These 3 chapters were all over the place, so I'm going to blog about a few things that I think are the most applicable to me and my research.
Interviews--This touched on a lot of the same things as the articles. But also--Yep...this is why I loathe structured interviews. Thanks H&W for articulating my complaints and for pointing out the research that indicates these interviews are not neutral. "Whatever the ostensible topic, context or purpose of the interview, the interviewer and respondent are engaged in social action" (p.181).
Children's Talk--Language (development of children) is my area of interest so it's no surprise that this section stood out to me. H&W discuss two types of research in education and sociolinguistics (and all those other related fields). 1--Development of linguistic skills is the priority. 2--Current linguistic competence is the priority. I think in my field, too often we are guilty of focusing on the first type of research instead of valuing what we can learn from the ways students are already demonstrating linguistic competence in their own sub-cultures. That is very much an inclusive "we." Because I come at language development from an institutional perspective...it's natural for me to observe student language in the classroom. I'm not sure that it occurred to me to study language in the second way until very recently. I've been doing a study looking at a student's language across various (adult led) contexts. My own research findings for a study I'm presenting at LRA has led me to wonder how my student participant's language is different with his peers when teachers are not around to guide the interactions. (Because what I've found is that his "side conversations" with his classmates demonstrate both quantitative and qualitative differences in the language he uses.) I'm interested to look into Goodwin's research because it seems to be exactly the future directions I am suggesting in response to my own research. I was also interested in the study by Danby and Baker and several of the others. Note to self: See pps. 194-199 for references when you're ready to check these out. I think this is particularly of interest in deaf education where the language used in social vs. academic settings is extremely visible especially at a school that
Order of Disorderly Talk--Again. This section stood out to me for obvious reasons. I think that's why my analysis is so hard for me...it is definitely 33 minutes of 'disorderly' talk, Reading the examples of the patient and therapist in this section reminded me of the teacher-student struggle to co-construct meaning in deaf education classrooms. Quite frankly, it's exhausting because both participants are working so hard! My grandfather had a brain tumor and stroke 13 years ago that left him with pretty significant aphasia. My family often remarks when I'm home that he is much more involved in conversations and seems to be able to participate in ways that he can't when I'm not there. For years they thought because I rarely visit he was more motivated to communicate. But Heeschen and Schegloff's research indicates that my role as an unimpaired co-participant is important because it allows us to co-construct meaning. I think this can also be true of teachers in the classroom...but when we study classroom talk, the language isn't really naturally occurring because it's still institutional talk. On p. 199, H&W talk about giving stimulus materials like cartoons to assess speech. Yep, that's exactly the kind of research that I'm used to...in fact that is was one of the SIWI studies we did last year. Only it didn't work at all...the students gave such little language that we weren't able to get much from the analysis. Makes me think--what if we had just watched them interacting in a social context? How would our data have been different? Were there minimal responses due to a resistance (note to self--check out Danby & Baker, 1998) or because the formal setting led to more severe production difficulties (note to self--check out Heeschen & Schegloff, 2003)? With deaf students, often the teachers are the ones with the responsibility of speech and language therapy. Most deaf educators have some training on the topic...but they don't have nearly the amount of specialized coursework and experience as SLPs. (Sidenote--UT does a much better job of emphasizing these skills than most deaf ed programs...go UT!) Still speech and language development in many positions is one of the main responsibilities. I have been known to say (during my classroom days)--"My number one goal for my students is for them to learn how to use language to interact with others." I was a Language Arts teacher--of course, I wanted my kids to read and write. But above all, I wanted them to be able to communicate using any "sign system." This section made me think, that there is a lot that CA (and in my opinion also DA) approaches could do to shape interventions and inform practices of deaf educators.
"Grammar"--Okay that's it. I need to read Goodwin. Because everything that interested me cited him. Love that he looks at the use of gaze, gesture, and body movement as part of the 'grammar' of social interaction. To me these are the things that I feel can never be included in a transcript (no matter how Jeffersonian it is!) And that's why I have continued to watch my video again and again to analyze it and why I feel like there is no way for me to adequately portray the interactions in a paper. I really liked how Antaki et. all talked about making the sound available...but this is why I can't imagine doing DA without the video. And why ultimately I couldn't use Atlas.ti I think to use anything less than the original quality video is distorting the data that I am analyzing. Even then there are things (certain details of signs, gaze, gesture, etc.) that are not fully available even in the highest quality video. The video has already changed the interaction enough. I think this is why I'm glad that I chose to use sign language. It forced me to attend to the details of the interaction that would have been easy to miss if I had been using spoken language. Moreover, it forced me to make decisions about which components I considered to be part of the grammar of the interaction. And it made me much less willing to make compromises when it came to my transcription and analysis. I think that these experiences better prepared me because I will be more likely to understand why all of these things are important regardless of the main method of communication.
Additional Note--In other respects, I very much wish I had stuck to a "simpler" data source....because this has been even more difficult than I had imagined. I now understand why Kimberly looked at me with very wide eyes when I asked if she had heard of the Berkley Transcription System! Sometimes I think that using a second language (especially a signed language) has been overwhelming and eclipsed some of the details of the analysis process. It also made it more difficult to get feedback from others. I'm a little envious of the data sessions my other group members got. Even Emily. Although she used deaf students, her transcript was an English translation and the interaction was among a group of students who are not delayed in language development at all. Hollie and Journey were able to read her transcript and give input. But my context and data were so unfamiliar to my group that they weren't able to give much assistance, especially since we ended up with very little time. So I'm glad that I'm trying to tackle this now since it's the only way to really use DA in my own research...but it is a little overwhelming that I don't have very many examples or colleagues in my field to go to for support. Can there be a DART for people who know sign language and language delays? No? Not so much? :-) (I was WAY too spoiled at FSDB. It's one of the largest deaf schools in the nation...so I was surrounded with amazing colleagues and resources. It's easy to forget that deaf ed is not like that in "the real world." :-)
First, WHAT??? It's FIXED?? That's great news!!
ReplyDelete"I think in my field, too often we are guilty of focusing on the first type of research instead of valuing what we can learn from the ways students are already demonstrating linguistic competence in their own sub-cultures." You got it - I think that this is a KEY point for all educators - looking at competence. I want to incorporate some Goodman in future semesters of this class. And the idea of something being "delayed" is such a constructed construct - all of these labels are constructed - so critiquing where these constructs and labels come from is such important work to do - because labeling matters.
"Makes me think--what if we had just watched them interacting in a social context? How would our data have been different? Were there minimal responses due to a resistance (note to self--check out Danby & Baker, 1998) or because the formal setting led to more severe production difficulties (note to self--check out Heeschen & Schegloff, 2003)?" GREAT questions...
Idea - would including a series of screen captures help with representing "what's happening" in the paper as opposed to or in conjunction with a written transcript?
Jen, I admire that you took this project on, given the layers of difficulty not only just with your data but with the technology. It sounds like you have learned a great deal even just THINKING about your data source in conjunction with the underlying epistemologies of the analysis, even if you aren't quite sure of where to start with the analysis itself. There may indeed be a way for DART to be helpful if you choose to continue with this work - let's talk about that if you like.