Thai and English Vocabulary Development of Kindergarten 1 Students: A Case Study at Kindergarten 1B of Satit Bilingual School of Rangsit University
Rina Wahyu Setyaningrum
A Graduate Programme in Bilingual Education Student
Faculty of Education of Rangsit University
Rationale of the Study
In an increasingly diversified and multilingual world, more and more young children find themselves in an environment where more than one language is used. Similarly, with job changes that involve moving to different parts of the world, parents can feel overwhelmed by the linguistic demands on them and their children. What can parents expect of their children? Do parents have anything to contribute to the process of early language development? Does it confuse children to learn two or more languages at once? Do children have to be especially intelligent to be able to cope with more than one language?
The condition when children learn the second or third language instead of only first language is not only because the parents must move from one country to another but also because parents want their children have language proficiency to face the globalization era. We can see from the condition when parents send their children to bilingual school. Some parents make their students learning second or third language early because the philosophy that the earlier learning language the better. In fact, it is important for parents to know that their expectation toward their children language ability must be realistic to the certain age.
The easiest way to make the children learning language early is by sending them to school. Bilingual School that provides them programmes of language development may be the chosen one. This school utilizes the first and the second language as medium of instruction. Satit Bilingual School (SBS) of Rangsit University is one of the demonstration schools, which utilizes both Thai and English as medium of instruction at school. Technically, bilingual education refers to the programmes designed to give support to non-English speaking children, including program whose main focus is immersion in English-speaking classrooms.
Based on the SBS language immersion chart, the highest English language percentage for curriculum delivery goes to Kindergarten School (90% English and 10% Thai). This setting is mainly based on the school curriculum objective to encourage natural language acquisition in children so that they are able to master and sustain native-like language competency and appropriate communicative ability.
According to Santrock (2000), in case of bilingual education, adolescents make faster initial progress in second language, but their eventual success in their second language is not as great as children’s. He also explains that adolescents can become competent in second language, but this is more difficult task than learning it as a child. So, the percentage of language immersion applied at SBS suitable with this theory in the area of language reinforcement.
Today, Kindergarten 1 students are in the week 9 of school at SBS. It might be not the time to see their English mastery yet but their language development can be seen from their ability in understanding the two concepts of languages. Besides, this study can become the evaluation of the teaching and learning process in the SBS Kindergarten 1 so far.
Objective
The objective of this study is to know the Thai and English vocabulary development of Kindergarten 1 students of Satit Bilingual School of Rangsit University..
Methodology
The population of this study is the K1B students of Satit Bilingual School of Rangsit University, consists of 23 students – 8 females and 15 males. Their ages range from 34 months to 44 months.
This study is qualitative. The description of the students language development will be based on the data from the questionnaire of The Language Spoken at Home, Thai and English Vocabulary Test as well as the time to answer the test, and English language performance.
To analyze the data in order to get the clear information about the students Thai and English Language development, SPSS programme is utilized.
Theories of Cognitive Development in Early Childhood
The discussion of the intellectual changes in children that accompany their physical growth cannot be separated from the influence of the famous Swiss Psychologist Jean Piaget (1896-1980) who is widely acknowledged to be one of the century’s most influential thinkers. Previously the discussion about the children cognitive development was dominated by the biological maturation perspective – nature component and nurture component. Piaget concentrated on the interaction between the child’s naturally maturing abilities and his or her interactions with the environment. However, Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologists who published his ideas in the 1930’s, played an important role to renew the theory in recent years. Vygotsky’s basic principles (Tappan in Santrock, 2000): 1) the child’s cognitive skills can be understood only when they are developmentally analyzed and developed, 2) cognitive skills are mediated by words, language and the forms of discourse, which serve as psychological tools for facilitating and transforming mental activity, and 3)cognitive skills have their origins in social relations and are embedded in a sociocultural background.
The following are the tables of Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development and Vygotsky’s Theory of Development.
Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development
Developmental Stage & Approximate Age Characteristic Behavior
Sensory Motor Period
(0 - 24 months)
Reflexive Stage
(0-2 months) Simple reflex activity such as grasping, sucking.
Primary Circular Reactions
(2-4 months) Reflexive behaviors occur in stereotyped repetition such as opening and closing fingers repetitively.
Secondary Circular Reactions (4-8 months) Repetition of change actions to reproduce interesting consequences such as kicking one's feet to more a mobile suspended over the crib.
Coordination of Secondary Reactions (8-12 months) Responses become coordinated into more complex sequences. Actions take on an "intentional" character such as the infant reaches behind a screen to obtain a hidden object.
Tertiary Circular Reactions
(12-18 months) Discovery of new ways to produce the same consequence or obtain the same goal such as the infant may pull a pillow toward him in an attempt to get a toy resting on it.
Invention of New Means Through Mental Combination
(18-24 months) Evidence of an internal representational system. Symbolizing the problem-solving sequence before actually responding. Deferred imitation.
The Preoperational Period
(2-7 years)
Preoperational Phase
(2-4 years) Increased use of verbal representation but speech is egocentric. The beginnings of symbolic rather than simple motor play. Transductive reasoning. Can think about something without the object being present by use of language.
Intuitive Phase
(4-7 years) Speech becomes more social, less egocentric. The child has an intuitive grasp of logical concepts in some areas. However, there is still a tendency to focus attention on one aspect of an object while ignoring others. Concepts formed are crude and irreversible. Easy to believe in magical increase, decrease, disappearance. Reality not firm. Perceptions dominate judgment.
In moral-ethical realm, the child is not able to show principles underlying best behavior. Rules of a game not develop, only uses simple do's and don'ts imposed by authority.
Period of Concrete Operations
(7-11 years)
Evidence for organized, logical thought. There is the ability to perform multiple classification tasks, order objects in a logical sequence, and comprehend the principle of conservation. thinking becomes less transductive and less egocentric. The child is capable of concrete problem-solving.
Some reversibility now possible (quantities moved can be restored such as in arithmetic: 3+4 = 7 and 7-4 = 3, etc.)
Class logic-finding bases to sort unlike objects into logical groups where previously it was on superficial perceived attribute such as color. Categorical labels such as "number" or animal" now available.
Period of Formal Operations
(11-15 years)
Thought becomes more abstract, incorporating the principles of formal logic. The ability to generate abstract propositions, multiple hypotheses and their possible outcomes is evident. Thinking becomes less tied to concrete reality.
Formal logical systems can be acquired. Can handle proportions, algebraic manipulation, other purely abstract processes. If a + b = x then x = a - b. If ma/ca = IQ = 1.00 then Ma = CA.
Prepositional logic, as-if and if-then steps. Can use aids such as axioms to transcend human limits on comprehension.
(Table 1, http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/piaget.shtml)
Vygotsy’s Theory of Development
Process Remarks
The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development has a lower limit and an upper limit. The tasks in the ZPD are too difficult for the child to perform alone. The require assistance from an adult or a skilled child. As children experience the verbal instruction or demonstration, they organize the information in their existing mental structures, so they can eventually perform the skills or task alone.
Scaffholding The changing support over the course of a teaching session, with the more skilled person adjusting guidance to fit the child’s current performance level. As the student’s competence increases, less guidance given.
Language and Thought Young children use language not only for communication but also to plan, guide, and monitor their behavior in a self - regulatory fashion.
(Table 2, Santrock, 2000)
Comparison of Vygotsky’s and Piaget’s Theory
Topic Vygotsky Piaget
Constructivism
Social Constructivism Cognitive Constructivism
Stages No general stages of development proposed Strong emphasis on stages (sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational and formal operational)
Key Processes Zone of proximal development, language, dialogue, tools of the culture Schema, assimilation, accommodation, operations, conservation, classification, hypothetical-deductive reasoning
Role of Language A major role; language plays a powerful role in shaping thought Language has minimal role; cognition primarily directs language
View on Education Education plays a central role, helping children learn the tools of the culture Education merely refines the child’s cognitive skills that already have emerged
Teaching implication Teacher is a facilitator and guide, not a director; establish many opportunities for children to learn with the teacher and more skilled peers Also views teacher as a facilitator guide, not a director, provide support for children to explore their world and discover knowledge.
(Table 3, Santrock, 2000)
The Children Language Development
The Linguist, Noam Chomsky (1957) believes as stated in Santrock (1997), that children are born into the world with the language acquisition device (LAD), a biological endowment that enables the child to detect the certain language categories, such as phonology, syntax, and semantics. The nativist approach is nature based, assuming that the children are born with language learning capacities which develops as they are mature (Cole and Cole in Knudtzon, 1998). The interactionist approach combines these fundamental arguments and suggests that language acquisition is environmentally and genetically based ( Cole and Cole in Knudtzon, 1998). However, children’s use of language occurs several months after they are able to understand the language, which according to Pinker in Knudtzon (1998) occurs before first birthday. In learning language, Santrock (2000) explains that there will be a critical period in which there is a learning readiness. In fact, Obler in Santrock(2000) states that most children learn one or more languages during their early years of development, so it is difficult to determine whether there is a critical period for language development.
