Investigating higher education seminar talk

Bu makalede, Bütünce Dilbilim ve Konuşma Çözümlemesi yöntemlerinin birleştirilmesinin etkileşim yapıları, dil kullanımı ve öğrenme arasındaki ilişkilere nasıl yeni bir bakış açısı getirebileceği incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın bağlamı yüksek öğrenimdeki küçük gruplardan oluşan sınıflardır ve veri bir milyon kelimelik bir bütünce olan Limerick-Belfast Akademik Konuşma Dili Bütüncesi’nden (LI-BEL CASE) alınmıştır. Kullandığımız yöntem Bütünce Dilbilim ve Uygulamali Konuşma Çözümlemesi metodlarını birleştirmektedir; böylece niceliksel bulgular etkileşim dizgelerinin daha yakından niteliksel olarak ele alınması ile ayrıntılandırılmıştır. Bu, BD-KÇ (CA-CL) yaklaşımı küçük grup öğretimi konuşması için her iki yöntemin ayrı ayrı kullanımından daha bütünsel ve zengin bir betimleme sunmaktadır. Bulgularımız, eğitimcilerin bu soylem bazlı ilişkilere olan farkındalığının artmasının öğrenim ve öğrenci katılımı için son derece faydalı olduğunu göstermektedir.

In this paper, we consider how a combined corpus linguistics and conversation analysis methodology can reveal new insights into the relationship between interaction patterns, language use, and learning. The context of the paper is higher education small group teaching sessions and our data are drawn from a one million-word corpus, the Limerick-Belfast Corpus of Academic Spoken English (LI-BEL CASE). In this study, our analysis is based on 500,000 words of the corpus). Our methodology combines corpus linguistics (CL) and applied conversation analysis (CA), enabling quantitative findings to be elaborated by more close-up qualitative analysis of sequences of interaction. This CL-CA approach offers a fuller, richer description of small group teaching talk than would be found using either CA or CL alone. We suggest that awareness among practitioners of these relationships would help facilitate interactions which are more conducive to learning and in which students feel more engaged and involved.

PDF

___

Ädel, A. (2010) How to use corpus linguistics in the study of political discourse. In A. O'Keeffe and M. J. McCarthy (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 591-604.

Basturkmen, H. (2002). Negotiating meaning in seminar-type discussions and EAP. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 233-242.

Baumgart, N. (1976). Verbal interaction in university tutorials. Higher Education, 5, 301-317.

Bednarek, M. (2006) Evaluation in Media Discourse. Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus. London/New York: Continuum

Bennett, C., Howe, C., & Truswell, E. (2002). Small group teaching and learning in psychology. York: LTSN Psychology University of York.

Benwell, B. M., & Stokoe, E. H. (2002). Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: shifting dynamics and identities. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 429-453.

Carter, R.A. & Fung, L. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and non-native use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410-439.

Cotterill (2010) How to use corpus linguistics in Forensic Linguistics? In O’Keeffe, A and M. J. McCarthy (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp [to follow]

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds). (1992). Talk at Work. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Farr, F., Murphy, B. and O’Keeffe, A. (2002). The Limerick Corpus of Irish English: design, description and application. Teanga, 21: 5-29.

Gibson, W., Hall, A., & Callery, P. (2006). Topicality and the structure of interactive talk in faceto- face seminar discussions: implications for research in distributed learning media. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 77–94.

Hopper, R. and Drummond, K. (1992) ‘Accomplishing interpersonal relationship: the telephone openings of strangers and intimates’. Western Journal of Communication 56: 185-199.

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heritage, J. (2004). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: analysing data. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed., pp. 222-245). London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage.

Koester, A. (2006). Investigating workplace discourse. London: Routledge.

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge.

O'Halloran, K. (2010) How to use corpus linguistics in the study of media discourse. In A. O'Keeffe & M. McCarthy (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge.

O'Keeffe, A. (2006). Investigating media discourse. London: Routledge.

O’Keeffe, A. and F. Farr 2003. “Using Language Corpora in Language Teacher Education: pedagogic, linguistic and cultural insights”, TESOL Quarterly 37(3): 389-418.

O'Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds) (2010) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge.

Richards, K. (2005). Introduction. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying Conversation Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Scott, M. (2004). WordSmith Tools (Version 4). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sinclair, J. McH (2004) Trust the Text: Language Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.

Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students' small-group discussion: a conversation analytic approach. Language & Education, 14(3), 184-203.

ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. 2nd ed. London: Sage Viechnicki, G. B. (1997). An empirical analysis of participant intentions: discourse in a graduate seminar. Language and Communication, 17(2), 103-131.

Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. London: Routledge.

Walsh, S., and O'Keeffe, A. (2007). Applying CA to a modes analysis of third-level spoken academic discourse. In H. Bowles & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Conversation analysis and languages for specific purposes. Bern: Peter Lang.