How can assertions about pedagogical structures be gained through participants’ observations? Ethnographical research on turn taking

Author(s):

Juergen Budde(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2012

Network:

19. Ethnography

Format:

Paper

Session Information

19 SES 06, Parallel Paper Session

Parallel Paper Session

Time:

2012-09-19

15:30-17:00

Room:

ESI 2 - Aula 3

Chair:

Marianne Dovemark

Contribution

The paper aims at initiating a reflexive discussion about the potentials of ethnographical school research regarding the praxeological handling of turn-taking.
Ethnography is confronted with the reproach of simply being a subjectivist or merely descriptive research strategy (Bohnsack, 2000). In contrast to this criticism, ethnographical school research points out that the observed practices always refer to fundamental and tacit structures of school and lessons (Atkinson, 1990; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1997; Troman, et al., 2005; Breidenstein, 2010). Therefore a central starting point of the paper is the question of how generalizable assertions about the praxeological construction of pedagogical structures can be gained through participants’ observations. The methodical proceedings which are most adequate when analysing the praxeological construction of pedagogical structures are those which consider the processes of production and order and focus on practices, as is done in ethnography.
But it seems to be problematical that the methodical and methodological discussion cannot always keep up. Lots of international ethnographical research projects remain at a descriptive level (e.g. Phoenix 2009). Adequately the findings seem often to be a result of association rather than exact interpretation. It is for example not clear what place practices have in the methodology of ethnographical school research. Further it is not clear how practices are observable and how assertions can be made about the order of the observed field, based on the observation of practices. An additional question is how a theory can be generated, which will not suffer from the suspicion of being based on random impressions.
I want to debate about the significance of the ethnographical observation of practices with an analysis of the handling of turn-taking (Cazden, 1968; McHoul, 1978; Mazeland, 1983). The paper therefore has two aims: First, a discussion about the question of the knowledge potential of ethnography will be sparked. Second, the two modes of interaction routine and disruption will be differentiated by using ethnographical material from a research project about the distribution of the right to speak.

Method

In the research project, four fifth grades were accompanied over three months with ethnographical methods in their first year in the Gymnasium “Zimmerbreite” in a large Austrian city. Observations were mostly made during German lessons, textile and technical works, a school-specific subject called KoKoKo (cooperation, communication and conflict-resolution), as well as partially in Math, English, Sports and Religion; teachers were also interviewed (Budde, et al., 2008). At the center of the research project were gender interactions between teachers and pupils. For the evaluation of the data, a combination of codifying and sequence-analytical proceedings was used. In doing so, in a first step (concept formulating) the material underwent encoding in view of the practices that proved relevant for devising the questions. The encoding was guided by the course and execution logic of the practice, so that longer text passages were summarised under one (or several) concept(s). Subsequently, the passages were organised thematically and interpreted in their sequential progression; the progression of the practice itself was preserved. The main concept is that the strategy of evaluation is gained through systematic contrasting, by searching in the material for accordance and contrasts (Glaser & Strauss 1967).

Expected Outcomes

The analyze show that the distribution of the right to speak, as a smallest social unit, has a basic function in the organization of class: norms are being negotiated, knowledge interrogated, bodily activities straightened. It becomes apparent that teachers claim for themselves another use of the ‘hand-raising rule’ than the one they apply to the pupils. The social positions of the pupil and the teacher are thus established and designed as contraries. As the empirical examples prove, the participation in the field enables observation of different modes of interaction. To oversimplify on the one hand, ‘repeated practices’ exist, which, through endlessly subtle variations, generate a sequence of routine actions and refer to field-specific structures of organisation. The specific routines are revealed only in longer sequences. On the other hand, there are situations which disrupt the routine of activity, which create irritations and in this sense precisely uncover the usual routine of activity. On the epistemological level, routine and disruption appear to be two central modes in which practices are effective and become observable. Disruption and routine are not to be understood as a dichotomous pair of contraries, but as linear modes of handling that complement, alternate or contradict each other.

References

Atkinson, P., 1988. Ethnomethodology: A critical review. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, pp.441–465. Bohnsack, R., 2000. Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung. Einführung in die Methodologie und Praxis qualitativer Forschung, 4. Auflage. Opladen: Leske und Budrich. Breidenstein, G., 2008. Schulunterricht als Gegenstand ethnographischer Forschung. In: B. Hünersdorf, C. Maeder & B. Müller, eds. 2008. Ethnographie und Erziehungswissenschaft. Methodologische Reflexionen und empirische Annäherungen. Weinheim: Juventa-Verl., pp.107–120. Brophy, J. E. & Good, T. L., 1979. Die Lehrer-Schüler-Interaktion. München: Urban Budde, J. Scholand, B. & Faulstich-Wieland, H. 2008. Geschlechtergerechtigkeit in der Schule. Eine Studie zu Chancen, Blockaden und Perspektiven einer gender-sensiblen Schulkultur. Weinheim: Juventa Cazden, C., 1968: Classroom discourses. In: M.C. Wittrock, ed. 1968. Handbook of research on teaching, New York: Macmillan, pp.432-458. Glaser, B. & Strauss A. , 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Pub Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P., 1997. Ethnography. Principles in practice. 2. ed., reprinted. London: Routledge. Mazeland, H., 1983. Sprecherwechsel in der Schule. In: K. Ehrlich & J. Rehbein, eds. Kommunikation in Schule und Hochschule. Linguistische und ethnomethodologische Analysen, Tübingen: Narr, pp.77-101. McHoul, A., 1978. The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society. (7), pp.183-213 Phoenix, A. 2009.Consuming Masculinities.Intersections of Gender and Peer Culture in Everyday School Practices.In: J. Budde & I. Mammes, eds. Jungenforschung empirisch. Zwischen Schule, männlichem Habitus und Peerkultur. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp.149–161. Troman, G., Jeffrey, B. & Walford, G., 2005. Methodological issues and practices in ethnography. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Author Information

Juergen Budde (presenting / submitting)

University Hildesheim

Angewandte Erziehungswissenschaft

Hildesheim

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.