The following is the infants language development based on their age (months):
MONTHS LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
3 – 6 Begin to show interest in sounds, play with saliva and respond to voices. Bubble, emitting such sounds as “goo-goo” and “ga-ga”
6 – 9 Begin to understand their first words. The growth of receptive vocabulary.
9 – 12 Begin to understand instructions such as “Wave bye-bye”.
Understand more at the estimated 12 words.
10 – 15 Significant language milestones have already occurred.
15 - 24 Spoken vocabulary rapidly. It reaches 200 – 275 words.
Utter two-word statements.
(Table 4, Santrock, 2000)
Cole and Cole in Knudtzon (1998) explains that one word utterances or holophrases are sometimes believed to stand for phrases or sentences. At the 18 months, language development is quickly developing; children are increasing their vocabulary at the phenomenal rate of a new word every two hours (Pinker). Furthermore Pinker in Knudtzon (1998) conceptualizes the stage when children rapidly acquire the vocabulary and grammar:
Between the late twos and the mid-threes, children’s language blooms into fluent grammatical conversation so rapidly that it overwhelms the researchers who study it, and no one has worked out the sequence. Sentence length increases steadily, and because grammar is a discrete combinational system, the number of syntactic types increases exponentially, doubling every month, reaching thousands before the first birthday.
Children acquisition of word and word meaning is a complex process. For example, when the caregiver labels something as an animal while pointing a family dog, the child needs to recognize different levels categorization: the caregiver could be giving the general word, animal or dog, the type of dog, or some aspects of the dog’s physical appearance. Hutchinson and Markman in Knudtzon (1998) proposes that the children expect labels to refer to objects of the same kind or category, not thematic related reference.
Verbs presents another complex feature of children’s language acquisition, as their meaning is less apparent in speech than noun meanings. One hypothesis by Gleitman suggests that in most cases, the meaning of verb is determined by the context of a particular situation. Besides, grammar acquisition also presents an amazing feature of acquiring language. Children do not merely acquire grammar by hearing language, rather they begin to form general rules to which they apply to their increasing vocabularies (Cole and Cole in Knudtzon, 1998). This is the process that develops naturally in language-exposed children.
The Vocabulary Development of K1B Students of SBS
So far, the students have been familiar with the Thai and English expressions. When they come to school, they say “sawatdii kha/ khrap” to Thai teachers and directly switch the language into English when they meet the foreign teachers by
saying “good morning teacher”
Thai Vocabulary Development of K1B Students of SBS
It is stated previously that the highest English language percentage for curriculum delivery goes to Kindergarten School (90% English and 10% Thai). In fact, students used Thai language more than English did at school.
As Thai is the students mother tongue, they have been very familiar with the used of expressions in Thai. So far, only the spoken Thai language that they master. At school the Thai lesson emphasizes on the proper Thai language and the Thai culture through the Thai songs and Thai stories, and the familiarity with Thai alphabetical and counting system. The students do not have difficulty in understanding the Thai vocabulary used by the teachers. Some that might become emphasis on the vocabulary development is the objects naming.
The weekly topics for the students for Thai and English is the same, only the way the teachers’ teaching is different. The following is the weekly topic, along with the emphasized vocabulary in Thai:
1. Welcome to School: “What is your name?” (“ Che a’rai?”) “How are you?” (“Sabai di mai?”) “I’m fine, thank you.” (“Sabai di, khop khun”) and “See you tomorrow!” (“Phop kun prungni”)
2. Class Rules and Expected Behaviour: Listen to the teacher, Share with your friends, Be nice to your friends (no hitting, no kicking, no taking their toys, no running), Wait for your turn, as well as Sit down, Stand up, Line up, and other such classroom commands.
3. My Body: head, shoulders, arms, hands, belly/tummy/stomach, legs, knees, feet, and toes.
4. My Face: eyes, ears, mouth, nose, cheek.
5. My Feelings: I’m happy, sad, angry, frustrated, scared, lonely, shy.
6. Health and Hygiene: Wash your hands, Take a bath, Brush your teeth, Go to sleep, Drink your milk, Eat your vegetables, play and exercise.
7. Healthy Foods: fruits: apple, orange, pineapple, banana, mango, watermelon; vegetables: beans, cabbage, lettuce, carrot, cucumber; grains: rice, bread; meat: fish, pork, beef, chicken.
8. Senses – Seeing: What do you see? I see…, Can you see…? What does it look like? Is it beautiful/ugly?
9. Senses – Hearing: What do you hear? I hear…, Can you hear…?, What sound is it? Does it sound good?
10. Senses – Smelling: What do you smell? I smell…, Can you smell…?, Does it smell good?, followed by adjectives good, bad, strong, ect.
11. Senses – Tasting: What do you taste? I taste…, Does it taste good? Is it yummy?, followed by adjectives sweet, sour, bitter, salty, delicious, tasty, yummy, etc.
(all of the listed vocabulary must be translated into Thai…..I’ll do it Then)
English Vocabulary Development of K1B Students of SBS
“Good morning, how are you? It’s nice to see you today.” The teacher moves and claps approaching the students to get them involved. That is one of the circle to begin the class in K1B every morning.
“Good morning everyone”
“Good morning teacher” all the students answer loudly.
“How are you today” and the students answer “I am fine thank you”
“How are you today Joe?”
“I am fine thank you and you?” usually some students do not reply the greeting and ask the teacher’s condition.
Memorizing is the main focus of developing the students’ vocabulary in English. Everyday activities pretty much the same.
1. Greetings
2. Colour of the day, different colour for each day of the weeks
3. Do some old chants, the students had been introduced some chants since their first weeks
4. Attendance cards, each student must memorize his or her own symbol for the name. They also try to memorize their friends’ symbols.
5. Letter of the week. The students are introduced the one alphabet to memorize, one alphabet for a week. By the end of July 2005, they know A – I.
6. Story time. The teacher is telling the story based on the big book shown to the students. Sometimes the teacher asks the students questions to make them involved in the story time.
7. Singing some children songs together. The students like to dance and move around the classroom.
In developing the students’ English vocabulary, the weekly topic is used as the guidance. By the end of July 2005, the students have been in the Week 11. The topics that have been covered are:
1. Welcome to School: “What is your name?” “How are you?” “I’m fine, thank you.” and “See you tomorrow!”
2. Class Rules and Expected Behaviour: Listen to the teacher, Share with your friends, Be nice to your friends (no hitting, no kicking, no taking their toys, no running), Wait for your turn, as well as Sit down, Stand up, Line up, and other such classroom commands.
3. My Body: head, shoulders, arms, hands, belly/tummy/stomach, legs, knees, feet, and toes.
4. My Face: eyes, ears, mouth, nose, cheek.
5. My Feelings: I’m happy, sad, angry, frustrated, scared, lonely, shy.
6. Health and Hygiene: Wash your hands, Take a bath, Brush your teeth, Go to sleep, Drink your milk, Eat your vegetables, play and exercise.
7. Healthy Foods: fruits: apple, orange, pineapple, banana, mango, watermelon; vegetables: beans, cabbage, lettuce, carrot, cucumber; grains: rice, bread; meat: fish, pork, beef, chicken.
8. Senses – Seeing: What do you see? I see…, Can you see…? What does it look like? Is it beautiful/ugly?
9. Senses – Hearing: What do you hear? I hear…, Can you hear…?, What sound is it? Does it sound good?
10. Senses – Smelling: What do you smell? I smell…, Can you smell…?, Does it smell good?, followed by adjectives good, bad, strong, ect.
11. Senses – Tasting: What do you taste? I taste…, Does it taste good? Is it yummy?, followed by adjectives sweet, sour, bitter, salty, delicious, tasty, yummy, etc.
Thai and English Vocabulary Development of K1B Students of SBS
The following is the description of the Thai and English language development of K1B students of SBS. Among the population (23 students), only 12 of them could become the samples because of the incomplete data of the rest. Three students did not both return the questionnaire and follow the vocabulary test. The other three did not return the questionnaire but followed the vocabulary test. The rest returned the questionnaires but did not follow the vocabulary test.
Some students did not follow the test because they were not interested in the test. They liked playing more than sitting to answer the teacher’s questions. Some of them were interested to follow the test but it took only a while before they left to play.
