Research methods in education (hand book)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

2 3 1 -

Figure 6. Representation of teacher's gaze towards female and male

students (Swann and Graddol, 1989/1994, pp. 157-9).

Note

The full transcript from which Figure 6 is extracted shows that the teacher's gaze is more

frequently directed towards the boys at critical points in the interaction, such as when a question is to be

answered.

REPRESENTING DIFFERENT LANGUAGE VARIETIES

The transcripts of classroom talk I have illustrated so far come from contexts in which English is

being used as a medium of instruction. In many contexts, however, even where English is used as a

classroom language, teachers and students may also use another language, such as the students' first or

main language, for certain purposes. In this case, it may be interesting to see when a teacher or student

uses each language.

There are many different ways of representing the alternation between different language

varieties. Figures 7 and 8 below show how researchers have represented languages in their original form

whilst also offering an English translation. Figure 7, from research carried out by Antoinette Camilleri in

bilingual classrooms in Malta, shows a teacher alternating between English and Maltese, where Maltese is

used to amplify or explain (rather than simply translate) an English sentence read from a textbook. In this

case, an English translation of the Maltese utterances is given in a separate column. Figure 8, from

research carried out by G. D. Jayalakshmi in Bihar, in northern India, shows how a teacher uses Sanskrit

partly to demonstrate his knowledge and also 'because he believes that his function is to instruct students

not only in language but also, more generally, in life' (Jayalakshmi, 1996, p. 145). In this case, an English

translation is given in brackets beneath the Sanskrit.

2 3 2 -

Figure 7. Transcript illustrating alternation between English and

Maltese (Camilleri, 1994; cited in Mercer, 1996, p. 134).

Figure 8. Transcript illustrating alternation between Sanskrit and

English (Jayalakshmi, 1996, p. 145).

Note

In this case there is an error in Dr Keval's Sanskrit. Jayalakshmi comments that he may have

learnt quotations such as this by rote.

In Figure 8, Jayalakshmi represents Sanskrit in Devanagari script. It would also have been

possible to represent it in transliteration, in Roman script. It is, however, more difficult to decide how to

represent language varieties closely related to English, or different varieties of English, that do not have a

conventional orthography. Figure 4 above represented non-standard grammar ('it were great') but did not

attempt to represent the girls' accent. Some transcribers resort to 'eye dialect' (as in we wuz jus' goin'

'ome) to give an indication of pronunciation, but there is a danger here of representing certain speakers

(working-class speakers, children, non-native speakers) as somehow deviant or incompetent.

Mark Sebba used a mixed system in his transcription of the speech of young Black speakers in

London, who alternate between Creole (derived from Jamaican Creole) and London English. Creole

utterances were underlined, London English utterances were not. Underlined utterances were, then, to be

2 3 3 -

'pronounced as if Creole' (1993, p. 163). Sebba also used some 'eye dialect' features to indicate the

pronunciation of specific words or sounds; and certain 'one-off conventions, such as the use of '%' to

represent a glottal stop (the sound used as a variant of /t/ in certain linguistic contexts, and in certain

varieties of English - sometimes represented as an apostrophe as in bu'eriox butter). Figure 9 illustrates

this. One point of interest is that the glottal stop, a feature of London English but not (usually) of

Jamaican Creole, is here used within a Creole utterance (_invi%e, line 4).

Figure 9. Transcription of a conversation using Creole and London

English (Sebba, 1993, pp. 19-20).

Sets of symbols such as the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) are used by phoneticians to

give a systematic representation of the sounds of English and other languages. Such alphabets are hard for

the non-expert to read and are not usually suitable for transcribing long conversational sequences.

However if you are interested in learners' pronunciations of English, and you are familiar with the IPA or

a similar alphabet, you could use phonetic symbols selectively for certain words, or to represent certain

sounds.

Figure 10 illustrates the use of phonetic symbols to represent a young Russian student's

pronunciation of the word bushy (this is taken from the same lesson as that transcribed in Figure 1).

Figure 10. Representation of pronunciation using phonetic symbols.

