really felt at home with their behaviorist ways.  Throughout my years in the classroom and in graduate school, I've started to understand my own perspectives on learning and research and come to realize why I never did agree with so many things I learned in my Special Education coursework.  I was excited to see that UT offered this course and knew I had to take it.  I was excited to start reading this week and start understanding exactly what discourse analysis really is and why it is that I've felt drawn to it.

Research:

So here's the thing...I want to make this useful for me and the types of research I'm interested, but I work with deaf kids and that gets even more complicated than "typical" discourse analysis (whatever that is...)  I am currently doing a case study of a student who is severely language delayed (when compared to his d/hh peers).  And I'm really interested in the discourse he participates in on a daily basis.  I want to know more about the language his teachers and cottage staff use with him and how that may impact his language interactions and participation.  I would love to analyze a video of him in a class, but I am nervous that it will be very difficult to do given the complexity of recording video in a language that has no written form.   By transcribing, we are already altering the language which makes it a bit...sticky.  I would like my text analysis to be connected in some way...but I'm not sure what I would use.  The student himself writes very little.  Sarah's idea of an IEP meeting, made me think that I could possible use his IEP or some time of written report about him.  So...in summary--I don't know.  But I really want to look at language in a classroom with deaf students in some way if possible.  For the mini-lit review: I first want to know if there is any work out there using discourse analysis with deaf education or sign language in general...so I'll likely try to find out what I can find in that area.  I'd like to look at how it's been used in the field of literacy with struggling readers and writers, or just with teacher language.  Maybe I should just take this time to read everything Cazden has ever written about classroom talk.  That's been on my to do list for a few years!  I'm pretty sure I have 4 of her books sitting on my shelf...and it may be a better starting point.

The readings:

I started my reading with the Rogers et al (2005) article based on a recommendation from a peer. So thankful for her wisdom.  It was a helpful way to start tackling--What is discourse analysis?   I really enjoyed understanding where DA came from and all of the fields that have had a hand in its development.  I especially liked the explanation of how DA made its way into education--"Education researchers turned to discourse analysis as a way to make sense of the ways in which people make meaning in educational contexts" (p. 366).  Yep, that pretty much sums up why I'm interested in DA.  I also really liked how the authors divided out Critical-Discourse-Analysis, and discussed each of these constructs.  It really helped me start understanding DA but also what makes CDA unique.

• Critical.  Because I'm most familiar with Gee's work in discourse analysis, I didn't really know CDA.  It makes sense how the addition of the "C" really sets CDA apart, but I didn't really know much about it prior to this reading.  I am interested in this type of research because I my research is with a marginalized population...but I'm not really sure that it's where my own research interests lie...because I'm more interested in understanding teacher language so that we can inform teaching practice.  A critical stance seems to be more interested in critiquing the language and doesn't seem as productive (at least not for the work I'm interested in).  
• Discourse.  Loved the brief discussion of the characteristics that CDA and Systemic Functional Linguistics share.  I've just recently begun to look into SFL because I find that it is very helpful to my work with deaf education, so this information was especially meaningful to me.  I want to know more about functional linguistics and a functional view of language development.  It's nice to know that this ties in well to DA.  (p. 369)
1. Language as social construction.
2. Language and contexts influence one another.
3. Cultural and historical acts of meaning making.  
• Analysis.  Fairclough's framework was helpful to me, because I felt I could visualize the three levels of analysis, which is helpful when learning about these constructs that can seem so intangible at times.  (p. 371)
1. the text
2. the discursive practice (production and interpretation of texts)
3. the sociocultural practice 

Out of the themes discussed, I think I was most surprised to read about the "Reflexivity and Role of the Researcher".  I suppose I sort of presumed that researchers using this methodology would clearly position themselves.  I was not expecting the review to find that few examples of thorough reflexivity.  While I am knew to qualitative research, I see reflexivity as an absolutely necessary component.  This was a good reminder of how I need to make sure that I am always being reflexive in my research.  The following quote really helped me walk away from the article understanding the current critical needs for CDA research:  "If CDA as a theory and method is to move beyond the present critiques, researchers might attend to the following:  (a) the links between the micro and the macro; (b) explaining why certain linguistic resources are analyzed and not others, and (c)  clear analytic procedures outlining the decision making of the researcher"  (p. 387).   It helped me see how methodology based on CDA should be developed.  In the directions for future research, I think the authors captured the reasons I thought discourse analysis could be a good theory/methodology for me before I even knew exactly what it was.  (That sounds like I know what it is now...I don't...but I'm getting there!)  "CDA offers a synergistic framework with social constructivist and community of practice models of learning.  Indeed, CDA can be used to trace changes in discourse patterns over time and across contexts--changes that we might refer to as learning (p. 387).  Exactly.  What they said.