The Thai and Vocabulary test was administered by English teacher who conducted the time for test as well. When the teacher showed the pictures, some students spontaniuosly mentioned the English word although they were asked by Thai language. It maight because of the person who gave the questions. On the other hand, although the teacher asked them to mention the picture in English, they still mentioned the pictures in Thai. This latest condition might because they did not know the words for pictures in English. Some students quickly mentioned the words in Thai and in English. However, one students whose first language is English could mention both Thai and English very well but in mentioning the Thai words, he spent longer time than mentioning words in English. Generally, the students were good in understanding the single image showed by the pictures. Meanwhile, when the last three pictures (verbs, on which the students saw more than two images) the students mentioned the unexpected words. They mentioned one or more images showed other than mentioned the verbs
Friday, April 10, 2009
70 characteristics of a good grammar presentation
70 characteristics of a good grammar presentation
A good grammar presentation:
1. Is a surprise
As strange as it might seem, a disbelieving look, a "No, really??" or most of the class getting what you are trying to elicit wrong are all good signs in a grammar explanation- signs that you have really got their attention, that you are teaching them something they don't know yet, and that it is something they are likely to be something they are still thinking about when they leave class and so remember for a longer time than usual. Ways to achieve this sense of surprise include contradicting their previous teacher or lower level textbook, contrasting with L1, contrasting spoken and written English grammar, and contrasting prescriptive grammar and how the language is really used nowadays. Something turning out to be much easier than they originally thought is also a nice surprise!
2. Is interactive
Ways of getting students involved in the grammar explanation stage include: getting them to give you example sentences from their imaginations, previous conversations or the textbook; eliciting the names of grammatical forms; getting them to match grammatical names, example sentences and meanings; getting students to prepare grammar presentations for the class for homework; using guided discovery tasks they work through in pairs; and deliberately making mistakes they can correct you on.
A good grammar presentation:
1. Is a surprise
As strange as it might seem, a disbelieving look, a "No, really??" or most of the class getting what you are trying to elicit wrong are all good signs in a grammar explanation- signs that you have really got their attention, that you are teaching them something they don't know yet, and that it is something they are likely to be something they are still thinking about when they leave class and so remember for a longer time than usual. Ways to achieve this sense of surprise include contradicting their previous teacher or lower level textbook, contrasting with L1, contrasting spoken and written English grammar, and contrasting prescriptive grammar and how the language is really used nowadays. Something turning out to be much easier than they originally thought is also a nice surprise!
2. Is interactive
Ways of getting students involved in the grammar explanation stage include: getting them to give you example sentences from their imaginations, previous conversations or the textbook; eliciting the names of grammatical forms; getting them to match grammatical names, example sentences and meanings; getting students to prepare grammar presentations for the class for homework; using guided discovery tasks they work through in pairs; and deliberately making mistakes they can correct you on.
Discourse Analysis
Discourse Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is difficult to give a single definition of Critical or Discourse Analysis as a research method. Indeed, rather than providing a particular method, Discourse Analysis can be characterized as a way of approaching and thinking about a problem. In this sense, Discourse Analysis is neither a qualitative nor a quantitative research method, but a manner of questioning the basic assumptions of quantitative and qualitative research methods. Discourse Analysis does not provide a tangible answer to problems based on scientific research, but it enables access to the ontological and epistemological assumptions behind a project, a statement, a method of research, or - to provide an example from the field of Library and Information Science - a system of classification. In other words, Discourse Analysis will enable to reveal the hidden motivations behind a text or behind the choice of a particular method of research to interpret that text. Expressed in today's more trendy vocabulary, Critical or Discourse Analysis is nothing more than a deconstructive reading and interpretation of a problem or text (while keeping in mind that postmodern theories conceive of every interpretation of reality and, therefore, of reality itself as a text. Every text is conditioned and inscribes itself within a given discourse, thus the term Discourse Analysis). Discourse Analysis will, thus, not provide absolute answers to a specific problem, but enable us to understand the conditions behind a specific "problem" and make us realize that the essence of that "problem", and its resolution, lie in its assumptions; the very assumptions that enable the existence of that "problem". By enabling us to make these assumption explicit, Discourse Analysis aims at allowing us to view the "problem" from a higher stance and to gain a comprehensive view of the "problem" and ourselves in relation to that "problem". Discourse Analysis is meant to provide a higher awareness of the hidden motivations in others and ourselves and, therefore, enable us to solve concrete problems - not by providing unequivocal answers, but by making us ask ontological and epistemological questions.
Though critical thinking about and analysis of situations/texts is as ancient as mankind or philosophy itself, and no method or theory as such, Discourse Analysis is generally perceived as the product of the postmodern period. The reason for this is that while other periods or philosophies are generally characterized by a belief-system or meaningful interpretation of the world, postmodern theories do not provide a particular view of the world, other that there is no one true view or interpretation of the world. In other words, the postmodern period is distinguished from other periods (Renaissance, Enlightenment, Modernism, etc.) in the belief that there is no meaning, that the world is inherently fragmented and heterogeneous, and that any sense making system or belief is mere subjective interpretation - and an interpretation that is conditioned by its social surrounding and the dominant discourse of its time. Postmodern theories, therefore, offer numerous readings aiming at "deconstructing" concepts, belief-systems, or generally held social values and assumptions. Some of the most commonly used theories are those of Jacques Derrida (who coined the term "deconstruction"), Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, Jean-Fran篩s Lyotard, and Fredric Jameson (this extremely brief listing of a few critical thinkers is neither comprehensive nor reflecting a value judgment; these are merely some of the most common names encountered when studying postmodern theories).
Critical thinking, however, is older than postmodern thought, as the following quote by John Dewey illustrates. Dewey defined the nature of reflective thought as "active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusion to which it tends" (Dewey, J. Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan, 1933. Page 9). When critically evaluating a research project or text, one should, therefore, not limit oneself to postmodern theories.
top home
Uses of Discourse Analysis
The contribution of the postmodern Discourse Analysis is the application of critical thought to social situations and the unveiling of hidden (or not so hidden) politics within the socially dominant as well as all other discourses (interpretations of the world, belief systems, etc.). Discourse Analysis can be applied to any text, that is, to any problem or situation. Since Discourse Analysis is basically an interpretative and deconstructing reading, there are no specific guidelines to follow. One could, however, make use of the theories of Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, or Fredric Jameson, as well as of other critical and postmodern thinkers.
Again, the purpose of Discourse Analysis is not to provide definite answers, but to expand our personal horizons and make us realize our own shortcomings and unacknowledged agendas/motivations - as well as that of others. In short, critical analysis reveals what is going on behind our backs and those of others and which determines our actions.
For example, Discourse Analysis applied to the theory of Library Science, would not argue for or against the validity and "truth" of a certain research method (qualitative or quantitative), statement, or value (i.e. the Library Bill of Rights, or policies concerning free speech). Rather, discourse analysis would focus on the existence and message of these texts and locate them within a historical and social context (see Bernd Frohmann's article "The Power of Images: A Discourse Analysis of the Cognitive Viewpoint" below). In this manner, Discourse Analysis aims at revealing the motivation and politics involved in the arguing for or against a specific research method, statement, or value. The concrete result will be the awareness to the qualities and shortcomings of each and the inception of an informed debate. Though this debate will never be settled, it allows for the correction of bias and the inclusion of minorities within the debate and analyzed discourse.
Types of Discourse Analysis
There are numerous "types" or theories of Discourse Analysis. Jacques Derrida's "Deconstruction" would be one; so would Michel Foucault's Genealogy and social criticism and analysis of the uses of discourse to exercise power (such as his analysis of how "Knowledge" is created in our societies and with what purpose or effect); Fredric Jameson's Marxist analysis of Postmodernism itself would provide another interesting reading on the dominant discourse of our time; as would Julia Kristeva's or H鬨ne Cixous' Feminist interpretations of current social practices. Numerous other theories or "readings" exist and the bibliography and list of links will provide further information to allow you to chose the most relevant or appealing to you. The bibliography of preparatory reading to the Module "Critical Theories" of the University of Wales Swansea might also be helpful.
Issues of Reliability and Validity
Discourse or Critical Analysis always remains a matter of interpretation. As there is no hard data provided through discourse analysis, the reliability and the validity of one's research/findings depends on the force and logic of one's arguments. Even the best constructed arguments are subject to their own deconstructive reading and counter-interpretations. The validity of critical analysis is, therefore, dependent on the quality of the rhetoric. Despite this fact, well-founded arguments remain authoritative over time and have concrete applications.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Discourse Analysis and critical thinking is applicable to every situation and every subject. The new perspective provided by discourse analysis allows personal growth and a high level of creative fulfillment. No technology or funds are necessary and authoritative discourse analysis can lead to fundamental changes in the practices of an institution, the profession, and society as a whole. However, Discourse Analysis does not provide definite answers; it is not a "hard" science, but an insight/knowledge based on continuous debate and argumentation.
top home
Works Cited, and other Useful Resources
Works Cited
Frohmann, Bernd. "The Power of Images: A Discourse Analysis of the Cognitive Viewpoint." Journal of Documentation 48.4 (1992): 365-386.
