FAE002 - EDUCATIONAL DISCOURSES AND PROCESSES III : Discourse Analysis in Education Research 2
Turma: U
Sala: Sala de Teleconferência
Data de início: 05/03/2020
Data de término: n/d
N° total de vagas: 20
Tipo: Optativa - PDE*
Carga horária: 60 horas
Vagas para eletivas: Sim
Vagas para isoladas: Sim
Docentes responsáveis
- MARIA LUCIA CASTANHEIRA
- GILCINEI TEODORO CARVALHO
Docentes externos
David Bloome
Horários
- Quinta - 14:00 às 18:00
Ementa
The study of educational events through discourse analysis; theoretical and methodological approaches
Programa
This course provides an opportunity for an in-depth exploration of the use of discourse analysis in education research. Discourse analysis is a set of approaches to the study of educational events that focuses attention on people’s use of language and related semiotic systems as together they construct social (and educational) events, learning, social identities, social relationships, histories, knowledge, and power relations. The approach taken in these courses is grounded in sociolinguistic ethnography, interactional sociolinguistics, critical discourse analysis, ethnographically-informed discourse analysis, the new field of “languaging relations,” and related approaches to discourse-in-use in educational settings.
In our view, the use of discourse analysis in education research cannot be reduced to a formula or recipe or set of procedures. Rather, it requires the researcher to engage in what might be called principled intellectual creativity; creatively bringing together knowledge of educational processes, knowledge of past uses of discourse analysis in education research, and knowledge of the local site(s) in which she/he is conducting research in a principled manner. Those principles that guide how an educational researcher using discourse analysis are derived from a deep understanding of principles of ethnographic research, of social and humanistic perspectives on language, and what has recently been called a “languaging” perspective. Among these principles, a “touchstone” principle is that people act and react to each other, and they do so primarily through language and related semiotic systems. This touchstone principle focuses the researcher’s attention on how, when, where, and with whom people are acting and reacting to each other.
The approach we take is also characterized by what might be called a complementary relationship to a range of philosophical, literary, anthropological, social, cultural, and critical theories that researchers will bring to their scholarship. Metaphorically, one can view the approach here to discourse analysis as a pair of jazz musicians in search of a percussionist to make a jazz trio. While there are many different percussionists playing different styles of jazz and different musical instructions who could constitute a third member of the group, what jazz traditions and instruments the third member brings to the ensemble will result in a different sound for the jazz trio (and, it is also the case that not every musician, not every musical tradition, and not every instrument will complement the original two members in a way that is satisfying to any of the group members or audiences or that respect the history of jazz as continuously adapting the old to make new). For example, Stephanie Power-Carter in her use of discourse analysis to explore the lives of young Black women brings together an interactional sociolinguistic approach to the discourse analytic study and theorizing of educational events with a Black Feminist theoretical framing; Maria Lucia Castanheira brings together an interactional ethnographic approach with a social and cultural anthropological approach; and David Bloome brings together an interactional sociolinguistic approach with an approach to language and literature informed by the philosophic writings of Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt, Valentin Vološinov, and Mikhail Bakhtin. The bringing together of complementary theories is guided by a set of principles at a “deep” epistemic level. As is true of the jazz trio, not just any set of theoretical perspectives can be brought together to create a valid approach to discourse analysis. The complementary relationship has to be argued for in a manner that is convincing to others, situated (in terms of the context of the doing of the scholarship), and accountable ethically, pragmatically, and historically both to the people involved in the research (the people involved in the events represented) and to the fields to which the scholarship hopes to contribute.
While the emphasis in the course is theoretical, epistemological, and philosophical, there are also research practices to acquire. Acquiring a research practices is only in part a matter of acquiring how it gets played out in a research project. It is also a matter of understanding the dispositions, habits of mind, and ways of acting, valuing, thinking, using language, and believing that accompany the research practice. Further, as one engages in a research endeavor one must adapt, modify, and reconstruct those research practices in a manner that allows for insight into how people construct their lives together in educational contexts.
We should also say a word about knowledge and knowing in and through Discourse Analysis in Education Research. One manifestation of knowledge and knowing is as mental representations, understandings, and expressions; but equally as powerful is that knowledge and knowing that is embodied in the doing. The two go together. As we see it, one cannot claim to know something (to know how to use discourse analysis in education research) if all one can do is talk about it; there is knowledge and knowing that is only extant in the doing and being with others. Yet, reciprocally, doing discourse analysis in education research without being able to talk with others about and reflect upon what one is doing, what it may mean and how it may be significant, is equally insufficient. Both are required. We should also note a stance we take about knowledge and knowing as social. Some approaches locate knowledge and knowing in the individual. For us, such an approach is a non-sequitur as both knowledge and knowing are in essence social. Together, people socially construct knowledge and knowing; they always involve social action.
