No Triangulation

Posted on 16 May, 2011 by a8901720

Its been a long while since my blog entry but the delay has been significant, particularly in terms of my methodology. As previous entries will testify, I was very much inclined to use Conversation Analysis techniques as a means of characterising interaction between children within the SOLE. The degree of detail associated with this approach however was a consistent source of concern to me and at no point was I totally committed to CA as a research method. In fact, the singular reason I stuck to CA for such a protracted period of time was because of its notional links with learning and in particular, Second Language Acquisition (SLA). However in view of the micro-levels of detail required and the apparent distance from content and context, I didnt see how I could link CA with personal notions of change/progress in the realm of International Development, after that is what I do. Secondly, the children in Ghana will mostly be interacting in Fante, a language (and associated culture) that I dont understand. Hence valid interpretation of interaction would be very difficult to establish or sustain without ongoing support from a training interpreter. So I have decided to drop CA and have taken a more general approach to research, namely grounded theory and thematic analysis; remaining consistent with my post-structuralist stance.

The question however remains the same; how do children organise their learning in the absence of a teacher. Clearly, reading (as the principal English Acquisition skill) will play a significant part in this process (as learning is computer mediated). It is important to note however, that at this point I dont think it will be possible to test reading improvement. This is because nothing is known about student aims and the learning process itself (self-organised). Whilst it is strongly presumed that socio-cultural means will be adopted by the students to establish learning aims and strategies, one can only define related test objectives once the reading process is characterised. I currently believe that this is a post-doctoral activity and that SOLE exploration will not require any form of triangulation associated with positivist style testing.

Meanwhile, I think it is vital (in self organising terms) not to impose any form of agenda on the young participants i.e. I want to avoid prescribed learning in relation to the Ghanaian curriculum. Though curcumventing any contradiction with the principal research aims, it does creates potential practical issues in relation to access (to marginalised children). It my intention therefore to go to Ghana during the school term and set up a pitch in the street for local hawkers and street children only (other childern being in school). The computers will be accessible all day but only eight children will have access to two computers at any one time. How the children organise themselves (who turns up and when, who works with who etc) over this period of time will be an central theme of the anaylsis. The essential problem will be identifying which specific periods of data to analyse in detail. Some sort of selection criteria will be required. I will also need to put my plan to supervisors, the panel and Ken to see if it is feasible.

CA taster

Posted on 2 February, 2011 by a8901720

I’ve started the courses associated with Discourse Analysis (DA) both of which appear to be related to the SLA classroom with the Seedhouse lesson providing what appears to be a detailed examination of Conversation Analysis (CA). What is interesting from the additional readings (Doelher)is the clear distinction between classic CA (learning) and the Language Development CA (acquisition of a second language). Whilst CA is understood as a continually unfolding development of context, language development is conceptualised as progress made over the long term (a longitudinal study). Alternatively, classic CA is a means of characterising the process of learning in the short term through modes of participation and the associated rules of interaction.

Furthermore, SLA has been conceptualised in 2 forms. The first follows the linguistic/cognitive/psychological paradigm (SLA is achieved through a collection of integrated mental processes) while the alternative is an interactional/social paradigm. CA clearly sits in the interactional paradigm though according to Myles (2010) their is room for a combination of the 2 approaches. Not sure how possible this is as they appear to be along diametrically-opposed research paradigms.

According to Psathas, Conversation analysis contrasts with the linguistic approach in that it is an unmotivated examination of interaction. Whilst CA necessitates a framework of analysis, it doesnt apriori define modes of interaction. The following guidelines (as opposed to rules) for analysis have been proposed by Ten Have (1999):

1. Development an empirical account of interaction
a. actions accomplished (what was achieved)
b. a grounding of the account in the reality of the participants (what was said)
c. an explanation of how an utterance led to social action (the link between a and b)

2. Preparatory Routine (Schegloff)
a.Identify patterns of turn-taking within the spoken episode (interaction). Take particular note of disturbances in fluent operation (deviance)
b. Look for sequences, particularly adjacent pairs
c. Look for repair

3. Analysis
a. Select a sequence where interaction sequence is opened and subsequently closed.
b. Characterise actions in the sequence. Describe actions on a turn-by-turn basis (pairs, repair)
c. Note the packaging of actions in terms of reference and content (form and delivery of action and preferences)
d. Interpret actions in terms of turn-taking and timing
e. Actions implicate identity and roles. Whilst the CA paradigm implies that reality is under continual negotiation and construction (in the moment), interaction can nonetheless be related to the rights, obligations and expectations of the participants within a framework of relatively fixed social notions of identity and role. Examples include institutional relations such as teacher/pupil, employer/employee even parent/child.