Frohmann introduces Discourse Analysis as applied to the field of Library Science and analyzes the current debate between proponents of various research methods. In so doing, he deconstructs the claims and arguments made by each and provides his own interpretation of the "yearning for natural-scientific theory" in our field. He perceives this yearning as dominating the discourse of research in Library Science and expands his critique to the dominance the modern capitalist discourse in our society. In this sense, Frohmann uses Michel Foucault's theory and combines its method with a social critique reminiscent of Fredric Jameson.
Other Useful Print Resources
Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1990.
Excellent introductory work to the whole history of rhetoric, that is, critical thinking and discourse analysis. Authors and works are presented and their theories/contents explained. This is an excellent starting point and also provides a selected bibliography at the end of each chapter. Use this resource to become more familiar with the theories and authors in Discourse Analysis.
Dickens, David R. and Andrea Fontana, Eds. Postmodernism & Social Inquiry. New York: Guilford Press, 1994.
The volume contains essays by scholars in the Humanities and Social Sciences on "Postmodern Theories of Society," and "Postmodern Research Methods." The chapters on postmodern research methods are particularly relevant, as they provide information on Structuralism and Post-Structuralism and their application in the Social Sciences, as well as a useful critique of the failings of and dangers inherent in Postmodernism.
Frohmann, Bernd. "Discourse Analysis as a Research Method in Library and Information Science." Library and Information Science Research 16 (1994): 119-138.
Frohmann applies the kind of discourse analysis practiced by Michel Foucault to the field of Library and Information Science. This is both an introduction to Discourse Analysis and an explanation why the theories of Michel Foucault are relevant to our field, as well as an example of the practical application of Discourse Analysis.
Marshall, Donald G. Contemporary Critical Theory: A Selective Bibliography. New York: The Modern Language Association, 1933.
Though a selective bibliography, this resource provides brief explanations of all major authors in critical theory and their importance, in addition to extensive bibliographies of the major works by the authors and on the authors. If you chose to select a particular critical thinker in your research and would like to know more about him/her, consult this bibliography.
Poster, Mark. The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and Social Context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
This is one of the few resources that combines poststructuralist theories, social context, and Information Science. The monograph contains five chapters: the first on the concept of the Postindustrial Society and analyzes the theories of Daniel Bell; the second chapter applies the though of Baudrillard to TV ads and describes the language of economy; chapter three is entitled Foucault and Databases; chapter four on Derrida and electronic writing; and chapter five on Lyotard and Computer Science.
Steele, Meili. Critical Confrontations: Literary Theories in Dialogue. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997.
Dr. Steele teaches Literary Theory at the University of South Carolina and explains the thoughts of the main theorists and schools in a straightforward language without the heavy use of jargon that characterizes so many of the texts in Literary/Critical Theory. This resource constitutes a good complementary reading to the Bizzell and Herzberg volume.
top home
Useful Links
Olson, Hope. "Quantitative 'versus' Qualitative Research: The Wrong Question." http://www.ualberta.ca/dept/slis/cais/olson.htm
Example of critical analysis as applied to the traditional opposition of quantitative versus qualitative research in the field of Library and Information Science. The article is by Dr. Hope Olson from the School in Library and Information Science at the University of Alberta, Canada.
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/postmodern.html
Page on Contemporary Philosophy, Critical Theory and Postmodern Thought by Martin Ryder at the University of Colorado at Denver. Everything you ever wanted to find on the Web on Postmodernism. Profiles of thinkers and summaries of their thoughts, bibliographies, essays, reviews, etc. - this is one of the most comprehensive pages available.
http://www.swan.ac.uk/sel/theolink.htm
The links page of the "Critical Theory" module of the University of Wales Swansea. Excellent starting page to surf the web for resources on Postmodern theories. Links for "The Postmodern", Deconstruction, Feminism, Multiculturalism, etc., and for individual thinkers, such as Foucault, Derrida, Kristeva, Bakhtin, Barthes, Saussure, etc.
http://www.swan.ac.uk/sel/theobib.htm
Selected General Bibliography by the School of European Languages, Core Module "Critical Theories" 29-30 November 1997 at the University of Wales Swansea. This page provides a bibliography of reference and general/introductory resources in Discourse Analysis and Critical Theories.
Examples of DiscourseAnalysis
Budd, John and Douglas Raber. "Discourse Analysis: Method and Application in the Study of Information." Information Processing & Management 32 (1996): 217-226.
This paper provides an evaluation of Discourse Analysis and its application in the field of Library and Information Science. Starting with the premise that communication lies at the heart of our profession, Budd and Raber conclude that Discourse Analysis is a useful tool that can be applied to LIS literature. By investigating form and function of the current research and analyzing its use and definition of the term "information," the authors infer key implications for LIS theory and practice.
Forrester, Michael A., Christopher Ramsden, and David Reason. "Conversation and Discourse Analysis in Library and Information Services." Education for Information 15.4 (1997): 283-295.
Considering that the research interview constitutes the main source of information on library users, the three authors apply Discourse Analysis to the research interview in a reference situation. The paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of using discourse analysis when examining users' responses, in particular in response to costs and benefits of utilizing discourse and conversation analytic methods.
Frohmann, Bernd. "Communication Technologies and the Politics of Postmodern Information Science." Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 19.2 (1994): 1-22.
Frohmann addresses the "identity and politics of modern communication and information technologies." Considering that they are not "mere hardware", but are having direct consequences for individuals and society. According to Frohmann, they "embody social relations of domination and dependence, especially in their construction of specific forms of human subjectivity." The text is another example of the application of Michel Foucault's theories to the field of Library Science and enables Frohmann to expand his findings to a social criticism.
Tuominen, Kimmo. "User-Centered Discourse: An Analysis of the Subject Positions of the User and the Librarian." The Library Quarterly 67.4 (1997): 350-371.
Through the analysis of the discourse of librarians and the analysis of their interaction with library users, Tuominen critically evaluates the current trend in LIS research to analyze the inner world of the user. In so doing, Tuominen explores the hidden ideas and agendas, as well as institutional implications of this new trend. By analyzing how the identities of user and librarians are constructed in an often-cited user-centered text, Tuominen concludes that users and librarians are positioned in an unequal power relationship. While the identity of librarians are constructed/positioned as mind-reading experts and as the information search controllers, users are positioned as uncertain layperson, unsure of their needs and information search. According to the author, the main goal of the paper is to analyze how our profession constructs identities in order to fulfill its own fallacies.
top home
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is difficult to give a single definition of Critical or Discourse Analysis as a research method. Indeed, rather than providing a particular method, Discourse Analysis can be characterized as a way of approaching and thinking about a problem. In this sense, Discourse Analysis is neither a qualitative nor a quantitative research method, but a manner of questioning the basic assumptions of quantitative and qualitative research methods. Discourse Analysis does not provide a tangible answer to problems based on scientific research, but it enables access to the ontological and epistemological assumptions behind a project, a statement, a method of research, or - to provide an example from the field of Library and Information Science - a system of classification. In other words, Discourse Analysis will enable to reveal the hidden motivations behind a text or behind the choice of a particular method of research to interpret that text. Expressed in today's more trendy vocabulary, Critical or Discourse Analysis is nothing more than a deconstructive reading and interpretation of a problem or text (while keeping in mind that postmodern theories conceive of every interpretation of reality and, therefore, of reality itself as a text. Every text is conditioned and inscribes itself within a given discourse, thus the term Discourse Analysis). Discourse Analysis will, thus, not provide absolute answers to a specific problem, but enable us to understand the conditions behind a specific "problem" and make us realize that the essence of that "problem", and its resolution, lie in its assumptions; the very assumptions that enable the existence of that "problem". By enabling us to make these assumption explicit, Discourse Analysis aims at allowing us to view the "problem" from a higher stance and to gain a comprehensive view of the "problem" and ourselves in relation to that "problem". Discourse Analysis is meant to provide a higher awareness of the hidden motivations in others and ourselves and, therefore, enable us to solve concrete problems - not by providing unequivocal answers, but by making us ask ontological and epistemological questions.