Thus, in this course we emphasize the understanding of the principles and practices, the putting into action those principles and practices in a manner than is contextualized by dialogue and reflection, and engaging others as we socially construct knowledge and knowing through our scholarship.
How This Course Is Being Taught
This course has four sites: The Ohio State University, the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Klaipeda University, and Seoul National University. At each site, students will meet with an instructor at regularly scheduled classes (see Part 2 of the syllabus). You will register for the class at your university and you are subject to all of the rules, regulations, and policies at that university. The instructor of your class will be the person who will assign you a grade for the course. Please note, there are differences across the sites in assignments, supplemental activities, schedules, and how local discussions will be handled. However, there are things that are common to all of the sites and opportunities to interact with people across the sites. Here are some of those commonalities across sites.
1. There are a series of video recorded lectures for each class session. There are a total of 21 video-recorded lectures. The video-recorded lectures are for use in this course ONLY. You may not copy them or share them with others, you may not post them to YouTube, Facebook, or any web site or in any other way make them available to anyone outside of the people enrolled in the course. You will be required to sign a form indicating your agreement to use the video-recorded lectures only in ways designed for the course.
The video-recorded lectures will be made available to you in a sequential order. For example, you will not be able to view Lecture 5 until you have viewed Lecture 4. We have organized the video-recorded lectures in this way because the lectures build on each other. You may go back and re-view a video-recorded lecture as many times as you would like and you can watch it as slowly as you would like The video-recorded lectures will remain available to you until June 2020.
This is a good moment to say a bit about the video-recorded lectures. The vide-recorded lectures are similar to what you might expect to encounter in a live classroom in which a professor is giving a lecture on a particular topic. They are not “polished” video presentations in which there were multiple re-takes of the lectures. Sometimes, things are not expressed as clearly or even as accurately as they might have been. Indeed, already there are things that we have noticed about the video-recorded lectures that we would revise and when we re-do the video-recorded lectures we will make a lot of revisions. We decided to leave the video-recorded lectures with all of their flaws because we wanted them to be as similar as possible to what you might encounter if you were listening to the lecture live and we also wanted to show you that it is often difficult to talk about many of the issues in the course because they are complex. We hope that the video-recorded lectures will give you a lot to think about and on which to reflect. We hope that they will prompt you to think about issues that perhaps you had not thought about before. We hope that you will be an active thinker when you watch the video-recorded lectures and simultaneously consider when new insights the lectures suggest to you while also being critical of what you hear. In our view, being thoughtfully critical and engaging people in dialogue about ideas are the highest forms of respect.
Please note that there will be a series of readings to accompany each video-recorded lecture. Sometimes the readings provide more depth or provide background knowledge to the concepts in the video-recorded lecture. But, often the readings provide other perspectives than what you will get from the video-recorded lecture.
We hope that you will learn a great deal from the lectures that will help you engage in a discourse analysis study. But, as we noted above, we do not expect you to agree with everything you hear. Indeed, we expect and want you to question what you hear. Maybe the best way to frame the video-recorded lectures is to ask you to not think of them as lectures; but rather, to think of them as part of a conversation in which you need to talk back, question, and even critique ideas in the lectures, and you will be doing so in the company of peers and other scholars. We do hope that you will keep an open mind and be willing to consider new ways to think about and research educational events and processes. One of the best ways you can show respect to the authors of the articles you will read, to the person doing the video-recorded lecture, the professors in the course, to your fellow students, and to yourself, is by questioning the content and ideas in the video-recorded lectures, by sharing what you are learning and your questions with peers and with course instructors, and building on the ideas in the video-recorded lectures and in the readings through what might be called “reflecting” and “refracting”. In brief, we want people to consider together how the ideas they encounter might be adapted to different contexts, modified, revised, extended, and contested. This means that you should come to class prepared to engage in discussion. You should be open-minded when engaging in discussions, listen carefully to your colleagues and to the instructor, take notes, and contribute to the discussion both in your local site and online.
Topic 1: Discourse Analysis and the Study of Literacy(ies)
Topic 2: Time within and Across Events: Chronotopes, Memory, and Intercontextuality
Topic 3: Discourse Analysis and Academic Learning
Topic 4: Discourse Analysis and Social Identity/Identities in Educational Contexts
Topic 5: Discourse Analysis and Power Relations 2
Topic 6: Presenting and Writing Scholarship Involving Discourse Analysis in Education Research
Bibliografia
Bannink, A., & van Dam, J. (2006). A dynamic discourse approach to classroom research. Linguistics and Education, 17, 283-301.
