Discourse Analysis: The problematic analysis of unstructured/unfacilitated group discussions

An increasing number of researchers are studying discourse in order to understand classroom instruction. Based on social linguistics and activity theory, researchers have derived frameworks for breaking down discussion and identifying its structure and composition. These frameworks can be fairly easily utilized to analyze class instruction, because it is typically highly facilitated and/or well structured. In a recent qualitative study, we encountered significant challenges in applying these frameworks to discourse in a professional development setting with little facilitation. In this presentation, we explore the challenges faced when conducting discourse analysis in unstructured discussions by: first, discussing our analytical approach; second, describing the challenges we encountered and how we dealt with them; and third, describing the Framework for Contextualized Function (FCF), which we developed to make meaning out of the discussion. We also describe one way of visualizing the structures of these discussions. We hope that this will encourage and empower researchers to study similarly complex discussions, as may exist among faculty and in cooperative learning environments. ANALYSIS OF UNFACILITATED DISCUSSIONS 2 Background and Theoretical Perspective Discourse is a social process, central to all aspects of life. Through it, individuals interact with one another; they share ideas, cooperate, and build their knowledge and understanding of the world. As people engage in conversation, they both respond to others and anticipate further responses (Nassaji & Wells, 2000). As people participate in discourse, they produce a commodity (the sum total of the discussion) and address or accomplish tasks. Thus as Truxaw and DeFranco (in press) describe, discourse can serve either of two main purposes: a) to clearly transmit an accurate message (univocal discourse), or b) to serve as a process for thinking, creating a new message via discussion (dialogic discourse). Fairclough (2003) stated that discourse “is an irreducible part of social life, dialectically interconnected with other elements of social life (p.2).” This means that we can learn about social life, in part, by studying discourse. As one example, we can learn about the professional development of preservice teachers, inservice teachers, college faculty, or graduate teaching assistants by studying the discourse that they engage in during professional development activities. Furthermore, we can learn about them as teachers by studying the different forms of discourse in which they participate and how they participate in these conversations. Classrooms provide another example. By studying classroom discourse, we can come to understand participants’ roles, the nature of instruction, and forms of instruction. We can also identify and recognize power and other social elements in the classroom setting. Recent mathematics education research has addressed these issues. By way of example, Truxaw and DeFranco (in press) recently conducted a study of classroom discourse within mathematics classrooms in order to determine how teaching practices impacted the nature of discourse in the classroom. They found that different models of teaching could promote different types of discourse, on a continuum ranging from univocal to dialogic by nature. ANALYSIS OF UNFACILITATED DISCUSSIONS 3 Other studies of classroom discourse, both within the context of mathematics and outside of it, have proven valuable in understanding the triadic dialog (Nassaji & Wells, 2000). Nassaji and Wells (2000) and Truxaw and DeFranco (in press) describe the triadic dialog in detail; they point out that this structure, also known as Initiate-Respond-Followup (IRF) or Initiate-Respond-Evaluate (IRE) is the most prevalent form of discourse in classrooms, whether the instruction style is oriented toward transmission or student inquiry. In this structure, the teacher initiates a piece of dialog, directed at a student; a student then responds; and then, the teacher will either evaluate the response or otherwise follow-up with additional comments. Understanding the triadic dialog has helped us better understand teachers’ roles in classroom discussion (Truxaw & DeFranco, in press). Traditional classroom instruction is a common, but unique scenario. In the classroom, the teacher is the primary source of knowledge and is responsible for making sure that discussion proceeds in an orderly and meaningful way. Teachers must assure that all students benefit from the knowledge constructed/transmitted during the discourse, and must make sure such conversation meets the strict pedagogical purpose of the class. Nassaji and Wells (2000) state all of these as contributing reasons for the prevalence of the use of triadic dialog in the classroom. In many important discussions, even in educational contexts, these conditions do not exist. Thus it is plausible that many conversations do not follow the strict IRF/IRE structure and may more closely resemble casual conversation. One such example would be cooperative learning experiences, such as pair/group work or discovery/investigative activities, which have grown in popularity. When teachers allow students to work in groups, many of the conditions mentioned in describing traditional instruction may disappear. In each group, there may not be an individual who feels the same responsibilities as the teacher does in the classroom setting; also, there may not be a clear facilitator. The same conditions may not exist within discussions among colleagues as they converse regarding teaching; such ANALYSIS OF UNFACILITATED DISCUSSIONS 4 conversations may also lack a clear discussion leader or a strict pedagogical purpose. Under these conditions, conversations may be complex in structure and are likely to deviate from the typical classroom form. These conversations pose a challenge for researchers, who wish to study and understand them. In unfacilitated discussions, individuals may not have clear roles or their roles may shift. Thus, in understanding such conversations, we face the challenge and question of how to determine the structure of unfacilitated discussions and describe the function of individuals’ contributions within such a context. During a research study, we faced this very challenge. In this paper, we address this question by describing some of the challenges we encountered, how we overcame them, and the framework that we developed—one way of finding meaning in unfacilitated discussions.