Though critical thinking about and analysis of situations/texts is as ancient as mankind or philosophy itself, and no method or theory as such, Discourse Analysis is generally perceived as the product of the postmodern period. The reason for this is that while other periods or philosophies are generally characterized by a belief-system or meaningful interpretation of the world, postmodern theories do not provide a particular view of the world, other that there is no one true view or interpretation of the world. In other words, the postmodern period is distinguished from other periods (Renaissance, Enlightenment, Modernism, etc.) in the belief that there is no meaning, that the world is inherently fragmented and heterogeneous, and that any sense making system or belief is mere subjective interpretation - and an interpretation that is conditioned by its social surrounding and the dominant discourse of its time. Postmodern theories, therefore, offer numerous readings aiming at "deconstructing" concepts, belief-systems, or generally held social values and assumptions. Some of the most commonly used theories are those of Jacques Derrida (who coined the term "deconstruction"), Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, Jean-Fran篩s Lyotard, and Fredric Jameson (this extremely brief listing of a few critical thinkers is neither comprehensive nor reflecting a value judgment; these are merely some of the most common names encountered when studying postmodern theories).
Critical thinking, however, is older than postmodern thought, as the following quote by John Dewey illustrates. Dewey defined the nature of reflective thought as "active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusion to which it tends" (Dewey, J. Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan, 1933. Page 9). When critically evaluating a research project or text, one should, therefore, not limit oneself to postmodern theories.
top home
Uses of Discourse Analysis
The contribution of the postmodern Discourse Analysis is the application of critical thought to social situations and the unveiling of hidden (or not so hidden) politics within the socially dominant as well as all other discourses (interpretations of the world, belief systems, etc.). Discourse Analysis can be applied to any text, that is, to any problem or situation. Since Discourse Analysis is basically an interpretative and deconstructing reading, there are no specific guidelines to follow. One could, however, make use of the theories of Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, or Fredric Jameson, as well as of other critical and postmodern thinkers.
Again, the purpose of Discourse Analysis is not to provide definite answers, but to expand our personal horizons and make us realize our own shortcomings and unacknowledged agendas/motivations - as well as that of others. In short, critical analysis reveals what is going on behind our backs and those of others and which determines our actions.
For example, Discourse Analysis applied to the theory of Library Science, would not argue for or against the validity and "truth" of a certain research method (qualitative or quantitative), statement, or value (i.e. the Library Bill of Rights, or policies concerning free speech). Rather, discourse analysis would focus on the existence and message of these texts and locate them within a historical and social context (see Bernd Frohmann's article "The Power of Images: A Discourse Analysis of the Cognitive Viewpoint" below). In this manner, Discourse Analysis aims at revealing the motivation and politics involved in the arguing for or against a specific research method, statement, or value. The concrete result will be the awareness to the qualities and shortcomings of each and the inception of an informed debate. Though this debate will never be settled, it allows for the correction of bias and the inclusion of minorities within the debate and analyzed discourse.
Types of Discourse Analysis
There are numerous "types" or theories of Discourse Analysis. Jacques Derrida's "Deconstruction" would be one; so would Michel Foucault's Genealogy and social criticism and analysis of the uses of discourse to exercise power (such as his analysis of how "Knowledge" is created in our societies and with what purpose or effect); Fredric Jameson's Marxist analysis of Postmodernism itself would provide another interesting reading on the dominant discourse of our time; as would Julia Kristeva's or H鬨ne Cixous' Feminist interpretations of current social practices. Numerous other theories or "readings" exist and the bibliography and list of links will provide further information to allow you to chose the most relevant or appealing to you. The bibliography of preparatory reading to the Module "Critical Theories" of the University of Wales Swansea might also be helpful.
Issues of Reliability and Validity
Discourse or Critical Analysis always remains a matter of interpretation. As there is no hard data provided through discourse analysis, the reliability and the validity of one's research/findings depends on the force and logic of one's arguments. Even the best constructed arguments are subject to their own deconstructive reading and counter-interpretations. The validity of critical analysis is, therefore, dependent on the quality of the rhetoric. Despite this fact, well-founded arguments remain authoritative over time and have concrete applications.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Discourse Analysis and critical thinking is applicable to every situation and every subject. The new perspective provided by discourse analysis allows personal growth and a high level of creative fulfillment. No technology or funds are necessary and authoritative discourse analysis can lead to fundamental changes in the practices of an institution, the profession, and society as a whole. However, Discourse Analysis does not provide definite answers; it is not a "hard" science, but an insight/knowledge based on continuous debate and argumentation.
top home
Works Cited, and other Useful Resources
Works Cited
Frohmann, Bernd. "The Power of Images: A Discourse Analysis of the Cognitive Viewpoint." Journal of Documentation 48.4 (1992): 365-386.
Frohmann introduces Discourse Analysis as applied to the field of Library Science and analyzes the current debate between proponents of various research methods. In so doing, he deconstructs the claims and arguments made by each and provides his own interpretation of the "yearning for natural-scientific theory" in our field. He perceives this yearning as dominating the discourse of research in Library Science and expands his critique to the dominance the modern capitalist discourse in our society. In this sense, Frohmann uses Michel Foucault's theory and combines its method with a social critique reminiscent of Fredric Jameson.
Other Useful Print Resources
Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1990.
Excellent introductory work to the whole history of rhetoric, that is, critical thinking and discourse analysis. Authors and works are presented and their theories/contents explained. This is an excellent starting point and also provides a selected bibliography at the end of each chapter. Use this resource to become more familiar with the theories and authors in Discourse Analysis.
Dickens, David R. and Andrea Fontana, Eds. Postmodernism & Social Inquiry. New York: Guilford Press, 1994.
The volume contains essays by scholars in the Humanities and Social Sciences on "Postmodern Theories of Society," and "Postmodern Research Methods." The chapters on postmodern research methods are particularly relevant, as they provide information on Structuralism and Post-Structuralism and their application in the Social Sciences, as well as a useful critique of the failings of and dangers inherent in Postmodernism.
Frohmann, Bernd. "Discourse Analysis as a Research Method in Library and Information Science." Library and Information Science Research 16 (1994): 119-138.
Frohmann applies the kind of discourse analysis practiced by Michel Foucault to the field of Library and Information Science. This is both an introduction to Discourse Analysis and an explanation why the theories of Michel Foucault are relevant to our field, as well as an example of the practical application of Discourse Analysis.
Marshall, Donald G. Contemporary Critical Theory: A Selective Bibliography. New York: The Modern Language Association, 1933.
Though a selective bibliography, this resource provides brief explanations of all major authors in critical theory and their importance, in addition to extensive bibliographies of the major works by the authors and on the authors. If you chose to select a particular critical thinker in your research and would like to know more about him/her, consult this bibliography.
Poster, Mark. The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and Social Context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
This is one of the few resources that combines poststructuralist theories, social context, and Information Science. The monograph contains five chapters: the first on the concept of the Postindustrial Society and analyzes the theories of Daniel Bell; the second chapter applies the though of Baudrillard to TV ads and describes the language of economy; chapter three is entitled Foucault and Databases; chapter four on Derrida and electronic writing; and chapter five on Lyotard and Computer Science.
Steele, Meili. Critical Confrontations: Literary Theories in Dialogue. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997.
Dr. Steele teaches Literary Theory at the University of South Carolina and explains the thoughts of the main theorists and schools in a straightforward language without the heavy use of jargon that characterizes so many of the texts in Literary/Critical Theory. This resource constitutes a good complementary reading to the Bizzell and Herzberg volume.
top home
Useful Links
Olson, Hope. "Quantitative 'versus' Qualitative Research: The Wrong Question." http://www.ualberta.ca/dept/slis/cais/olson.htm
Example of critical analysis as applied to the traditional opposition of quantitative versus qualitative research in the field of Library and Information Science. The article is by Dr. Hope Olson from the School in Library and Information Science at the University of Alberta, Canada.
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/postmodern.html
Page on Contemporary Philosophy, Critical Theory and Postmodern Thought by Martin Ryder at the University of Colorado at Denver. Everything you ever wanted to find on the Web on Postmodernism. Profiles of thinkers and summaries of their thoughts, bibliographies, essays, reviews, etc. - this is one of the most comprehensive pages available.
http://www.swan.ac.uk/sel/theolink.htm
The links page of the "Critical Theory" module of the University of Wales Swansea. Excellent starting page to surf the web for resources on Postmodern theories. Links for "The Postmodern", Deconstruction, Feminism, Multiculturalism, etc., and for individual thinkers, such as Foucault, Derrida, Kristeva, Bakhtin, Barthes, Saussure, etc.
http://www.swan.ac.uk/sel/theobib.htm
Selected General Bibliography by the School of European Languages, Core Module "Critical Theories" 29-30 November 1997 at the University of Wales Swansea. This page provides a bibliography of reference and general/introductory resources in Discourse Analysis and Critical Theories.
