(2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 Ne/7 /VIercer(Rampton et al., 2004); Creese (2008) and Tusting and Maybin (2007) are also veryinformative. Illustrative examples of this kind of research are Lefstein (2008),Maybin (2006), and Rampton (2007). Researchers normally employ the ethnographicand sociolinguistic methods I describe later in this article, which involve the close anddetailed examination of classroom talk in its social and cultural context. They areunlikely to use any form of experimental method, or to use statistical analysis. Indeed,they are likely to feel quantitative, pre/post analyses of changes in talk or of learninggains are antithetical to a proper exploration and understanding of classroomcommunication. They have addressed research questions such as the following:• How does classroom discourse enable, or inhibit, the expression of identities?• How are the languages/language varieties of different cultures recognized and usedin schools?• Is current educational policy sensitive to the linguistic and cultural reality ofschool life?Linguistic ethnographers commonly emphasize that language and social life are mutuallyshaping; that talk is always referential, interpersonal, emotive, and evaluative; thatsocialization is a never-ending process, mediated through talk and interaction; thatlanguage genres are important features of educational culture; and that children use talk,in classrooms as much as anywhere else, to negotiate and explore their identities. Theyalso often argue that social situations are unique and so generalizations of the kindcommonly made by quantitative researchers are of dubious validity.Sociocultural researchers, on the other hand, are more likely to affiliate to researchtraditions in social and developmental psychology and pedagogical studies, with strongattachments to the work of Vygotsky (1978; see also Daniels, 2001; Wertsch, 1985).A rationale for using this theoretical frame for studying classroom talk is provided byAlexander (2000) and Mercer and Littleton (2007). Illustrative examples of research areBlack (2007), Howe, McWilliam, and Cross (2005), Skidmore (2006), Smith, Hardman,and Mroz (2004), and the collection edited by Mercer and Hodgkinson (2008). Nuthall'sdistinctive work also has much in common, theoretically and methodologically, with thisline of enquiry (Nuthall, 1999, 2007; see also Collins & O'Toole, 2006). Socioculturalstudies may be observational, interventional, and/or quasi-experimental. Researchersquite often combine qualitative and quantitative methods (as described under 'Mixedmethods' later in the article). They have addressed questions such as:• How does dialogue promote learning and the development of understanding?• What types of talk are associated with the best learning outcomes?• Does collaborative activity help children to leam, or assist their conceptualdevelopment?Sociocultural researchers commonly emphasize that language is a cultural andpsychological tool which (in Vygotskian terms) links the intermental and intramental -so, for example, classroom dialogue could have an important influence on thedevelopment of children's reasoning. They also typically emphasize that knowledge andunderstanding are jointly created, that talk allows reciprocity and mutuality to bedeveloped through the continuing negotiation of meaning, and that education dependsupon the creation and maintenance of intersubjectivity or 'common knowledge'. Animplication often drawn is that teachers need to guide and scaffold learning, balancing
The analysis of classroom talk 3the control of dialogue between teachers and students (Myhill, Jones, & Hopper, 2005).I would suggest that it is because of the directly applied' orientation of manysociocuitural researchers that they are positively inclined towards the use of pre/postinterventional designs, seeking to measure differential effects of talk on problemsolving, learning, and conceptual change.Having focused on the differences between these two methodologies, it is worthnoting that they also have some shared principles. Researchers in both groups are thuslikely to agree that classroom education cannot be understood without due attention tothe nature and functions of talk (and that means there must be a qualitative element tothe analysis); that cultural and local norms shape the processes of teaching and learning;and that in the classroom, meanings are continually renegotiated through talk andinteraction over variable periods of time. The implication is that one-off, 'snapshot'studies of classroom talk are unlikely to yield as valid results as those which involvecontinuous and repeated observations, such as over a series of lessons. Both groups ofresearchers are likely to be critical of forms of classroom research which do not appearto recognize the importance of these principles - for example, through the use ofsimplistic coding schemes which treat all similar-looking utterances as repeatedinstances of the same event (at least if used without the correctional influence of aproper qualitative analysis, as discussed in more detail in later sections). They wouldprobably also agree that the careful observation of classroom life commonly revealsmuch of interest that will not normally have been apparent to the teachers involved.To some extent, then, it is difficult to completely separate methods frommethodologies. Some researchers, indeed, would probably argue that we should not.Nevertheless, in the rest of this article, I will attempt to describe methods which are incommon use simply in terms of their procedures and functionalities.Quantitative methodsQuantitative methods are those which use coding schemes to reduce the data oftranscribed talk to counts of a specified set of features. The most well-known is'systematic observation', but increasingly common is the use of computer-based textanalysis to measure relative frequencies of occurrence of particular words or patterns oflanguage use.Systematic observationA well-established type of research on classroom interaction is known as 'systematicobservation'. It essentially involves allocating observed talk (and sometimes non-verbalactivity such as gesture) to a set of previously specified categories. The aim is usually toprovide quantitative results which can be subjected to statistical analysis. For example, theobserver may record the relative number of 'talk turns' taken by teachers and students, ormeasure the extent to which they produce types of utterance as defined by theresearcher's categories (such as particular t>pes of questions used by teachers). The basicprocedure for setting up systematic observation is that researchers use their researchquestions and initial observations of classroom life to construct a set of categories intowhich all relevant talk (and any other communicative activity) can be classified. Observersare then trained to identify talk corresponding to each category, so that they can sit inclassrooms or work from video-recordings and assign what they see and hear to the
Page 1: TheBritishBritish Journal of Educat
Page 5 and 6: The analysis of classroom talk 5poi
Page 7 and 8: The analysis of classroom talk 7and
Page 9 and 10: The analysis of classroom talk 9Soc
Page 11 and 12: The analysis of classroom talktalk
Page 13 and 14: The analysis of classroom talk 13Ma
Page 15: Copyright of British Journal of Edu

(2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?