2.6. TOWARDS AN ANALYSIS: QUANTITATIVE AND

QUALITATIVE APPROACHES

Discussions of research methodology often make a distinction between quantitative and

qualitative approaches to research. Broadly, quantitative approaches allow you to identify and count the

distribution of certain linguistic features, or certain types of utterance. You can then draw a numerical

comparison between, for instance, the types of talk produced in different contexts or by different students,

or groups of students. Some forms of quantification can be carried out 'on the spot'. For instance, while

observing a lesson you could count the number of times each student responded to a teacher's question.

More complex patterns can be identified from scrutiny of audio or video recordings, or from a transcript.

G. D. Jayalakshmi, for instance, whose research in Indian classrooms I referred to above, noticed that

students participated less in 'traditional' teacher-directed lessons (drawing on textbooks) than in lessons

2 3 4 -

based on videos which she had introduced. To check her impressions, she analysed recordings of a

random sample of lessons, counting up the number of times a student initiated talk; and what types of talk

this involved (whether the student was seeking clarification, asking about the meaning of a word, making

a single word contribution, or making a longer contribution to discussion). She displayed her results in a

table (cited as Table 1 below). Table 1 shows that, in the contexts analysed, students initiated more talk in

video than traditional lessons, and they also made a large number of longer contributions.

Table 1. Number and type of student-initiated moves in two types of

lesson.

Type of class

Number of

student-initiated

moves

Clarification

seeking

Meaning of

words

Single word

contributions

Longer

contributions

Traditional

Video Led

(Source: Jayalakshmi, 1993, p. 287)

By contrast, a qualitative approach tends to be used if the questions that are asked of a piece of

data are more open-ended: if you wanted to know, for instance, what happened during a meeting; how

students worked together in certain learning situations; how relationships were established and

maintained; or how students achieved an understanding of certain concepts.

Within educational research there have been several debates about the relative merits of

quantitative and qualitative approaches. The box below summarizes features of each as applied to the

analysis of spoken language and some advantages and disadvantages that have traditionally been

associated with them.

Quantitative and qualitative approaches to the analysis of spoken

language

A quantitative approach allows you to represent your data in terms of numbers. You can make a

numerical comparison between talk produced by different people or during different events.

When representing data that has been analysed using quantitative methods it is usual to display this in a

table. Alternative forms of representation such as histograms or bar charts may be used to point up

comparisons between people or events.

Data may be analysed using prespecified categories of talk. Alternatively, as in Jayalakshmi's research,

categories may emerge from close scrutiny of data: e.g. from playing and replaying an audio or video-

recording, or working slowly through a transcript. Such categories are not 'naturally' present in the data,

but will depend upon your own research interests.

Representing talk in terms of numbers has the disadvantage that it is necessarily a reductive exercise:

talk is reduced to a set of categories: it is abstracted from its original context; it is unambiguously pigeon-

holed, masking the rather fluid, uncertain and negotiated meanings that are evident when talk is

examined in context.

Talk may be recorded and analysed in a more open-ended way. Researchers adopting a qualitative

approach to recording can note down and explore any interesting aspects of their data. What count as

interesting aspects will depend upon the questions the researcher is concerned to investigate, but

sometimes points emerge that are quite unexpected.

Aspects of the data may only begin to make sense when mulled over and compared with other

information, or perhaps discussed with speakers. Sometimes interpretations may change, or you may

want to allow for a number of different interpretations.

When presenting and discussing data that has been recorded and analysed using a qualitative

approach, researchers frequently quote selectively from field-notes or transcripts to support points they

wish to make. Transcripts may be supported by a detailed commentary.

Such ways of analysing and presenting data allow the researcher to preserve important contextual

information that affects the meanings of utterances, and also to preserve the ambiguity and fluidity of

2 3 5 -

these meanings. The approach is selective in that two researchers may (legitimately) notice different

things about a stretch of talk or provide different interpretations of utterances. There is also a danger of

unintended bias, in that researchers may notice features of talk that support a point they wish to make

and ignore counter-evidence.

While some researchers argue for an integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches, it has

also been suggested that they embody fundamentally different views of the meaning of spoken language

(coding language into discrete categories, for instance, suggests that meanings are relatively fixed and

unambiguous, whereas qualitative approaches often emphasize ambiguity in language and argue that

utterances need to be interpreted in context). For an overview of this debate see, for instance, Edwards

and Westgate (1994).

