FAE002 - EDUCATIONAL DISCOURSES AND PROCESSES III : Discourse Analysis in Education Research 2
Turma: U
Data de início: 13/08/2020
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
- GILCINEI TEODORO CARVALHO
- MARIA LUCIA CASTANHEIRA
Docentes externos
DAVID BLOOME
Horários
- Quinta - 14:00 às 17:30
Ementa
The study of educational events through discourse analysis; theoretical and methodological approaches
Programa
Apresentação
Seguindo as diretrizes do Ofício Circular Nº 3/2020/PRPG-GAB-UFMG, de 07 de julho de 2020, que orienta o planejamento de Ensino Remoto Emergencial, foram feitos ajustes no cronograma da disciplina FAE002 Educational Discourses and Processes III: Discourse Analysis in Education Research 2. Trata-se de um planejamento flexível, orientado pela excepcionalidade do cenário de pandemia.
Dada a natureza interinstitucional do curso, as aulas da disciplina envolvem uma parceria entre The Ohio State University (OSU) e UFMG e, antes da suspensão das aulas em virtude da pandemia do Covid-19, já eram desenvolvidas atividades online que demandavam não só o acesso a material multimídia, mas também o desenvolvimento de seções de modo remoto entre os grupos das universidades envolvidas. Dessa forma, após a necessidade de isolamento social, foram mantidos, em comum acordo com os alunos, os encontros virtuais com um calendário flexível, prevendo aulas quinzenais. A continuidade dos trabalhos na UFMG foi necessária para a manutenção da conexão dos trabalhos com os colegas e alunos da OSU, que mantiveram suas atividades online. Além disso, os participantes da disciplina na UFMG não encontraram dificuldades em aderir às aulas online e acessar o site da OSU de suas residências. A comunicação entre os participantes do grupo foi também facilitada com o uso intensivo do WhatsApp como ferramenta de atualização de informações mais urgentes.
Informações gerais:
1. Plataformas a serem utilizadas: Moodle, Microsoft Teams e Google Meet, a depender das condições de operacionalização negociadas com os alunos e com os parceiros da OSU. É de responsabilidade do estudante garantir acesso a essas plataformas.
2. Organização das aulas: Na tabela abaixo, apresenta-se um calendário geral da disciplina. Os encontros serão mantidos no mesmo dia e mesmo horário da oferta original (quinta-feira, 14h às 17h)
Calendário Geral
12/03, 19/03 e 26/03 Fase 1 – Aulas presenciais 03 aulas
04/04 a 18/06 Fase 2 – Aulas online 06 aulas
13/08 a 22/10 Fase 3 – Aulas online 06 aulas
Detalhamento do Calendário e programação das aulas:
Aula 01: 12/03
Lecture topic: Classroom ethnography
Readings:
Bloome, David (2012). Classroom ethnography. In Grenfell, Michael, Bloome, David, Hardy, Cherly, Pahl; Rowsell, Jennifer; Street, Brian. Language, Ethnography and Education – Bridigning New Literacy Studies and Bourdieu, 7- 26
Bloome, David; Brown, Ayanna (2012). “All that Jazz”. Classroom reading as intertextual practice. In Grenfell, Michael, Bloome, David, Hardy, Cherly, Pahl; Rowsell, Jennifer; Street, Brian. Language, Ethnography and Education – Bridging New Literacy Studies and Bourdieu P. 132 -148
Aula 02: 19/03
Lecture topic: Literacy as social
Readings:
Bloome, D., Kalman, J.; Seymour. Fashioning Literacy as social. In D. Bloome, M.L. Castanheira; Leung, C.; Rowsell; J. Re-theorizing literacy as social practices. NY: Routledge. p. 15-29
Kress, G.; Rowsell; J. Literacy as Social Practice: New realities New Models. In D. Bloome, M.L. Castanheira; Leung, C.; Rowsell; J. Re-theorizing literacy as social practices. NY: Routledge p. 30-49
Castanheira, M. L. Ideologies language into being: Examining Conversations on Schooled and Religious Literacies Ideologies. In D. Bloome, M.L. Castanheira; Leung, C.; Rowsell; J. Re-theorizing literacy as social practices. NY: Routledge p. 50 - 79
Aula 03: 26/03
Lecture topic: Discourse, interaction and culture
Readings:
Dijk, Teun A. van (1997). Discourse as interaction in society. In Teun A. van Dijk, Discourse as social interaction. Londres: Sage p.1-37 (Capítulo 1)
Goddard, Clif; Wierzbica, Anna (1997). Discourse and Culture. In Teun A. van Dijk, Discourse as social interaction. Londres: Sage p. 231 - 257
Aula 04: 02/04
Lecture topic: Researching literacy practices
Readings:
CASTANHEIRA, M.L. a, M. L. (2013). Indexical signs within local and global contexts: Case studies of changes in literacy practices across generations of working class families in Brazil. In: J. Kalman & B. Street (eds) Literacy and numeracy in Latin America: Local perspectives and beyond. (pp. 95–108). New York: Routledge.