And then... I read Jorgenson and Philips (2002) Chapters 1-3...and reread Jorgenson and Philips...  This one took some closer reading, but I liked it--especially chapter 1.  I appreciated that the first chapter set the stage by talking about the characteristics shared by the 3 approaches to discourse analysis (Laclau & Mouffe's discourse theory, critical discourse analysis, and discursive psychology), as well as the differences that exist between the approaches.  This helped me better understand discourse analysis in a broad sense before learning the specifics of the various approaches.  (p. 3)

• Similarities 
• social constructionist starting point
• view of language 
• understanding of the individual
• Diferrences
• 'scope' of discourses
• focus of analysis

Out of the three approaches, I have to say the first is the most difficult for me to grasp.  Fairclough is much more accessible to me at the moment.  I guess I did read both a chapter and an article on CDA, so this makes sense.  At first, I liked Fairclough because he "insists that discourse is just one among many aspects of any social practice" (p.7)  But then I began to understand what he means by that...and I don't so much agree.  That may be where Laclau and Mouffe are starting to win me over.  In their theory discourse does not interact with other things because discourse is encompassing of those things.  Their view of discourse is much broader, it includes other dimensions of social practice.  To me this makes more sense...of course, it also makes discourse analysis even more complex.  (Which makes me think that Fairclough and his followers are just trying to take the easy way out...just sayin')  Anyway...I think I just talked myself in a circle...and that's sort of how I feel after these readings.  At first I thought the readings were helping me to understand discourse analysis a little more,  but in the end they may have left me back at the beginning with even more questions!  I'm not quite sure yet.  Time, sleep, class discussion, and future readings will help I'm sure!  :-)

Reflections on Words & Minds (by Neil Mercer)

I decided that working full time and take 3 courses this summer wasn't enough to keep me busy, so I planned out and conducted a professional development in a developing country, trained for and completed a triathlon, and wrote my first book chapter.  When I e-mailed my manuscript to the editors on Sunday night, I suddenly realized that summer was over!  And I was a little panicked that I still needed to read an entire book!  Thankfully, Mercer made my job easy.  This book was a great, easy read.  It was perfect reading it soon after completing a sociolinguistics course that touched on some of the same ideas.  It's difficult to pick out the things that I connected with the most, but I'll try to focus on one idea in each chapter...

Language as a tool for thinking.  As soon as Mercer brought up Vygotsky, I knew we were going to be friends.  There is very little work that I do that is not grounded in Vygotsky's theories of language development.  I love the quote, "We do not learn how to use language in the abstract, we learn to use it by joining in the intellectual life in particular--local or virtual--communities" (p. 14).  I find in deaf education, that teachers often change their language based on the level of the students language.  Generally speaking, this is good practice.  We want to differentiate instruction and make sure that our instruction is within a child's ZPD.  Unfortunately, I see far too many deaf educators use the limited language proficiency of our students as an excuse to minimize the discussion occurring in the classroom.  When a teacher dominates classroom discourse and doesn't create opportunities for language use within the classroom community we are further "disabling" our students.  It frustrates and motivates me at the same time.  

Laying the foundations.  I like the way this chapter expands our idea of context to include so much more than a physical environment.  We talk a lot in deaf education about the need to build background knowledge.  We may not realize it, but our reason for doing this is to assist students with the contextual knowledge necessary to make sense of the language they encounter on an every day basis.  Context is what made leading professional development in Haiti so difficult.  Because the participants and I had such different common knowledge very little could be left unsaid/implied and their were a great many misunderstandings along the way.  While we were using (mostly!) signs that we thought each other understood to communicate or contextual foundations were far from similar.  We had to work hard to make our message accessible to each other and build a common "frame of reference."

The Given and the New.  "But the responsibility for making context does not rest only with a speaker or writer" (p. 47).  This first quote sticks out to me, because it reminds me of how often I hear/see deaf educators place the blame for misunderstandings solely on the student.  Last year I was watching video of one of our research classrooms and saw a misunderstanding occur between a student and teacher.   I knew exactly what the student was trying tell his teacher.  I also knew why she was misunderstanding him.  I watched this occur over several lessons, wishing that the video wasn't several weeks old so that I could jump in and help these parties understand one another. (What can I say, the interpreter in me really likes to make sure that communication that is occurring is accessible to all.)  Finally, on the 3rd day the teacher walks in and corrects the students "error" and moves on without discussing the topic further.  When the topic came up in a professional development session months later, the teacher again maintained that what the student had said was "wrong."  It wasn't wrong.  She simply didn't have the contextual information necessary to understand his message.  I understood exactly what the student was saying, because I had a shared contextual foundation with the student.  Had the teacher understood the ideas that Mercer presents in this chapter, she likely would have approached the situation differently and used it as a learning opportunity for the student and his peers.  I think teachers often use the techniques for building context that are discussed in this chapter, but I wonder what would happen if we taught our students to used these same techniques.  