Examples of DiscourseAnalysis
Budd, John and Douglas Raber. "Discourse Analysis: Method and Application in the Study of Information." Information Processing & Management 32 (1996): 217-226.
This paper provides an evaluation of Discourse Analysis and its application in the field of Library and Information Science. Starting with the premise that communication lies at the heart of our profession, Budd and Raber conclude that Discourse Analysis is a useful tool that can be applied to LIS literature. By investigating form and function of the current research and analyzing its use and definition of the term "information," the authors infer key implications for LIS theory and practice.
Forrester, Michael A., Christopher Ramsden, and David Reason. "Conversation and Discourse Analysis in Library and Information Services." Education for Information 15.4 (1997): 283-295.
Considering that the research interview constitutes the main source of information on library users, the three authors apply Discourse Analysis to the research interview in a reference situation. The paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of using discourse analysis when examining users' responses, in particular in response to costs and benefits of utilizing discourse and conversation analytic methods.
Frohmann, Bernd. "Communication Technologies and the Politics of Postmodern Information Science." Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 19.2 (1994): 1-22.
Frohmann addresses the "identity and politics of modern communication and information technologies." Considering that they are not "mere hardware", but are having direct consequences for individuals and society. According to Frohmann, they "embody social relations of domination and dependence, especially in their construction of specific forms of human subjectivity." The text is another example of the application of Michel Foucault's theories to the field of Library Science and enables Frohmann to expand his findings to a social criticism.
Tuominen, Kimmo. "User-Centered Discourse: An Analysis of the Subject Positions of the User and the Librarian." The Library Quarterly 67.4 (1997): 350-371.
Through the analysis of the discourse of librarians and the analysis of their interaction with library users, Tuominen critically evaluates the current trend in LIS research to analyze the inner world of the user. In so doing, Tuominen explores the hidden ideas and agendas, as well as institutional implications of this new trend. By analyzing how the identities of user and librarians are constructed in an often-cited user-centered text, Tuominen concludes that users and librarians are positioned in an unequal power relationship. While the identity of librarians are constructed/positioned as mind-reading experts and as the information search controllers, users are positioned as uncertain layperson, unsure of their needs and information search. According to the author, the main goal of the paper is to analyze how our profession constructs identities in order to fulfill its own fallacies.
top home
Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers
Online Resources
Databases / Directories
Publications
Featured Publication
Browse CAL publications
Request a catalog
Visit the CAL Store
Email this page
Print this page
Resources
Online Resources: Digests
September 2001
EDO-FL-01-07
Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers
Douglas A. Demo, Center for Applied Linguistics
Download a PDF of this digest.
What Is Discourse Analysis?
Discourse analysis is the examination of language use by members of a speech community. It involves looking at both language form and language function and includes the study of both spoken interaction and written texts. It identifies linguistic features that characterize different genres as well as social and cultural factors that aid in our interpretation and understanding of different texts and types of talk. A discourse analysis of written texts might include a study of topic development and cohesion across the sentences, while an analysis of spoken language might focus on these aspects plus turn-taking practices, opening and closing sequences of social encounters, or narrative structure.
The study of discourse has developed in a variety of disciplines-sociolinguistics, anthropology, sociology, and social psychology. Thus discourse analysis takes different theoretical perspectives and analytic approaches: speech act theory, interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication, pragmatics, conversation analysis, and variation analysis (Schiffrin, 1994). Although each approach emphasizes different aspects of language use, they all view language as social interaction.
This digest focuses on the application of discourse analysis to second language teaching and learning. It provides examples of how teachers can improve their teaching practices by investigating actual language use both in and out of the classroom, and how students can learn language through exposure to different types of discourse. Detailed introductions to discourse analysis, with special attention to the needs and experiences of language teachers, can be found in Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000), Hatch (1992), McCarthy (1992), McCarthy and Carter (1994), and Riggenbach (1999).
Discourse Analysis and Second Language Teaching
Even with the most communicative approaches, the second language classroom is limited in its ability to develop learners' communicative competence in the target language. This is due to the restricted number of contact hours with the language; minimal opportunities for interacting with native speakers; and limited exposure to the variety of functions, genres, speech events, and discourse types that occur outside the classroom. Given the limited time available for students to practice the target language, teachers should maximize opportunities for student participation. Classroom research is one way for teachers to monitor both the quantity and quality of students' output. By following a four-part process of Record-View-Transcribe-Analyze, second language teachers can use discourse analytic techniques to investigate the interaction patterns in their classrooms and to see how these patterns promote or hinder opportunities for learners to practice the target language. This process allows language teachers to study their own teaching behavior—specifically, the frequency, distribution, and types of questions they use and their effect on students' responses.
Step One: Videotape a complete lesson. Be sure to capture all of your questions and the students' responses. (Opportunities to speak the target language are often created by teachers' questions.)
Step Two: Watch the videotape. As you watch it, think about the types of questions you asked. Look for recurring patterns in your questioning style and the impact it has on the students' responses.
Step Three: Transcribe the lesson. A transcript will make it easier to identify the types of questions in the data and to focus on specific questions and student responses.
Step Four: Analyze the videotape and transcript. Why did you ask each question? What type of question was it—open (e.g., "What points do you think the author was making in the chapter you read yesterday?") or closed (e.g., "Did you like the chapter?")? Was the question effective in terms of your goals for teaching and learning? What effect did your questions have on the students' opportunities to practice the target language? How did the students respond to different types of questions? Were you satisfied with their responses? Which questions elicited the most discussion from the students? Did the students ask any questions? Focusing on actual classroom interaction, teachers can investigate how one aspect of their teaching style affects students' opportunities for speaking the target language. They can then make changes that will allow students more practice with a wider variety of discourse types.
Teachers can also use this process of Record-View-Transcribe-Analyze to study communication patterns in different classroom activities, such as student-to-student interactions during a paired role-play task and during a small-group cooperative learning activity. Communicative activities are expected to promote interaction and to provide opportunities for students to engage in talk. Teachers are likely to discover that students produce different speech patterns in response to different tasks. For example, a map activity is likely to elicit a series of questions and answers among participants, whereas a picture narration task requires a monologue developed around a narrative format. Given that teachers use communicative tasks to evaluate learners' proficiency, a better understanding of the influence of specific activities on learner discourse will likely lead teachers to use a greater variety of tasks in order to gain a more comprehensive picture of students' abilities. By recording, transcribing, and analyzing students' discourse, teachers can gain insight into the effect of specific tasks on students' language production and, over time, on their language development.
A discourse analysis of classroom interactions can also shed light on cross-cultural linguistic patterns that may be leading to communication difficulties. For example, some speakers may engage in overlap, speaking while someone else is taking a turn-at-talk. For some linguistic groups, this discourse behavior can be interpreted as a signal of engagement and involvement; however, other speakers may view it as an interruption and imposition on their speaking rights. Teachers can use the Record-View-Transcribe-Analyze technique to study cross-cultural interactions in their classrooms, helping students identify different communication strategies and their potential for miscommunication.
Although some variables of language learning are beyond the control of second language teachers, discourse analysis can be a useful analytic tool for making informed changes in instructional practices. Mainstream teachers, especially those with second language learners, can also use this technique to study classroom interactions in order to focus on the learning opportunities available to students with limited English proficiency. In fact, discourse analysis can be an integral part of a program of professional development for all teachers that includes classroom-based research, with the overall aim of improving teaching (Johnson, 1995).
Discourse Analysis and Second Language Learning
Language learners face the monumental task of acquiring not only new vocabulary, syntactic patterns, and phonology, but also discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, strategic competence, and interactional competence. They need opportunities to investigate the systematicity of language at all linguistic levels, especially at the highest level (Riggenbach, 1999; Young and He, 1998). Without knowledge of and experience with the discourse and sociocultural patterns of the target language, second language learners are likely to rely on the strategies and expectations acquired as part of their first language development, which may be inappropriate for the second language setting and may lead to communication difficulties and misunderstandings.
One problem for second language learners is limited experience with a variety of interactive practices in the target language. Therefore, one of the goals of second language teaching is to expose learners to different discourse patterns in different texts and interactions. One way that teachers can include the study of discourse in the second language classroom is to allow the students themselves to study language, that is, to make them discourse analysts (see Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000; McCarthy & Carter, 1994; Riggenbach, 1999). By exploring natural language use in authentic environments, learners gain a greater appreciation and understanding of the discourse patterns associated with a given genre or speech event as well as the sociolinguistic factors that contribute to linguistic variation across settings and contexts. For example, students can study speech acts in a service encounter, turn-taking patterns in a conversation between friends, opening and closings of answering machine messages, or other aspects of speech events. Riggenbach (1999) suggests a wide variety of activities that can easily be adapted to suit a range of second language learning contexts.