GREEN, J. ; CASTANHEIRA, M. L. ; YEAGER, Beth . Researching the opportunities for learning for students with learning difficulties in classrooms: an ethnographic perspective. In: Claire Wyatt-Smitth; John Elkins; Stephanie Gunn. (Org.). Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy. Queensland - Australia: Springer, 2011, v. , p. 49-90
Aula 05: 23/04
Lecture topic: Discourse Analysis and Academic Learning
Please view video-recorded “Lecture 17”
Readings:
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.
Bloome, D., Puro, P. & Theodorou, E. (1989) Procedural display and classroom lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 3, 265-291.
Heap, J. L. (1985).Discourse in the production of classroom knowledge: Reading lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 15, 3, 245-279.
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.
Aula 06: 07/05
Presenting and Writing Scholarship Involving Discourse Analysis in Education Research
Aula 07: 21/05
Presenting and Writing Scholarship Involving Discourse Analysis in Education Research
Aula 08: 04/06
Lecture Topic: Discourse Analysis and Social Identity/Identities in Educational Contexts
Please view video-recorded “Lecture 18”
Readings
Gee, J. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25. 99-125.
Aula 09: 18/06
Lecture Topic: Discourse Analysis and Social Identity/Identities in Educational Contexts
Readings
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse studies, 7(4-5), 585-614.
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.
Aula 10: 13/08
Lecture Topic: Discourse Analysis and Power Relations (1)
Please view video-recorded “Lecture 19”
Readings:
Kress, G. Ideological structures in discourse (1985). In Teun Adrianus van Dijk. Discourse Analysis in Society Volume 4. London: academic press. p. 27- 42
Luke, A. (1995-1996). Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21,3-48.
Aula 11: 27/08
Lecture Topic: Discourse Analysis and Power Relations (2)
Please view video-recorded “Lecture 21”
Candela, A. (1998). Students’ power in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 10, 2, 139-164.
Orellana, M. (1996). Negotiating Power Through Language in Classroom Meetings. Linguistics And Education, 8,335-365.
Aula 12:10/09
Please view video-recorded “Lecture 24”
Readings
Foster, M. (1995). Talking that talk: The language of control, curriculum, and critique. Linguistics and Education, 7, 129-150.
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.
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.
Aula 13: 24/09
Presenting and Writing Scholarship Involving Discourse Analysis in Education Research
Aula 14: 08/10
Presenting and Writing Scholarship Involving Discourse Analysis in Education Research
Aula 15: 22/10
Seminário final de avaliação
3. Atividades Avaliativas: O fato de ser um seminário avançado que verticaliza uma temática provoca algumas disposições de participação, em especial porque os mestrandos e doutorandos participantes estão bastante envolvidos em pesquisas na área de Educação e Linguagem. Além disso, disciplina representa um segundo momento de um curso organizado em parceria com o colega David Bloome, da Ohio State University (OSU) e que fora ofertado no semestre anterior. Nesse curso, desmembrado em duas disciplinas, os alunos têm acesso ao site da OSU, via plataforma Carmem, o que permite o acesso aos textos e aos vídeos produzidos para a finalidade da disciplina. Assim, nas atividades previstas, avalia-se: a) a leitura prévia dos textos indicados como referência obrigatória. No processo de leitura, os alunos apresentam mapeamentos dos textos, produzindo paráfrases que sintetizam o percurso argumentativo das obras, relacionando-as com os seus trabalhos de pesquisa; b) a participação nos seminários de discussão. Nos seminários, são nomeados alunos que conduzem a apresentação, fomentando o debate; c) a produção e socialização de textos referentes aos trabalhos desenvolvidos nas pesquisas em andamento, observando-se os modos de apropriação da bibliografia selecionada e discutida.
Course overview
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.
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. 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 website 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 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.
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.
Bloome, D., Kalman, J.; Seymour. Fashioning Literacy as social. In D. Bloome, M.L. Castanheira; Leung, C.; Rowsell; J. Re-theorizing literacy as social practices. NY: Routledge. p. 15-29
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>
Castanheira, M. L. Ideologies language into being: Examining Conversations on Schooled and Religious Literacies Ideologies. In D. Bloome, M.L. Castanheira; Leung, C.; Rowsell; J. Re-theorizing literacy as social practices. NY: Routledge p. 50 - 79
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.
Kress, G.; Rowsell; J. Literacy as Social Practice: New realities New Models. In D. Bloome, M.L. Castanheira; Leung, C.; Rowsell; J. Re-theorizing literacy as social practices. NY: Routledge p. 30-49
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.