NOTE: assignments are now significantly different from what is listed on the calendar. DO NOT use the calendar as a reference for what to do next class. Use the Read/Blog assignments listed at the end of Blog posts as directions for how to prepare for class.
During the first part of class you used the set of questions on the worksheet for workshopping the short analysis project (posted to the right) to make sure you had a strong question, appropriate codes and categories, and a good strategy for using your codes & categories to answer your question through analyzing your data. I checked in with each of you and it looks like you are all on the right track.
Using Gee's language in our own example. During the second half of class, we started an analysis of a community of practice (school classroom participants in general and our research methods class in particular ) in terms of the kinds of saying, doing, and being that takes place within that community. This was an effort to "play the game" (as in the Yu Gi Oh example) as a way to get a more clear understanding of the terms Gee has introduced. We made a list on the board of the kinds of things we do in the classroom, the kinds of communications we engage in, and the ways we are => in terms of being students and a teacher. We included information about what we all knew was expected of us in order to be accepted in the classroom (eg the teacher stands at the front of the class and can move about, students will not circulate around the class, in class discussioins they address their comments to the teacher, the said, how we interacted, etc). Within this example, this list of what it is OK to say/do/be is the set of practices defined by (or expected) in our classroom (a community of practice). These ways of saying, doing and being are also important features of the Discourses associated with this community of practice = Discourses for being a student, and Discourse for being a teacher.
As we noted the ways of saying, doing, and being associated with our community of practice, we raised questions about:
1. what kinds of meanings (significance) were created through what particular kinds of activities & language;
2 what kinds of practices were both created through our talk = and assumed as normal or important to the functioning of our classroom;
3. how our physical location in the room, and how the kinds of things we said and didn't say created particular identities (eg. teacher, student)
4. how our use of language, the physical structure of the room, and our agreed upon practices created certain kinds of relationships (where the teacher "gives" up some power in group work - but continues "surveillance" by circulating through the groups)
5. the relationships from 4 often are related to the distribution of power or control over social goods (grades, the right to speak, prestige), and we looked at how the "social goods" created through teacher/student interactions influenced what we would and would not say => as when you observed that students often do not ask about material they don't understand because the social goods of "respect" and "being thought of as a good student=> able to understand the material on your own, may feel more immediately valuable that what might be gained through asking a "stupid" question.
6. We also looked at how the (often unconscioulsy) agreed upon practices within our classroom created certain kinds of connections between identities (being a good student) and practices (coming to class prepared, answering the teacher's questions, staying on topic, demonstrating knowledge of the teacher's preferred topic) and that sometimes "being a good student" could be an obstacle to student's learning needs (asking questions, going back over material from a previous lesson, going off topic to connect to something the student can use to understand the material on the teacher's agenda).
7. Finally, we looked at the different systems for communicating (the blog, emails, teacher comments, spoken communications) favored students or the teacher. We might also have considered how the different modes of communication favored different assumptions, values and beliefs about what needed to be communicated regarding our class activities - and how it needed to be communicated.
The purpose of this exercise was to use Gee's language in terms of an experience you are part of. The reason for identifying & practicing the use of his terms for the "building tasks" is because you can used an examination of what is created in your data (both for your short analysis, and the research project)= as a way to explore what is happening. Asking about which building tasks are most important, what they are doing, and how they work in your data can help you identify codes and categories for what your subjects are "saying, doing and being" = and you can use those codes and categories to build your theory.
For next class:
Review Gee 1-4. Go through the examples. Practice using the language. Pay particular attention to the terms Discourse, Social language, Conversation, and Intertextuality.
Read: Gee Chapter 5
Blog 14: Draft short analysis project. This post should be an ESSAY. Present your question, codes/categories, patterns, hypotheses and theories in a story form similar to the forms used in the sample research essays we read on commenting and WAW courses. You may want to use tables or charts to present how your data fits into categories, and you may want to use headings to break your essay into sections. Good luck!
No comments:
Post a Comment