Wegerif and Mercer (1997) suggest that it is possible to progress beyond this apparent divide by

drawing on corpus, or computer-based forms of analysis. Corpus-based analyses allow researchers to

process huge amounts of spoken or written language and establish quantitative patterns of language use.

They have frequently been used to identify meanings of words and phrases and to aid the compilation of

dictionary entries. They may also be used to identify stylistic differences between different (literary)

authors or different types of text. Wegerif and Mercer illustrate how corpus-based methods may be used

with smaller amounts of data, and in combination with a qualitative exploration of language.

Wegerif and Mercer drew on this combination of methods as part of an ongoing study of

exploratory talk in the classroom. They found that primary school children performed better on a

standardized test of reasoning after they had been 'coached' in the use of exploratory talk. They also

looked at transcript evidence of the quality of children's talk during problem solving activities carried out

before and after the coaching intervention. Extracts from transcripts are used to show that, after the

intervention, children spent more time discussing problems, considered alternative solutions, and

eventually reached agreement on the correct answer. Wegerif and Mercer point out, however, that such

evidence may not be seen as convincing because it consists only of one or two brief extracts from

transcripts.

As a way of complementing their initial qualitative approach, Wegerif and Mercer used a

computerized concordancing program. This identifies all instances of a word or expression used in a

particular set of data, and displays these in their immediate linguistic context. In Figure 11 below, for

instance, the words 'cos and because are displayed in each speaking turn in which they occurred in one

group's interaction before and after the intervention. Wegerif and Mercer suggest that 'cos and because are

used differently in the pre- and post-intervention interaction: in the post-intervention interactions they are

more frequently used to link reasons to claims. They carried out similar analyses of other terms that might

be seen as indicative of reasoning (e.g. г/and so used to link a reason to an assertion).

Focal Group 1 pre-intervention task use of "cos' or 'because'

Elaine: It isn't 'cos look that's a square

Graham: No 'cos look -watch there all down there and they are all at the side and they are all up

there

Elaine: Wait wait wait its that one 'cos look it's them two and them two ( ) and them two

John: 'Cos look that goes out like that —

Elaine: 'Cos look that goes in

John: 'Cos look that goes too far out

Graham: Look 'cos that's got 4

Elaine: No … not that one not that one because it's got a little bit like that it's that one look — it

goes in and then it goes out

John: No it's isn't because it's there

Elaine: No because it will come along like that

Elaine: Could be that one because look stops at the bottom and look

Elaine: It isn't it isn't because look

(12)

Focal Group 1 post-intervention task use of "cos' or 'because'

2 3 6 -

Graham: Number 6 'cos 6 stops in there 'cos look if you

Elaine: It can't be there 'cos look if you done that

Elaine: It is look if that goes like that and then it has another one 'cos those two make О

Elaine: He doesn't say what they are 'cos he might be wrong

Graham: Yeh 'cos look

Elaine: 'Cos it would go round

John: It is 'cos it goes away 'cos look that one goes like that

Elaine: No it can't be 'cos look … with the square with the triangle you take away the triangle

so you're left with the square so if you do just this and then again take that away it's going to end up, like

that isn't it?

Graham: Actually 'cos that's got a square and a circle round it

John: Yeh 'cos it goes like that and then it takes that one away and does that

Elaine: No 'cos look

Elaine: Probably one in the circle 'cos there are only two circles

Graham: 'Cos if they are lines and then they are going like that it is because they are wonky isn't

Graham: No actually it ain't 'cos then

Elaine: Yeh it's number 8 because those ones — those two came that those two make that

John: No because 1,2,3 1, 2, 3

John: No because that goes that way and that goes that way

Graham: No because it's that one

(21)

Figure 11. Incidence of 'cos and because in primary school children's

talk.

This form of analysis provides quantifiable data (i.e. it is possible to calculate the frequency with

which 'cos and because are used in different contexts). It is also possible to see each instance of 'cos and

because in a limited linguistic context, which provides further information about their use in each case (as

in Figure 11 above). And it is possible, for any one instance, to display further linguistic context (any

number of preceding and following speaking turns) to allow a qualitative exploration of the data.

