Gee Units 3 and 4

10/30/13


I really liked the Theoretical Tools in Unit 4.  Of course, they made me think of my Reading Recovery group.  Especially when he talked about intertextuality.  When I think back to my pilot project, where I talked with Reading Recovery Teacher Leaders about their experiences of PD and I observed PD sessions, there were so many references to Clay's text or to common experiences we had all had together.  Because I had once been affiliated with that group, I had the insider perspective and could understand the text references.  Had someone else been doing a similar study on this same group, many of those references would have been lost.

The Big D discourses are also part of the RR group.  There are certain ways we use language and certain ways we think together that only happen in that group.  I don't use the same kind of language in any other context - even when it is other teachers and we are doing a PD kind of thing.  What our regional RR group has created together is really unique - specific to all of us that have worked together over the years to construct it.  It is interesting to go to reading conferences and meet other Reading Recovery Teacher Leader groups.  Though we use the same common text and have similar training requirements etc., we are REALLY different in how we talk and engage and what we place more emphasis on in how we work with kids and teachers.  I think that is pretty fascinating.

Early in the reading, I can't remember where exactly....I remember thinking about context and knowing that it DOES matter.  There are certain people who have been mentors to me through the years - and I actually think differently in their presence.  I can feel a shift, and I am on some higher plane with them, because of them.  One was a grad student I worked with when I was an undergrad.  Her name was Jean Hunt, and she got her PhD in the Psychology department years ago.  We would have these really interesting conversations, and I would never know what we were going to talk about.  She was brilliant and I think that my thinking was changed just when I was around her.  Another was my former title 1 director, Denise Wilburn (she wrote the Mismeasure of Education book with Jim Horn) - same thing happened with her.  I thought differently in her presence.   And now, with Sue Duncan, a co-worker of mine at GSU.  So, I think that context does matter, but how do you talk about it, how do you even address it?   I can't explain why it happens (the thinking shift) I just know that it does.

I liked GEE better this time.  Maybe it was the theoretical tools?  I also do really like his examples and the questions after.  It would be interesting to talk to people in class about some of those passages (if we had time).  Would be interesting to hear people and their different takes on things.

10.24.13 DA - Gee Units 1 and 2

10.24.13 Gee Units 1 and 2


Gee irritates me, though I am not sure why.   I find myself questioning everything he is saying.  Is it because you don't like Gee?  Is it because others go on and on and on about how wonderful Gee is?  I get like this about books and sports teams. I don't want to read you or cheer for you when people tell me I should.  I don't know....

On page 3, I disagreed.  He is talking about incorrect verb usage - when children are using a "rule" and overgeneralizing.  He states - "Whey they say things like "go-ed" instead of "went", they often do not pay attention to correction even if they get it from adults."  In these kinds of situations, what tends to happen is that the adult naturally supplies the correct very form, but doesn't correct. 

Child - "Daddy goed to the store?"
Adult - "Yes, Daddy went to the store"

Over time, the child begins to use the "correct" form of the verb because she WAS paying attention.  Why else would you ever change or grow and how else would change or growth happen? 

We do this all the time in Reading Recovery lessons.  We make the "correction" not seem like a correction, but like a natural language interaction.  There are several instances in my video where the little guy I am working with uses "incorrect" grammar.  After reading a book, he looks at me and asks, "How I did?".  I ask him, "How do you think you did?"  I accept his message. And then answer him in grammatically correct language.  I wasn't aware of it as it was happening.  I wasn't thinking, "I need to correct that"...we were simply two people communicating and using the language reserves we have to send a message.  I got his, and he got mine.  As he then offered the evaluation "Good".  

On page 19, I disagreed.  He says, "Thus we have to reconstruct the context as far as we can".  Not really.  In DP, we didn't attend to the context, and there was plenty to be found in the interactions as they took place.

On page 20.  I agreed.  He is discussing the share time example and talks about how teachers are not always aware of what they are doing.  They have a perception that things are going a certain way, and that perception is not always right.   That has been my experience in working with teachers for the past 15 years.  And, I think that is why RR training has been so important for me and for the teachers I work with.  Really being reflective and examining and analyzing what we are saying and how it impacts students is central to our practice.  Using the one way glass, video taping lessons, having conversations about specific actions between students and teachers bring us closer to an idea of "what happened".  Now, we have talked about how we can watch video tape and have different versions of truth....I agree.  And I also think we can get closer to the essence of an experience with reflection.  We can all take different things away, but reflection matters and can make a difference for teachers.   Gee says, "We can discover new things about ourselves when others study us or we consciously reflect, after action, on what we have said and done." 

I thought a lot of what he said about context is covered in the idea of "next turn proof".   Different labels for the same concept?

This made me think of RR training (p.47) - "When people communicate, they are trying to do things with each utterance and with a whole set of utterances taken together.  They have local goals or purposes for each utterance and larger, more global goals for a whole set of connected utterances."
In training sessions, our immediate (or local) goal is to make sense of what is happening.  We are observing and talking together to try to build some kind of theory about the reader and teacher we are watching.  We don't come in with a particular agenda...we are watching the live interaction and trying to make sense of it.  Our larger goal is to impact the student's process positively.  We come together to problem solve for that particular child and teacher.  To shift things so that they child accelerates more quickly (I guess we do have an agenda...).  The even larger goals is to refine teacher decision making.  By watching so many lessons and talking through so many lessons, we are logging our "expert hours" and becoming better at zeroing in on difficulties students face in reading so that we can do something different.  I am thinking of Gladwells's book Blink - he talks about needing 10,000 hours to become expert at something.  As a community, we come together in this way to improve our practice.