According to Ten Have there are 4 types of interactional organisation.
1. Turn Taking Organisation. According to Sacks, Turn-Taking is locally managed (turn by turn), party administered (by the participants themselves) and interactionally managed (subject to recipient design, talk is constructed in ways that are sensitive to the receivers). Turn-Taking itself is orientated around TCU (Turn Construction Unit) and the points at which transition of speakership occurs (or is possible). The principle focus of analysis associated with each TCU is; why that and why now.
2. Sequence Organisation
3. Repair Organisation
4. Organisation of Turn-construction design

CA or not CA. This is the Question

Posted on 20 January, 2011 by a8901720

This has been my first full day in operating in the paradiagm of conversation analysis. Having read a number of articles and the Seedhouse book, I have a general idea of the purpose of CA, however I’m remain unsure about its applicability to my research. The first issue is related to context.
Whilst CA is explicitly free from context (unless expressed within the dialogue), my work is specifically associated with development and education and the notion (in a very general sense) of progress/learning/awareness of children within developing/marginalised communities. Unfortunately, this level of social/political consciousness will almost certainly not become prevalent within a few hours of SOLE exposure. In fact, the notion of marginalisation may not even be apparent to the young participants (age 9-12) within their own sphere of consciousness. At this stage in the research therefore, the CA paradigm would be limited to extracting the specific meaning of SOLE to Ghanaian children. In which case, the analysis would be effectively limited to Identity as opposed to any learning objectives (including that of SLA) i.e. what do the children do when faced with the computer, how do they organised themselves, how do they navigate the tool, how do they obtain intersubjectivity etc. The question is therefore, in such a constrained domain of research, will Ghanaian children demonstrate behaviour that is in any way different from children in the developing world. Would it be better to characterise SOLE behaviour at home before attempting to do it abroad.

In summary, a dedicated CA approach will provide a very detailed description of the mechanisms of interaction but it is debatable whether it should be used to reveal moments of learning/development or causal relationship expected from the SOLE. I would therefore presume that the CA techniques applied to SLA (with its clear emphasis on learning) could be used to clarify this apparent epistemological issue of method.

Furthermore, the SOLE has been defined for groups (with the potential for a number of computers). This raises basic ethnomethodogocal questions about how I capture (audiable and video) this extremely complicated environment in its entirity, how do I synchronise talk to computer interaction and how to I select data in order to extract a managable and meaningful quantity. Needlesstosay, analysis at the micro-level is detailed and complicated and of limited use (and this stage) in relation to development.

Alternatively, Adam referenced the research of Ben Rampton (Crossing and Language in Late Modernity) and the application of Interactional Socio-Linguistics (IS) in relation to childs play (very relavant to SOLE). Whilst not going into any great detail, this approach operates at the level of CA but employes aspects of ethnography as a means of including context within the research domain. Also related is the work of Goodwin and Goodwin (interaction with artifacts) and the range of different approaches identified withint the Handbook of Lnaguage and Social Interaction. More than enough to be getting on with!!

Conversational Analysis

Posted on 14 January, 2011 by a8901720

Toward the tail end of last year on an open invitation to all Education PG students, I went to a seminar on Identity. Numerous PhD students presented their research projects including related themes as varied as Turkish dating shows, the Armed Forces and TEFL teacher training. Though not obviously related to my areas of investigation, Dr Alan Firth who organised the gathering showed a distinct interest in my project and suggested we had a meeting. Having described the scope and identified the paradigm conflict associated with comparative education, Alan acknowledged the problem and suggested that I ignore the positivist approach and focus completely on the SOLE. Furthermore, I should use Conversational Analysis (CA) as a means of investigating student interaction, emergent meaning, learning mechanisms and outcomes and identity and so on. In view of its eminent potential as a research method, I have undertaken a quick review of descriptive material including The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom (Seedhouse).
CA is positioned within the interpretative paradigm and is aligned with the research principles that underpin ethnomethodology namely:
– Indexicality. Participants display through their utterances which aspects of the context they are oriented towards at any given time i.e. CA is context free
– The Documentary Method of Interpretation. The treatment of any actual real-world as a document/reference of previously known pattern
– The Reciprocity of Perspectives.
– Normative Accountability
– Reflexivity
According to Seedhouse, the principal aims of CA include: to characterise the organisation (emic logic) of interaction and to trace the development of intersubjectivity in an action sequence (though not in terms of psychological states). The essential question asked at all stages of CA of data is – Why that, in that way, right now.