If this form of analysis interests you, it is possible to purchase concordancing software (or, in

some cases, to download software from the internet). You will need, however, to be prepared to spend

time exploring the software to see how it can be made to work most effectively for your own purposes.

For further discussion and examples of corpus-based analysis see, for instance, Stubbs (1996).

2.7. CONCLUSION

In this section I have discussed various techniques you can use to record and transcribe spoken

language. There is no 'ideal' way to do this, and I have tried to indicate the strengths and weaknesses of

different approaches so that you can select the most appropriate method, or combination of methods, for

your own purposes. It is beyond the scope of this section to consider, at any level of detail, ways of

analysing spoken language, though I have suggested some initial considerations to bear in mind.

REFERENCES

BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR APPLIED LINGUISTICS (BAAL) (1994) Recommendations on

Good Practice in Applied Linguistics, BAAL.

CAMERON, D., FRASER, E., HARVEY, P., RAMPTON, M.B.H. and RICHARDSON, K.

(1992) Researching Language: Issues of Power and Method, London, Routledge.

CAMILLERI, A. (1994) ‘Talking bilingually, writing monolingually’, paper presented at the

Socioloinguistcs Symposium, University of Lancaster, March.

COATES, J. (1996) Women Talk, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.

DAM, L. and LENTZ, J. (1998) It’s up to Yourself if You Want to Learn: autonomous language

learning at intermediate level, Copenhagen, DLH (video and print).

2 3 7 -

DAVIES, J.A. (2000) Expressions of Gender an enquiry into the way gender impacts on the

discourse styles of pupils involved in small group talk during GCSE English lesson, with particular

reference to the under-achievement of boys, Sheffield, University of Sheffield, unpublished PhD Thesis.

EDWARDS, A.D. and WESTGATE, D.P.G. (1994) Investigating Classroom Talk, London,

Falmer Press (second edition).

JAYALAKSHMI, G.D. (1993) ‘Video in the English curriculum of an Indian secondary school’,

Milton Keynes, The Open University, unpublished PhD thesis.

JAYALAKSHMI, G.D. (1996) ‘One cup of newspaper and one cup of tea’ in Mercer, N.M. and

Swann, J. (eds) Learning English: development and diversity, London, Routledge/The Open University.

LABOV, W. (1970) ‘The study of language in its social context’ in W. LABOV (1972)

Sociolinguistic Patterns, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

MERCER, N.M. (with contributions from Douglas Barnes) (1996) ‘English as a classroom

language’ in Mercer, N.M. and Swann, J. (eds) Learning English: development and diversity, London,

Routledge/The Open University.

OCHS, E. (1979) ‘Transcription as theory’ in Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B.B. (eds) Developmental

Pragmatics, London, Academic Press.

SACKS, H., SCHEGLOFF, E. and JEFFERSON, G. (1974) A simplest systematics for the

organization of turn-taking for conversation, Language, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 696-735.

SEBBA, M. (1993) London Jamaican: language systems in interaction, London, Longman.

STUBBS, M. (1996) Text and Corpus Analysis-, computer-assisted studies of language and

culture, Oxford, Blackwell.

SWANN, J. and GRADDOL, D. (1994) ‘Gender inequalities in classroom talk’ in Graddol D.,

Maybin, J. and Stierer, B. (eds) Researching Language and Literacy in Social Context, Clevedon,

Multilingual Matters/The Open University.

WEGERIF, R. and MERCER, N.M. (1997) ‘Using computer-based text analysis to integrate

qualitative and quantitative methods in research on collaborative learning’, Language and Education, vol.

11, no. 4, pp. 271-86.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

AUTHORS’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PART 2

We are grateful to:

Hilary Claire, from The Open University, for her help in identifying checklists for resources.

Carola Zeegen, for allowing us to draw on her work on bilingual books.

Donald Mackinnon, from The Open University, for much helpful discussion about the examples

drawn on in the book.

Will Swann, from The Open University, for allowing us to quote extracts from his field-notes.

Janet Maybin, from The Open University, for allowing us to quote extracts from her field-notes.

Glen McDougall, head teacher of Edward Wilson Primary School, City of Westminster, for

allowing us to reprint her observation schedule.

