Sunday, July 02, 2006
CDA in Education according to Rogers
Rebecca Rogers (2004) edited the book, An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, taking the work and words of two main researchers in this area and presenting examples of such. From James Paul Gee to Norman Fairclough, each chapter of this book presents their voice, as well as research that have focused on the methodology of one or both of them.
One thing that weaves the chapters of this book together is the concept of learning and how it is seen and defined through the eyes of CDA, cda, or CDA/cda (please see the posting titled critical discourse analysis according to Gee below, on June 21st, 2006 for details). My research is based on Gee’s critical discourse analysis, but after reading Fairclough’s “Semiotic Aspects of Social Transformation and Learning” I can see how my data set could also be analyzed using this methodology. According to Fairclough:
This made me think about the discussion forum data that I am about to analyze. Texturing a problem, asking a question, or asking for clarification, can make the learner reformulate an idea. The answers s/he get can induce/provoke some kind of change on her/him. Just being part of the discussion, even if nothing else happens, could be what the learner needed. However, the data set that I will look at was archived, and at this moment I will not be making interviews. For this reason it is not learning but knowledge construction, that is the process that people go through to learn something, what I will be studying.
There seems to be many similarities between Fairclough’s and Gee’s work. They both work with discourse analysis, and both try to explain “the relationship between language and social structure” (Rogers, 2004, p. 242). The main difference seems to be on how they define the critical component, something that impacts the way they conduct research.
A comparison of discourse analyists will follow soon. Note that we have looked at Van Dijk (2003) as well, and that these three researchers are not the only ones conducting critical discourse analysis.
Fairclough, N. (2004). Semiotic Aspects of Social Transformation and Learning. In Rebecca Rogers, An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, pp. 225-235. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Rogers, R. (2004). (Ed.). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis. In Schiffrin, D. S., Tahnen, D., and Hamilton, H. E. (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, pp. 352-371.
One thing that weaves the chapters of this book together is the concept of learning and how it is seen and defined through the eyes of CDA, cda, or CDA/cda (please see the posting titled critical discourse analysis according to Gee below, on June 21st, 2006 for details). My research is based on Gee’s critical discourse analysis, but after reading Fairclough’s “Semiotic Aspects of Social Transformation and Learning” I can see how my data set could also be analyzed using this methodology. According to Fairclough:
“Texts are the situated interactional accomplishments of social agents whose agency is enabled and constrained by social structures [possibilities made possible through language] and social practices [orders of discourse, social organization and control that include genres, discourses, and styles].” (Fairclough, 2004, p. 229)
“… texts are involved in processes of meaning making and … have causal effects (i.e., they bring about changes) that are mediated by meaning making” (Fairclough, 2004, p. 229).
“What people learn in and through text and talk, in and through the process of texturing as we might put it (making text and talk within making meaning), is not merely (new) ways of texturing, but also ways of acting, relating, being, and intervening in the material world, which are not purely semiotic in character. A theory of individual or organizational learning needs to address the questions (sic) of retention – of the capacity to recontextualize what is learned, to enact it, inculcate it, and materialize it” (Fairclough, 2004, p. 231).
This made me think about the discussion forum data that I am about to analyze. Texturing a problem, asking a question, or asking for clarification, can make the learner reformulate an idea. The answers s/he get can induce/provoke some kind of change on her/him. Just being part of the discussion, even if nothing else happens, could be what the learner needed. However, the data set that I will look at was archived, and at this moment I will not be making interviews. For this reason it is not learning but knowledge construction, that is the process that people go through to learn something, what I will be studying.
There seems to be many similarities between Fairclough’s and Gee’s work. They both work with discourse analysis, and both try to explain “the relationship between language and social structure” (Rogers, 2004, p. 242). The main difference seems to be on how they define the critical component, something that impacts the way they conduct research.
A comparison of discourse analyists will follow soon. Note that we have looked at Van Dijk (2003) as well, and that these three researchers are not the only ones conducting critical discourse analysis.
Fairclough, N. (2004). Semiotic Aspects of Social Transformation and Learning. In Rebecca Rogers, An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, pp. 225-235. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Rogers, R. (2004). (Ed.). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis. In Schiffrin, D. S., Tahnen, D., and Hamilton, H. E. (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, pp. 352-371.