The organisations are part of a context-free structure used to orientate ourselves in indexical interaction i.e. to interpret the context sensitive social actions of others. The principal organisational components of the CA interaction are listed as follows:
– Adjacent Pairs: The basic building blocks of intersubjectivity (common understanding). Consists of paired utterances where the response of the second becomes conditionally relevant in relation to the first i.e. the first interaction is a template which creates a normative expectation for a subsequent action and a template for interpreting it.
– Preference Organisation: That the interaction is organised and managed by the partcipants (social actors) towards social goals. Similar in concept to Grice co-operative principle (which can contain a dispreferred action)
– Turn Taking: A intrinsic part of standard conversation, turn-taking is organised in terms of norms which the participants can select.
– Repair: The treatment of trouble occuring in interactive language use. Trouble in this context is anything which the participants judge is impeding communication.

It is important to note however that CA does not see findings of interactional organisation as fixed sets of prescriptive rules. Rather they are constitutive norms or interpretive resources which interactants make use of in order to orientate themselves within and to make sense of an ongoing interaction.

White Mythologies

Posted on 9 December, 2010 by a8901720

White Mythologies: Writing History and the West (Young, 1990)

The essence of the book is to assess the historical authenticity, specifically colonial and post colonial periods. Young provides a broad context using Marxist theory of History (influenced by Hegels Master/Slave dialectic), representing a contiguous phenomena characterised by production and class (with specific focus on the social position, perception, language and the revolutionary potential of the working class). The Marxist critique is howevee perceived as limited in relation to post-colonial theory on the basis that it fails to recognise marginalised groups, particularly the poor and ethnic minorities. Furthermore, this rational approach to history emerged from the enlightenment period centred in Europe and resulting in a Eurocentric view of science, scientific investigation and knowledge. In the sense that History has been defined from a specific perspective, it could be described as lop-sided and subjective or even, in the context of post-colonial theory, racist and oppressive. On this basis, Foucault denies the validity of a single definition of History and the authority of any single source, specifically Western cultures (through Historicism) claim to universal authority. The principal and defining characteristic of post-colonial theory is the neutralisation of the other (minority culture) by the dominant power and associated culture.

The post-structuralist approach to History questions western thought and its assumptions suggesting that all knowledge may be contaminated and that the associated ontology amounts to a philosophy of power. The deconstruction (Derrida) of European thought has no pretensions to the universal in the form of meta-narrative.

Alternatively, Jameson argues for a single history that can be characterised in terms of colonialism. In a unified Marxist critique, Jameson suggests that the Third World represents a dialectical opposite of a post-modern European thought and the potential centre of future resistance to existing orders of knowledge and power (Fanon)

The post-colonial critique questions the fundamental structures of Western knowledge on which the description of history is founded. The humanism promoted by the west ignores the reality for the other and ultimately provides justification for colonialism and the superiority of the white man as part of the process of civilisation. This was profoundly illustrated by Said () in the colonial definition of the Orient who illustrated the characterisation of the exotic and mysterious other through a range of social, economic and political instruments that ultimately justified the colonisation of the region. At this point Young, specifically addresses the problem of method in a critique of Saids work. Firstly, Young identifies the presumed difficulty of administering a colony when the scholarly representation of the Orient clashes so dramatically with reality. Secondly, Said has difficulty reconciling a singular account of history with the universal. Thirdly, Said appears to employ the meta-narrative with a paradoxical tendency to employ the Euro-centric approach to the analysis of power and knowledge (Bhabah). Despite the inherent difficulties associated with authentic research i.e. can a European white man ever understand racism without the experience, Spivak recommends an objective approach based on an unlearning of privileged whilst accepting and acknowledging the researchers personal complicity in the production of knowledge.

Notes for the Panel

Posted on 12 November, 2010 by a8901720

Notes in relation to my first panel presentation on Monday 15th Nov. Apart from the quantity of information that I can deliver within the 15 min time limit (remembering that the TARF presentation required 3 hours), additional points of concern include the following:

1) Social System theory – a largely positivist approach to the characterisation of the development of society and social life. While Traditional African societies tend toward the closed end of the spectrum (society is mechanical and individual needs are subordinate to the group), the entire paradigm is based on a rational, scientific understanding of society. This form of assumption may not be appropriate when defining African society as the entire understanding of knowledge and knowledge acquisition (the informal education system) appears to be diametrically opposed to that of the west and the formal education system i.e school operates in broad isoation from its surroundings, a point emphasised by Tedla.

