What Teachers Say When they Write or Talk about Discourse Analysis
WHAT TEACHERS SAY WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Given the 1ack of revealing findings obtained through the collection and treatment of data described in “Preliminary conclusions”, a decision was made to collect a different corpus and to adopt different analytical procedures in the treatment of the corpus data. Thus, in the second stage of the research, spoken data was collected, obtained from two focus groups. The choice of data and method of data collection is justified on two grounds.
First, it was hoped that, in peer-mediated discussion groups, research participants would be more forthcoming in terms of what they perceive as the impact of the DA modules on their classrooms, since “focus groups are ideal for exploring people’s experiences, opinions, wishes and concerns” (Barbour & Kitzinger, 2001: 5). A second consideration refers to genre expectations: the essay-like format of the written text, handed in to one of the course tutors, may have constrained what could be said. It was thus decided to use a method of data collection which would ensure texts resulting from reaction, or spontaneous response.
Another very important decision was made, at this point, regarding the analytical focus of the research. As the exclusive concern with the language of Attitude, in the first stage of the research, yielded limited results, it was felt that a broader focus would ensure more enlightening findings. It was thus decided to widen the scope of the research to include the study of the respondents’ representations of discourse, of discourse analysis (as a discipline), and of what it takes to use discourse analysis in the classroom.
The methodological decision meant going beyond analysis of how respondents verbalize their perceptions of eventual changes in their classrooms, and tackling the issue of what is verbalized in their speech. This required a theoretical framework for the study of social representations and a methodological framework for content analysis, both found in the work of social psychologist Mary Jane Spink.
Social representations, to Spink (1994:118), are a form of practical knowledge through which we make sense of the world, and on the basis of which we interact with others. It is through analysis of individuals’ concrete social and discursive practices that we have access to these representations, or practical knowledge.
Thus, in the second stage of the research, we set out to probe into FL teachers’ practical knowledge, or representations of discourse and discourse analysis. It was believed that analysis of these representations would throw light on the factors involved in the perceived changes in their classrooms (if any), among other relevant issues.