Last comment - the breaking down of language structures made me think about how difficult texts can be for students, not necessarily because of the individual words but because of the text structures..."What shall we do?" is a very tricky phrase for a 6 year old to read, even though the words 'what, we, do" are easy words.  As he discussed each of the different kinds of phrases, I was reminded of the impact of language structure on students who speak a language that is different from "book language" - whether the student actually speaks a different language (Spanish) or speaks with a dialect (southern Appalachian).  The little guy in my video is a prime example.  He is as far away from "book language" as a non-native speaker of English.

Verdict is still out on Gee...

DA 10.9.13 Price and Johnston Proposals

10.9.13

Discourse Analysis

 

Joshua Johnston and Elizabeth Price Proposals

 

I am looking forward to seeing Elizabeth and Josh again tomorrow evening.  I enjoyed their presentations this summer in Discursive Psychology, and want to know more. I don’t have specific questions for them, but there are topics I’d like for them to talk about.

1)      I would like for both of them to update us about where they are now in the process.  We read the proposal, but where are they on their dissertation work now?

2)      I would like for them to share their timelines with us.  I am really trying to wrap my head around  how much time I should allow – I want enough time to collect the information I need and do a quality analysis, and I don’t want this process to drag out.  I want to know what is a reasonable amount of time to give myself.

3)      I hope that they both talk a great deal about their analysis process.   Both proposals detail the steps in the process, but I want to hear how it is going now and what they are constructing with the data.

4)      I also hope that they will both share extracts from their data and share their analysis work around the extract.  We did some of that with both of them last time, and I am hoping for more of this.

5)      Lastly, I would like for them both to share more about their experiences with DART. 

I am also glad Hollie and Ann will be covering the syncing of transcript and video.  That will be very helpful! 

DA 10.2.13 Conversation Analysis - Hutchby and Wooffit - Chapter 4-6

Discourse Analysis

10.2.13

Conversation Analysis – Hutchby and Wooffit – Chapter 4-6

 

“The conversation analytic mentality involves more a cast of mind, or a way of seeing, that a static and prescriptive set of instructions which analysts bring to bear on the data” (p. 89).

I like that there is some structure to the analysis, but not a lock step “mandate” for how the analysis is done.  I think the same can be said for RR teaching and teacher leadering.  There is a “way of seeing” and “being” that is not prescriptive, but is analytical and similar from RR Teacher and Teacher Leader.   This way of seeing and being is cultivated over time.  I am thinking that CA might be similar.

Three procedures/stages of Conversation Analysis

1)    Locate potentially interesting phenomenon in the data – ‘unmotivated looking’

2)    Describe one of the instances (collect many) formally and concentrate on the sequential context

3)    Return to the data to see if other instances can be described in terms of this account.

The purpose of this work is to formally describe large amounts of the data which can explain all the examples which have been collected.  This quote sums it up… “In other words, conversation analysts aim to be able to describe the specific features of individual cases, and at the same time bring those specifics under the umbrella of a generalized account of some sequential pattern or interactional device” (p.90).

As I have been re-transcribing my video, I have been thinking of these “interactional devices” and potentially interesting examples.  A few ideas have come to me:

1)    I use commands a lot when I talk to “Jimmy”.  This might be interesting to look at.

2)    He also says, “Let’s see” or “Hmm” a lot, and I feel like this is buying him some time.  He is thinking, working, and is seeming to communicate that to let me know he is doing some work.

3)    We also laugh a great deal.  Sometimes, the laughter is around misunderstandings, and other times, I am just reacting to something he does.

4)    I am not sure where this fits, but his language is really interesting.  Rarely does he speak in complete and grammatically correct sentences.  He speaks using individual words or short phrases that are not standard English.  I noticed that I almost instantly implant the “correct” grammatical phrase he is attempting.   (This is definitely a practice in Reading Recovery, but I am wondering if this is something that can be examined through a DA lens too).

 

Page 92 outlines three important principles of the CA method

1)    The insistence on rigorous, formal descriptions

2)    The attempt to maximize the generalizability of analytic accounts

3)    The serious attention given to ‘deviant’ cases

This would be a good overall question to be asking of our interactions…

“What interactional business is being mediated or accomplished through the use of a sequential pattern or device; and how do participants demonstrate their active orientation to this business?”(p. 98).   “Jimmy” and I clearly have a routine in our interactions.   It will be interesting to see how an utterance is responded to in the next turn – so, I can look at how Jimmy responds to what I ask, or vice versa.

 

On page 106, the authors say, “In other words, it is absolutely necessary that conversation analysts are either members of or have a sound understanding of, the culture from which their data have been drawn.”  I agree that this would be very important in order to make sense of the context.   However, so much of what I know about RR is “invisible” to me.  It might be difficult for me to do “unmotivated looking” because I have been looking in a motivated way through a Reading Recovery lens for a very long time.

I also noticed a great deal of overlapping talk in my video with Jimmy.  Sometimes, I have him read with me or say something with me in order to practice a particular language structure etc.  Other times, he jumps in to read with me or do something with me.  I direct some of the instances, and he joins in with others.

           The talk in RR is most definitely ‘institutional’.  There is similarity between teachers and lessons across varying context…there are certain roles and ways of interacting that all RR lessons hold in common.