Rosemary Deem, Sue Hemmings and Kevin Brehony for allowing us to quote from field-notes

from their ESRC-funded project, 'Reform of school governing bodies: a sociological investigation'.

The E242 Learning for All course team for allowing us access to material collected for an audio-

cassette.

2 3 8 -

Andrew Faulkner, from University College, London, for his help and advice on drafts of Sections

1 and 5.

Martyn Hammersley, from The Open University, for much helpful discussion about the content of

Section 5.

Barbara Kinsella, from The Open University, for her help with the electronic production of this

text and some of the illustrations.

PART 3

I am grateful to Rupert Wegerif for suggestions on computer-based methods of analysing spoken

language discussed in Section 2.

REPRODUCTION OF OTHERS’ MATERIAL

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following for permission to reproduce material in this

Handbook.

PART 1

Ball, S. J. (1981) Beachside Comprehensive: a case study of secondary schooling, Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press, pp. xv and 29-34 and Tables 3, 4, 5 and 7; French, J. and French, P. (1984)

‘Gender imbalances in the primary classroom: an interactional account’, Educational Research, 26(2), pp.

Gannaway, H. (1976) ‘Making sense out of school’ in Stubbs, M. and Delamont, S. (eds) Explorations in

Classroom Observation, Chichester, John Wiley.

PART 2

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, A. (1981) The Action Research Planner, Deakin University Press;

Figure 1: Hopkins, D. (1985) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research, Open University Press;

Examples 2.3, 2.4 and 5.6: Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence Number

C01W000065 with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland;

Example 2.6: Tyndall, С (1988) ‘No comfort here’, Issues in Race and Education, no. 55; Example 2.7:

Teacher-Child Conference, reproduced by permission from Kingsmead Primary School, London;

Example 3.7: Bird, M. and Varlaam, A. (1985) Equal Opportunities in the Curriculum in Single Sex

Schools, London Metropolitan Archives; Example 3.8: Hilary Street, London Borough of Wandsworth;

Example 3.9: Bird, M. and Norton, N. (1988) The Hackney Literacy Study, London Metropolitan

Archives; Example 3.10: Bird, M. and Varlaam, A. (1985) Induction Scheme: five years on, London

Metropolitan Archives; Example 4.8: Browne, N. and France, P. (1986) Untying the Apron Strings: anti-

sexist provision for the under-fives, Open University Press; Example 4.11: The Primary Language

Record: a handbook for teachers (1988), London Metropolitan Archives. Example 4.11: reproduced by

permission of the Bay Area Writing Project, School of Education, University of California.

PART 3

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for permission to reproduce material

in this book:

Table 1: Swann, J. (2001) ‘Recording and transcribing talk in educational settings’ in English

Language Teaching in its Social Context: a Reader, Candlin, С .N. and Mercer, N. (eds), Routledge in

association with Macquarie University and the Open University; Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and

11: Swann, J. (2001) ‘Recording and transcribing talk in educational settings’ in English language

Teaching in its Social Context: a Reader, Candlin, С N. and Mercer, N. (eds), Routledge in association

with Macquarie University and the Open University.

This compilation of materials is a valuable

resource for postgraduate students involved

in educational research, either from a

professional or an academic standpoint. It is

designed to supplement the materials from

individual modules in the Open University's

Postgraduate Programme in Education. The

three parts of the Handbook address the

history of educational research, policy

making and practice, guidance for doing a

small scale research project and an analysis

of talk in educational settings.

The Masters degree in Education is

designed particularly for those with

experience of teaching, the advisory

service, educational administration, or an

allied field.

A Masters degree in Education comprises

three 60-point modules selected from a

range of modules covering:

• psychology/child development

• applied linguistics

• lifelong learning

• management

• inclusive education/special needs

• curriculum and primary education

Students who complete one 60-point

module are entitled to claim a Postgraduate

Certificate. Those who complete 120 points

within the Masters Programme can claim a

Postgraduate Diploma. On completion of

180 modular points, students may apply

either for the designation Master of Arts in

Education (MA in Education) or Master of

Education (MEd).

http://www.open.ac.uk/education-and-

languages/masters

ISBN 0 7492 3638 8