Barton, D. (2012). Ethnographic approaches to literacy research. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.
Beauchemin, F. (2019). Reconceptualizing Classroom Life as Relational Key. In R. Beach & D, Bloome (eds.) Languaging relations for transforming the literacy and language arts classroom. (pp. 23-48). New York; Routledge.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (2009). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11, 1, 1-34.
Blommaert, J. (2015). Chronotopes, scales, and complexity in the study of language in society. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44, 105-116.
Bloome, D., & Katz, L. (1997). Literacy as social practice and classroom chronotopes. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 13, 3, 205-226.
Bloome, D., Beierle, M., Grigorenko, M., & Goldman, S. (2009). Learning Over Time: Uses of Intercontextuality, Collective Memories, and Classroom Chronotopes in the Construction of Learning Opportunities in a Ninth Grade Language Arts Classroom. Language and Education, 23, 4, 313 - 334.
Bloome, D., Puro, P. & Theodorou, E. (1989) Procedural display and classroom lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 3, 265-291.
Boyd, M., Chiu, M. M., & Kong, Y. (2019). Signaling a language of possibility space: Management of a dialogic discourse modality through speculation and reasoning word usage. Linguistics and Education, 50, 25-35.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse studies, 7(4-5), 585-614.
Candela, A. (1998). Students’ power in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 10, 2, 139-164.
Castanheira, M.L., Neves, V. F., & Gouvêa, M. C. S. (2013). Cad. Cedes, Campinas, 33, 89, 91-107. <http://www.cedes.unicamp.br>
Forman, E. A., McCormick, D., & Donato, R. (1998). Learning what counts as a mathematical explanation. Linguistics and Education, 9(4), 313-339.
Foster, M. (1995). Talking that talk: The language of control, curriculum, and critique. Linguistics and Education, 7, 129-150.
Gee, J. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25. 99-125.
Heap, J. L. (1985).Discourse in the production of classroom knowledge: Reading lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 15, 3, 245-279.
Kelly, G. Crawford, T., & Green, J. (2001). Common Task and Uncommon Knowledge: Dissenting Voices in the Discursive Construction of Physics Across Small Laboratory Groups. Linguistics and Education, 12, 2, 135-174.
Lemke, J. (2000). Across the Scales of Time: Artifacts, Activities, and Meanings in Ecosocial Systems. Mind, Culture, And Activity, 7(4), 273–290.
Lemke, J. (2001). The Long and the Short of It: Comments on Multiple Timescale Studies of Human Activity, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10 (1&2), 17-26.
Luke, A. (1995-1996). Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21,3-48.
Mehan, H.(1985). The structure of classroom discourse. Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3: Discourse and Dialogue. (pp. 119-131).
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23, 4, 353-369.
Michaels, S. (1983). “Sharing time”; Children’s narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10, 423-442.
Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in philosophy and education, 27(4), 283-297.
Moses, L. (2012) Microethnographic discourse analysis in an inquiry classroom, Classroom Discourse, 3:2, 147-165.
O’Conner, M.C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24, 4, 318-335.
Orellana, M. (1996). Negotiating Power Through Language in Classroom Meetings. Linguistics And Education, 8,335-365.
Poole, D. (2003). Linguistic Connections Between Co-Occurring Speech and Writing in a Classroom Literacy Event. Discourse Processes. 35, 3, 103-134.
Power-Carter, S. (2007). "Reading All that White Crazy Stuff:" Black Young Women Unpacking Whiteness in a High School British Literature Classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 41/42, 2/1, 42-54.
Rex, L., et al. (2010). A review of discourse analysis in literacy research: Equitable access. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 1, 94-115.
Rogers, R., & Schaenen, I. (2013). Critical discourse analysis in literacy education: A review of the research. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 1, 121-143.
Rymes, B. (2010) Classroom discourse analysis: A focus on communicative repertoires. In N. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (eds.) Sociolinguistics and language education. (pp. 528-546). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Schieffelin, B. (2002). Marking time: The dichotomizing discourse of multiple temporalities. Current Anthropology, 43, S5-S17
Sfard, A., & Prusak, A (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34, 4, 14-22.
Tuyay, S., Jennings, L., and Dixon, C. (1995). Classroom discourse and opportunities to learn: An ethnographic study of knowledge construction in a bilingual third-grade classroom. Discourse Processes, 19, 1, 75–110.