One discourse feature that is easy to study is listener response behavior, also known as backchannels. Backchannels are the brief verbal responses that a listener uses while another individual is talking, such as mm-hmm, ok, yeah, and oh wow. Listener response can also be non-verbal, for instance head nods. Research has identified variation among languages in the use of backchannels, which makes it an interesting feature to study. Variation has been found not only in the frequency of backchannels, but also in the type of backchannels, their placement in the ongoing talk, and their interpretation by the participants (Clancy, Thompson, Suzuki, & Tao, 1996). Students can participate in the Record-View-Transcribe-Analyze technique to study the linguistic form and function of backchannels in conversation.
Step One: Ask to video- or audiotape a pair of native speakers engaging in conversation, perhaps over coffee or lunch.
Step Two: Play the tape for students. Have them identify patterns in the recorded linguistic behavior. In this case, pay attention to the backchanneling behavior of the participants. Is the same backchannel token used repeatedly, or is there variation?
Step Three: Transcribe the conversation so that students can count the number and types of backchannel tokens and examine their placement within the discourse.
Step 4: Have students analyze specific discourse features individually, in pairs or in small groups. These are some questions to consider: How often do the participants use a backchannel token? How does backchanneling contribute to the participants' understanding of and involvement in the conversation? How can differences in backchannel frequency be explained? How does backchanneling work in the students' native language?
Students can collect and analyze data themselves. Once collected, this set of authentic language data can be repeatedly examined for other conversational features, then later compared to discourse features found in other speech events. This discourse approach to language learning removes language from the confines of textbooks and makes it tangible, so that students can explore language as interaction rather than as grammatical units. Teachers can also use these activities to raise students' awareness of language variation, dialect differences, and cultural diversity.
Conclusion
In sum, teachers can use discourse analysis not only as a research method for investigating their own teaching practices but also as a tool for studying interactions among language learners. Learners can benefit from using discourse analysis to explore what language is and how it is used to achieve communicative goals in different contexts. Thus discourse analysis can help to create a second language learning environment that more accurately reflects how language is used and encourages learners toward their goal of proficiency in another language.
References
Celce-Murcia, M,. & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Clancy, P., Thompson, S., Suzuki, R., & Tao, H. (1996) The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 355-387.
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. (1992). Discourse analysis for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teachers. New York: Longman.
Riggenbach, H. (1999). Discourse analysis in the language classroom: Volume 1. The spoken language. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Young, R., & He, A. (1998). Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This digest was prepared with funding from the U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Library of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0008. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of ED, OERI, or NLE.
CAL Store Press Room Jobs Contact Us Site Map Privacy
Copyright © 2009 CAL
Databases / Directories
Publications
Featured Publication
Browse CAL publications
Request a catalog
Visit the CAL Store
Email this page
Print this page
Resources
Online Resources: Digests
September 2001
EDO-FL-01-07
Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers
Douglas A. Demo, Center for Applied Linguistics
Download a PDF of this digest.
What Is Discourse Analysis?
Discourse analysis is the examination of language use by members of a speech community. It involves looking at both language form and language function and includes the study of both spoken interaction and written texts. It identifies linguistic features that characterize different genres as well as social and cultural factors that aid in our interpretation and understanding of different texts and types of talk. A discourse analysis of written texts might include a study of topic development and cohesion across the sentences, while an analysis of spoken language might focus on these aspects plus turn-taking practices, opening and closing sequences of social encounters, or narrative structure.
The study of discourse has developed in a variety of disciplines-sociolinguistics, anthropology, sociology, and social psychology. Thus discourse analysis takes different theoretical perspectives and analytic approaches: speech act theory, interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication, pragmatics, conversation analysis, and variation analysis (Schiffrin, 1994). Although each approach emphasizes different aspects of language use, they all view language as social interaction.
This digest focuses on the application of discourse analysis to second language teaching and learning. It provides examples of how teachers can improve their teaching practices by investigating actual language use both in and out of the classroom, and how students can learn language through exposure to different types of discourse. Detailed introductions to discourse analysis, with special attention to the needs and experiences of language teachers, can be found in Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000), Hatch (1992), McCarthy (1992), McCarthy and Carter (1994), and Riggenbach (1999).
Discourse Analysis and Second Language Teaching
Even with the most communicative approaches, the second language classroom is limited in its ability to develop learners' communicative competence in the target language. This is due to the restricted number of contact hours with the language; minimal opportunities for interacting with native speakers; and limited exposure to the variety of functions, genres, speech events, and discourse types that occur outside the classroom. Given the limited time available for students to practice the target language, teachers should maximize opportunities for student participation. Classroom research is one way for teachers to monitor both the quantity and quality of students' output. By following a four-part process of Record-View-Transcribe-Analyze, second language teachers can use discourse analytic techniques to investigate the interaction patterns in their classrooms and to see how these patterns promote or hinder opportunities for learners to practice the target language. This process allows language teachers to study their own teaching behavior—specifically, the frequency, distribution, and types of questions they use and their effect on students' responses.
Step One: Videotape a complete lesson. Be sure to capture all of your questions and the students' responses. (Opportunities to speak the target language are often created by teachers' questions.)
Step Two: Watch the videotape. As you watch it, think about the types of questions you asked. Look for recurring patterns in your questioning style and the impact it has on the students' responses.
Step Three: Transcribe the lesson. A transcript will make it easier to identify the types of questions in the data and to focus on specific questions and student responses.
Step Four: Analyze the videotape and transcript. Why did you ask each question? What type of question was it—open (e.g., "What points do you think the author was making in the chapter you read yesterday?") or closed (e.g., "Did you like the chapter?")? Was the question effective in terms of your goals for teaching and learning? What effect did your questions have on the students' opportunities to practice the target language? How did the students respond to different types of questions? Were you satisfied with their responses? Which questions elicited the most discussion from the students? Did the students ask any questions? Focusing on actual classroom interaction, teachers can investigate how one aspect of their teaching style affects students' opportunities for speaking the target language. They can then make changes that will allow students more practice with a wider variety of discourse types.
Teachers can also use this process of Record-View-Transcribe-Analyze to study communication patterns in different classroom activities, such as student-to-student interactions during a paired role-play task and during a small-group cooperative learning activity. Communicative activities are expected to promote interaction and to provide opportunities for students to engage in talk. Teachers are likely to discover that students produce different speech patterns in response to different tasks. For example, a map activity is likely to elicit a series of questions and answers among participants, whereas a picture narration task requires a monologue developed around a narrative format. Given that teachers use communicative tasks to evaluate learners' proficiency, a better understanding of the influence of specific activities on learner discourse will likely lead teachers to use a greater variety of tasks in order to gain a more comprehensive picture of students' abilities. By recording, transcribing, and analyzing students' discourse, teachers can gain insight into the effect of specific tasks on students' language production and, over time, on their language development.
A discourse analysis of classroom interactions can also shed light on cross-cultural linguistic patterns that may be leading to communication difficulties. For example, some speakers may engage in overlap, speaking while someone else is taking a turn-at-talk. For some linguistic groups, this discourse behavior can be interpreted as a signal of engagement and involvement; however, other speakers may view it as an interruption and imposition on their speaking rights. Teachers can use the Record-View-Transcribe-Analyze technique to study cross-cultural interactions in their classrooms, helping students identify different communication strategies and their potential for miscommunication.
Although some variables of language learning are beyond the control of second language teachers, discourse analysis can be a useful analytic tool for making informed changes in instructional practices. Mainstream teachers, especially those with second language learners, can also use this technique to study classroom interactions in order to focus on the learning opportunities available to students with limited English proficiency. In fact, discourse analysis can be an integral part of a program of professional development for all teachers that includes classroom-based research, with the overall aim of improving teaching (Johnson, 1995).
Discourse Analysis and Second Language Learning
Language learners face the monumental task of acquiring not only new vocabulary, syntactic patterns, and phonology, but also discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, strategic competence, and interactional competence. They need opportunities to investigate the systematicity of language at all linguistic levels, especially at the highest level (Riggenbach, 1999; Young and He, 1998). Without knowledge of and experience with the discourse and sociocultural patterns of the target language, second language learners are likely to rely on the strategies and expectations acquired as part of their first language development, which may be inappropriate for the second language setting and may lead to communication difficulties and misunderstandings.