2) The paradigm differential within the classroom between (top-down) communicative approach and the (bottom up) linguistic approach. Reading could provide a coherent and cogent link between the different approaches. Furthermore, the acquisition of phonics can be readily linked with improved reading ability as potential assessed using the BURT (or equivalent) reading test. On the basis that reading ability has been improved (as a basis for knowledge aquisition) further testing could be applied to test cognitive understanding.

3) Currently there are a broad number of test areas; cognitive, affective, reading and computer literacy. Should the number of test objectives be rationalised.

Observations from the panel members are listed as follows:

1) Clarify the research objectives as a means ensuring that the research is sufficiently original. Whilst a change in research context is not perceived as providing sufficient contrast, there is little evidence to suggest much comparative educational research in a developing world environment.

2) Furthermore, the methodology associated with the SOLE is currently perceived as insufficiently resilient and requiring additional transparency linked to a clear ontology and epistemology.

3) The panel members indicated that a method limited to an assessment of outcomes is considered inadequate i.e whilst learning objectives may be satisfied, there will be no understanding of the learning process. It is suggested that some form of dialogue analysis be considered as a means of interpreting interaction between participants. A bibliography will be provided as a means of determining the most appropriate approach to analysis in the given context.

Promoting Reading

Posted on 9 November, 2010 by a8901720

According to Greaney (1996) and his study of reading (promotion) in the developing world, literacy is a definitive indicator of human development. Without the ability to read, people are denied access to pertinent information about health, social, cultural and political issues and well as pleasure and enrichment. According to Greaney, literacy is positively correlated with primary and secondary school enrolment, newspaper production and life expectancy.

Having established literacy and reading as principle pedagogical and research aims consistent with international (MDG) and nation objectives, the next step is to develop a coherent research method and design. The principal issue confronting method in the context of this research relates to the distinct differences in learning paradigms between the formal (grammar based, bottom-up) approach and the informal SOLE (communicative based, top-down) approach. The ability to read is viewed as the preferred bridge between the learning paradigms not only because of its significance in relation to the standard curriculum but also because of its relevance to the SOLE environment (mediation tool between technology and knowledge). Furthermore, phonics awareness has been positively correlated with reading and literacy ability. Phonics is not only a focus of Paulines work but could easily provide a focus for learning in all of the classroom environments associated with the research.

When comparing literacy ability in a large scale research programme covering 32 education systems throughout the world, Thorndyke (1973) identified the following salient factors believed to characterise the achievement difference in literacy levels (it should be noted that the study accounted for difference in Human Development Indices as a means of permitting a relative and fair comparison).

1. Library size
2. Frequent silent reading
3. More teaching time
4. More reading tests
5. More female teachers
6. Years of teacher training

Communicative Language Testing

Posted on 25 October, 2010 by a8901720

The notion of communicative competence is broad and needs to be fully understood before being considered as a basis for a research testing regime. As previously indicated assessment can be viewed in terms of two distinct paradigms as follows: 1) The Psychometric-Structuralist era: Testing is based on discrete linguistic points related to four language skill areas, reading, writing, speaking and listening. Additionally there is the Psycholinguistic-Sociolinguistic era: Integrative tests were conceived in response to the language proficiency limitations associated with discrete point testing. According to Oller (in Weir, 1988), Integrative testing could measure the ability to integrate disparate language skills in ways that more closely resembled the actual process of language use. The communicative paradigm is founded on the notion of competence. According to Morrow (in Weir, 1988; pp8) communicative language testing should be concerned with :1) what the learner knows about the form of the language and how to use it appropriately in context (Competence). 2) the extent to which the learner is able to demonstrate this knowledge in a meaningful situation (Performance) i.e what can he do with the language. Performance testing should therefore be representative of a real-life situation where an integration of communicative skills is required. The performance test criteria should relate closely to the effective communication of ideas in that context. Weir emphasises the importance of context and related tasks as an important dimension in communicative (performance) language assessment (ibid, pp11). In conclusion a variety of tests different tests are required for a range of different purposeds and the associated instruments are no longer uniform in content or method.

