Resources for Discourse Analysis
Discourse, learning, and teaching
Deborah Hicks
Review of Research in Education (1995) 21(1): 49-95
Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study
James Paul Gee, Judith L. Green
Review of Research in Education (1998) 23(1): 119-169
Rosemary S. Russ, Rachel E. Scherr, David Hammer, Jamie Mikeska
Science Education (2008) 92(3): 499-525
Abstract: Science education reform has long focused on assessing student inquiry, and there has been progress in developing tools specifically with respect to experimentation and argumentation. We suggest the need for attention to another aspect of inquiry, namely mechanistic reasoning. Scientific inquiry focuses largely on understanding causal mechanisms that underlie natural phenomena. We have adapted an account of mechanism from philosophy of science studies in professional science [Machamer, P., Darden, D., & Craver, C. F., (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25] to develop a framework for discourse analysis that aids in identifying and analyzing students' mechanistic reasoning. We analyze a discussion among first-grade students about falling objects (1) to illustrate the generativity of the framework, (2) to demonstrate that mechanistic reasoning is abundantly present even in these young students, and (3) to show that mechanistic reasoning is episodic in their discourse.
The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students
Julie M. Kittleson, Sherry A. Southerland
Journal of Resesearch in Science Teaching (2004) 41(3): 267–293
Abstract: This qualitative study examined the role of discourse (verbal elements of language) and Discourse (nonverbal elements related to the use of language, such as ways of thinking, valuing, and using tools and technologies) in the process of group knowledge construction of mechanical engineering students. Data included interviews, participant observations, and transcripts from lab sessions of a group of students working on their senior design project. These data were analyzed using discourse analysis focusing on instances of concept negotiation, interaction in which multiple people contribute to the evolving conceptual conversation. In this context, despite instructors' attempts to enhance the collaboration of group members, concept negotiation was rare. In an effort to understand this rarity, we identified themes related to an engineering Discourse, which included participants' assumptions about the purpose of group work, the views about effective groups, and their epistemologies and ontologies. We explore how the themes associated with the engineering Discourse played a role in how and when the group engaged in concept negotiation. We found that underlying ideologies and assumptions related to the engineering Discourse played both facilitating and inhibitory roles related to the group's conceptually based interactions.
Enabling participation in academic discourse
Andrew Northedge
Teaching in Higher Education (2003) 8(2): 169-180
Abstract: Enthusiasm for replacing the didactic authoritarian pedagogue with the learning facilitator has seemed to call into question the role of the teacher as subject expert. Yet students need an insider's expertise to support them in gaining access to the academic discourses they seek to become conversant with. The teacher, as subject expert, has three key roles to play in enabling learning: lending the capacity to participate in meaning, designing well planned excursions into unfamiliar discursive terrain and coaching students in speaking the academic discourse. Each demands the skill and insight of an established and fluent member of the relevant academic community. These three roles are explored, using examples to demonstrate how they can be enacted successfully.
Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory
Helene Starks, Susan Brown Trinidad
Qualitative Health Research (2007) 17(10): 1372-1380
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to compare three qualitative approaches that can be used in health research: phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. The authors include a model that summarizes similarities and differences among the approaches, with attention to their historical development, goals, methods, audience, and products. They then illustrate how these approaches differ by applying them to the same data set. The goal in phenomenology is to study how people make meaning of their lived experience; discourse analysis examines how language is used to accomplish personal, social, and political projects; and grounded theory develops explanatory theories of basic social processes studied in context. The authors argue that by familiarizing themselves with the origins and details of these approaches, researchers can make better matches between their research question(s) and the goals and products of the study.