Persuasion, control, and argument.  This chapter made me think a lot about how we teach writing to students.  I have to be honest I loathe the "five-paragraph-essay".  And I really don't like separating writing into:  narrative, expository, and persuasive.  What is that?  When was the last time we went to the expository section of a Barnes & Noble to pick up our next read.  Why do we teach that written communication (reading and writing) fits neatly into one of these categories.  It doesn't.  The communication moves detailed in this chapter are important to all forms of communication (not just an arbitrary category of persuasive writing).  As I was reading about these moves, I couldn't help but think that they would be helpful idea to use when teaching writing.  Incorporating these features into writing instruction, could make students more aware of the writer-reader relationship and help students understand that writing is simply a way to communicate.  

Communities.  Mercer did a great job of clearly and simply explaining communities of practice.  This section was the most relevant to me because it really impacts me as a deaf educator.  The concept of Deaf community is often difficult to explain to those who are not a part of this community.  It's difficult for an outsider to understand that hearing status actually has little membership.  There are deaf individuals who are not a member and hearing individuals who are.  This is because membership is related to shared knowledge, actions, and identity--an identity that is strongly tied to the use of ASL and the acceptance of deafness as a culture, not as a disability.  For me this is important because I am not deaf.  In fact, most deaf educators are not.  But Deafness is in some ways a social construct, my status as hearing does not automatically preclude me from participating in the Deaf community.  I think it's important for us (especially those of us who are hearing) to understand how Deaf community impacts our job as educators.  For those of us who teach reading and writing of English, this is especially critical.  We have to be aware of the discourse of the Deaf community to be able to teach students to read and write. If we don't first allow them to apprentice us into the discourse of their culture, we can never expect our messages to be "heard".  

Development through dialogue.  I had already enjoyed this text, but Mercer sealed the deal when you brought Vygotsky back up and added in the ideas of Bruner and Wertsch.  I really liked his ideas related to the IDZ (intermental development zone).  What a great addition to the ZPD.  I've thought these thoughts for a long time.  But now he's given me language to talk about and further consider my beliefs about classroom discourse.  I will be honest, the Talk Lessons weren't my favorite.  I don't deny that they have the potential to lead to language and cognitive development, I just can't see myself supporting something that seems so decontextualized.  I appreciate that research with this intervention can be used to further support principles of effective classroom discourse; however, I sincerely hope that this is intervention wouldn't be widely implemented.  Instead, I think that we should learn from its success, and use these ideas to help teachers develop a posture that supports classroom discourse that allows students to learn language by using language and to learn from one another.  

About the Author

Hello everyone!

My name is Jennifer Renée (or Jen).  I am a 2nd year PhD student in the Literacy Studies program.  I started in Special Education with high incidence disabilities, meandered into visual impairments, and found my passion with the deaf and hard of hearing.  I currently work here at UT as a research associate on grant funded development research on writing instruction with elementary deaf students. 

In those moments that I'm able to get away from the school and work, I love traveling, spoiling my nieces and nephew, and being outside--paddleboarding, kayaking, running....though I could do without these hills!   Don't get me wrong... These mountains are beautiful, they're just much too far from the ocean!  I left behind a house and a middle school teaching position at an amazing deaf and blind school less than a mile from the beach in St Augustine, FL to return to Volunteer country.  And while I like Knoxville, I really do miss those group runs on the beach after work!  Luckily, I did find time this summer to sneak away to the beach for a weekend and catch a few waves.

I have a lot of research interests, but all of them are centered around the language and literacy development of deaf students and deaf educator training.  This summer, I had an opportunity to lead professional development for deaf educators in Haiti.  Probably one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences of my life.  The workshop participants were all deaf adults so the entire workshop was done in Haitian Sign Language, with all written materials in French.  Leveque, the village I visited, is absolutely fascinating.  It is one of many communities established in rural areas outside of Port-au-Prince since the 2010 earthquake, but what make it so unique is that almost half of the village is deaf.  There are over 150 deaf families living there together--there is nothing like it anywhere else in the world.  This fall, deaf children, who have never seen sign language before, will be coming from all over Haiti to stay in host homes with deaf families and attend school for the first time.  Talk about some research opportunities!  If I could just figure out a way to move there for a year... :-)  For now, I'm taking French classes and continuing to work in research with deaf students and deaf educators here in the states.  One day, I hope to be able to take what I'm learning here and use it to help me to conduct research in Leveque.

I'm taking this class because I'm fascinated by the things we can learn from language.  During my first masters, I did a project where I analyzed a deaf educator's language looking for examples of the types of interactions using Peter Johnston's Choice Words.  My findings were very different than my colleagues in the class.  It got me thinking...what does the language of deaf educators say about how they view their students.  Moreover, how does their language impact how students view themselves.  I think that discourse analysis has the potential to be very helpful to my research interests in deaf ed, so I'm excited to start learning more about it and seeing how I can apply it to my work.

And since I told you all about my trip to Haiti, here are a few pictures of me doing what I love to do most...

These 2 girls were the students for all of our demonstration lessons.  They had been in the community and learning to sign for a little over 2 months.  It was amazing to see them soaking up language and learning so much during our short time there.  Those smiles--they melt my heart. 

(Okay...I'll stop talking about Haiti now...Have I mentioned I want to go back?)