In recognising the broad definitions of communication, Carroll (Testing Communicative Performance, 1980) adopts a rationalist approach to test requirement definition. The basis of the methodology therefore is a detailed analysis including the identification of events and activities (communication functions) that drive the communicative need. Having identified the test requirements, they are divided between the principle communicative domains of speaking, listening, writing and reading. This approach is no doubt reminiscent of the requirements definition related to English for Specific Purposes (ESP) i.e functional language appropriate for Tourist, Students, Lawyers etc. However, this strategy (and associated methodology) would seem inappropriate in the given research context for the following salient reasons:

1. No practical to undertake a meaningful needs analysis for all participants
2. The entirely process is far too complex and labour intensive
3. ESP is not aimed at marginalised communities or children

Sabria and Samer (other students) have pointed me in the direction of Cambridge ToEFL exams (conformant with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) as a potential basis for communicative testing. The tests are divided into the 4 principal language dimensions (Speaking, Listening, Writing and Reading) and provide tests and marking criteria at all levels of competency including that for the research context (Young Learners English – YLE starters).

TARF

Posted on 18 October, 2010 by a8901720

In preparation for my review panel which is very much overdue, I have created a presentation for the TARF. I dont know what the acronym means but its an opportunity to present your research to the other PhD students. My presentation is in essence a summary of the Literature Review with an emphasis on the test criteria as that is the area I am having most problems overcoming. Most of the PhD students and all of the TARF regulars are linguitists which should be helpful when it comes to the critique of my Second Langauge Acquisition framework.

Whilst I had only prepared 11 slides, the presentation ultimately required two sessions and three hours to complete. The group appeared to be interested in the research topic and I very much enjoyed the experience however, the panel itself is only 15 mins in duration so Im going to have to spend a little time cutting down on material. The first half of the presentation is contextual and provides the political, social and economical background required to appreciate education provision in Ghana. The second half describes the specifics of the research in relation to the methodology and the theory underpinning the potential list of assessment tools. According to Keevers (International Education Handbook) educational research addresses three learning areas: Psycho-motor, Affective and Cognitive. The psycho-motor area relates to the development of infants and young children and is therefore not considered appropriate. The cognitive area is focused on assessment that tests comprehension as defined by Blooms Taxonomy. Whilst there is no definitive learning theory associated with the SOLE, Distributed Cognitive Theory and Self Regulated Learning were mentioned as related research topics worthy of investigation. To this cognitive area, I have attached Second Language Acquisition. In view of its importance in the curriculum and its particular relevance to the SOLE. The intention is to test communication competence as the SOLE will provide an immersion environment based on implicit rather than explicit learning. Whilst recognising the complications of testing and potential validity problems, the TARF accepted that this approach was more relevant to the Ghanaian context than a psycho-linguistic assessment. Finally, I addressed the Affective area but as no one in the room had had experience in this domain the Willingness to Communicate model went unquestioned.

In conclusion, there were no major issues highlighted by the TARF that were likely to upset my existing research framework. This positive response was supplemented by the meeting with the Prof. in advance of the TARF who indicated that he was happy with current progress and believed that the research was eminently practical and doable. He is currently reviewing the latest copy of the Literature Review so we shall see.

SOLE structure

Posted on 6 October, 2010 by a8901720

Outcomes from the latest SOLE meeting with Sugata

a) Use a pilot study as a means of assessing the students relationship with the SOLE in the Ghanaian context; emerging meaning, time to acquire knowledge etc
b) Structure the SOLE using previous exams i.e. no need to develop a bridge between the formal lingustic environment and communication competence.
c) Use simple questions to promote student interaction and positive engagement with the computer and the group.
d) Use a translator, at least initially in order to describe SOLE practice and roles. Ensure that the positive sentiment is not lost in translation i.e no teacher style coercion
e) Possible extension of the test criteria to include computer literacy. ICON association inventory recommended.
f) Communicative comptence could include the description of a picture (ala ToEFL) or even the description of a game
g) Data to be collected over a single academic year.
h) Children should be between the ages of 9 and 12 years old
i) 90 minute session per day are sufficient
j) Praise and support is crucial. Children need a positive relationship with the observer even to the extent that work is completed in order to make him happy.
k) Session policemen is identified (on a rotating basis) to ensure that the children are doing something (whatever it is) and to report or child actions and behaviour i.e. why is student x doing that action.
l) A weekly debrief is recommended in order to supplement data related to accademic and behavioural outcomes.
m) Review the report completed by a Gateshead teacher making practical suggestion to enhance the SOLE environment after a year of implementation.

Me Blog

Category Archives: Ghana