Using Discourse Analysis to Challenge and Subvert Classroom Language Ideologies

• In Event: Analyzing Language, Examining Power: Discourse Analysis as a Pedagogical Tool

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the language ideological shifts of teachers who use discourse analysis (DA) as a tool for self-reflection and action research. Forms of DA have been used by teachers to develop deeper understandings of student identity (Author, 2016), instructional practices and interventions (Martín-del-Campo et al., 2009), critical literacy (Rogers & Mosley Wetzel, 2014), and student collaboration (Pappas & Zecker, 2001); however, deeper analysis of the language ideological level may yield a broader understanding of DA in teacher development. Often, language ideologies (LI), or the common sense beliefs about language (Siegel, 2006), are taken for granted and become part of the practical way people live rather than explicitly articulated as statement of fact (Author, 2012; Godley et al., 2007; Gutiérrez & Larson, 1994). For example, a general initiate, respond, evaluate (IRE) structure in classrooms (Cazden, 1988) may be based on underlying assumptions of how language works. Without critical analysis, IRE may be overextended and taken as the way teaching and learning should be. Likewise, Standard LIs are often used to justify corrective repair (Razfar, 2005) or otherwise marginalize languages and varieties (Author, 2016; Martinez, 2017). LI approaches can shed further light on how teachers develop in practice and their understanding of practice.
This case study (Yin, 2009) comes from a 10-year professional development program including more than 100 teachers pursuing a master’s degree. Teachers engaged in a year-long action research project in which DA methods (Author 2014, Gee, 2014, Razfar, 2012) were used to analyze classroom interactions and plan for instruction. Lee, a first grade teacher, created three instructional units during which she collected classroom videos, student work, and fieldnotes. She coded the videos for language structures analyzed critical episodes through transcripts. The researcher recorded meetings with Lee and her colleagues and collected summaries of their analyses. This study uses methods described in Author (2016) to analyze how Lee developed in her ideological stances toward language. Particularly, her shifts in instructional practices, positioning of self and students, and explicit rationalizations of language structures will be used as evidence of shifting ideological stances.

The findings indicate that, when un-analyzed, interaction seems to follow the status-quo. Lee organizes instruction in line with particular LIs (structuralism, referentialism, language-as-knowledge dissemination, etc.) which are manifested with students seated on a carpet facing Lee while she authorizes talk through a strict IRE structure with closed questions. As Lee analyzes classroom interaction, she intentionally takes stances against these practices and underlying LIs by reorganizing discourse through dynamic seating, questioning and collaboration, and allowing students to pursue new, unauthorized topics of discussion. The general process is traced in Figure 1.

This presentation will trace Lee’s development as DA is used to analyze and subvert language practices and underlying LIs. DA requires the analyst to think differently about language than in everyday use, and, therefore, may also be used to develop more sensitive and strategic approaches to classroom instruction and interaction. The audience will be encouraged to critically analyze transcripts for language ideological stances.

Authors

• Joseph C. Rumenapp, Judson University

• Angela Fortune, The University of Illinois at Chicago