One problem for second language learners is limited experience with a variety of interactive practices in the target language. Therefore, one of the goals of second language teaching is to expose learners to different discourse patterns in different texts and interactions. One way that teachers can include the study of discourse in the second language classroom is to allow the students themselves to study language, that is, to make them discourse analysts (see Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000; McCarthy & Carter, 1994; Riggenbach, 1999). By exploring natural language use in authentic environments, learners gain a greater appreciation and understanding of the discourse patterns associated with a given genre or speech event as well as the sociolinguistic factors that contribute to linguistic variation across settings and contexts. For example, students can study speech acts in a service encounter, turn-taking patterns in a conversation between friends, opening and closings of answering machine messages, or other aspects of speech events. Riggenbach (1999) suggests a wide variety of activities that can easily be adapted to suit a range of second language learning contexts.
One discourse feature that is easy to study is listener response behavior, also known as backchannels. Backchannels are the brief verbal responses that a listener uses while another individual is talking, such as mm-hmm, ok, yeah, and oh wow. Listener response can also be non-verbal, for instance head nods. Research has identified variation among languages in the use of backchannels, which makes it an interesting feature to study. Variation has been found not only in the frequency of backchannels, but also in the type of backchannels, their placement in the ongoing talk, and their interpretation by the participants (Clancy, Thompson, Suzuki, & Tao, 1996). Students can participate in the Record-View-Transcribe-Analyze technique to study the linguistic form and function of backchannels in conversation.
Step One: Ask to video- or audiotape a pair of native speakers engaging in conversation, perhaps over coffee or lunch.
Step Two: Play the tape for students. Have them identify patterns in the recorded linguistic behavior. In this case, pay attention to the backchanneling behavior of the participants. Is the same backchannel token used repeatedly, or is there variation?
Step Three: Transcribe the conversation so that students can count the number and types of backchannel tokens and examine their placement within the discourse.
Step 4: Have students analyze specific discourse features individually, in pairs or in small groups. These are some questions to consider: How often do the participants use a backchannel token? How does backchanneling contribute to the participants' understanding of and involvement in the conversation? How can differences in backchannel frequency be explained? How does backchanneling work in the students' native language?
Students can collect and analyze data themselves. Once collected, this set of authentic language data can be repeatedly examined for other conversational features, then later compared to discourse features found in other speech events. This discourse approach to language learning removes language from the confines of textbooks and makes it tangible, so that students can explore language as interaction rather than as grammatical units. Teachers can also use these activities to raise students' awareness of language variation, dialect differences, and cultural diversity.
Conclusion
In sum, teachers can use discourse analysis not only as a research method for investigating their own teaching practices but also as a tool for studying interactions among language learners. Learners can benefit from using discourse analysis to explore what language is and how it is used to achieve communicative goals in different contexts. Thus discourse analysis can help to create a second language learning environment that more accurately reflects how language is used and encourages learners toward their goal of proficiency in another language.
References
Celce-Murcia, M,. & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Clancy, P., Thompson, S., Suzuki, R., & Tao, H. (1996) The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 355-387.
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. (1992). Discourse analysis for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teachers. New York: Longman.
Riggenbach, H. (1999). Discourse analysis in the language classroom: Volume 1. The spoken language. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Young, R., & He, A. (1998). Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This digest was prepared with funding from the U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Library of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0008. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of ED, OERI, or NLE.
CAL Store Press Room Jobs Contact Us Site Map Privacy
Copyright © 2009 CAL
A Critical Analysis of Learning and Teaching Goals in Gardner's Theory of Attitudes and Motivation
Title
A Critical Analysis of Learning and Teaching Goals in Gardner's Theory of Attitudes and Motivation
Authors
M. Samaie, R. Sahragard and R. Parhizkar
Biodata:
Mahmood Samaie is an assistant professor in English Language Teaching. He obtained his PhD degree from Shiraz University in 2006. He is affiliated with Ilam University, Ilam, Iran. His main interests are in the area of Critical and mainstream Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics, and Pragmatics and their interface with the issues in English Language Teaching.
Rahman Sahragard is an assistant professor in Applied Linguistics. He obtained his PhD degree from Leicester University, England in 2001. He is now affiliated with the Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics at Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. He teaches Sociolinguistics, Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics, Research Methods, and Materials Development at postgraduate level. He has two forthcoming books on research methods and language teaching. He has written several articles and presented papers at both national and international conferences.
Reza Parhizgar is an assistant professor in TEFL. He obtained his BA in English Literature from Shiraz University, his MA in TEFL from the American University of Beirut and his PhD in TEFL from Allameh University in Tehran. He has been affiliated with Shiraz University since 1980. His areas of research are in Critical and mainstream Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics and pragmatics. He is also actively involved in translation from English into Persian and vice versa. He has published more than a dozen articles, three of which have appeared in the Asian EFL Journal.
Abstract
This is a report of a critical analysis of one aspect of Gardner's theory of attitudes and motivation. The analysis examines a few pieces of discourse produced by Gardner and his associates on the topic of learning and teaching goals in that theory. Looked at from the perspective of critical discourse analysis, the theory is found to be problematic at least as far as the discourses on its learning and teaching goals are concerned. More specifically, the discourses on the topic assume a great deal of ideological slanting in the sense that they typically involve the superiority of the second language community and the things associated with it but the inferiority of the first language community and the things associated with it. This ideology, whose main axis is the second or foreign language group's values, culture, etc., is termed here as 'xenocentrism'.
1. Introduction
A central concern of scholars interested in second/foreign language acquisition (S/FLA) has always been the factors most significantly contributing to success in S/FLA. Scholars in various camps of the discipline have laid emphasis on different situational or individual characteristics as the most important factor contributing to the process. One group of researchers led by R. C. Gardner, a Canadian psychologist, has chosen to underscore the role played by attitudes and motivation. Their speculations and studies for about the past half century on the issue, however, have received a number of criticisms as well as some support. Their evidence has not remained secure against counterevidence, nor their arguments against counterarguments. The present study will look at the products of this line of research from a new angle that differs from those of other studies which have so far reviewed the theory. More specifically, inspired by the views in critical discourse analysis (CDA) this study recognises a major source of controversies not in the manner in which facts speak but rather in the way in which we choose to speak on the part of facts that is the way in which facts are represented through our discursive practices.
Literature Review
A Critical Analysis of Learning and Teaching Goals in Gardner's Theory of Attitudes and Motivation
Authors
M. Samaie, R. Sahragard and R. Parhizkar
Biodata:
Mahmood Samaie is an assistant professor in English Language Teaching. He obtained his PhD degree from Shiraz University in 2006. He is affiliated with Ilam University, Ilam, Iran. His main interests are in the area of Critical and mainstream Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics, and Pragmatics and their interface with the issues in English Language Teaching.
Rahman Sahragard is an assistant professor in Applied Linguistics. He obtained his PhD degree from Leicester University, England in 2001. He is now affiliated with the Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics at Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. He teaches Sociolinguistics, Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics, Research Methods, and Materials Development at postgraduate level. He has two forthcoming books on research methods and language teaching. He has written several articles and presented papers at both national and international conferences.
Reza Parhizgar is an assistant professor in TEFL. He obtained his BA in English Literature from Shiraz University, his MA in TEFL from the American University of Beirut and his PhD in TEFL from Allameh University in Tehran. He has been affiliated with Shiraz University since 1980. His areas of research are in Critical and mainstream Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics and pragmatics. He is also actively involved in translation from English into Persian and vice versa. He has published more than a dozen articles, three of which have appeared in the Asian EFL Journal.
Abstract
This is a report of a critical analysis of one aspect of Gardner's theory of attitudes and motivation. The analysis examines a few pieces of discourse produced by Gardner and his associates on the topic of learning and teaching goals in that theory. Looked at from the perspective of critical discourse analysis, the theory is found to be problematic at least as far as the discourses on its learning and teaching goals are concerned. More specifically, the discourses on the topic assume a great deal of ideological slanting in the sense that they typically involve the superiority of the second language community and the things associated with it but the inferiority of the first language community and the things associated with it. This ideology, whose main axis is the second or foreign language group's values, culture, etc., is termed here as 'xenocentrism'.
1. Introduction
A central concern of scholars interested in second/foreign language acquisition (S/FLA) has always been the factors most significantly contributing to success in S/FLA. Scholars in various camps of the discipline have laid emphasis on different situational or individual characteristics as the most important factor contributing to the process. One group of researchers led by R. C. Gardner, a Canadian psychologist, has chosen to underscore the role played by attitudes and motivation. Their speculations and studies for about the past half century on the issue, however, have received a number of criticisms as well as some support. Their evidence has not remained secure against counterevidence, nor their arguments against counterarguments. The present study will look at the products of this line of research from a new angle that differs from those of other studies which have so far reviewed the theory. More specifically, inspired by the views in critical discourse analysis (CDA) this study recognises a major source of controversies not in the manner in which facts speak but rather in the way in which we choose to speak on the part of facts that is the way in which facts are represented through our discursive practices.
Literature Review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)