Judy Constructs a Genuine Question: A Case Study Paper Report

1
Judy Constructs a Genuine Question A Case Study
Paper Report

• Instructor Ron Wakkary (rwakkary_at_sfu.ca)

2
Judy constructs a genuine question a case for
interactional inclusion, Lesley A. Rex, Teaching
and Teacher Education , 16(2000), pp. 315-333
3
Description of the study

• A single-case study that is embedded in a
  six-year ethnography study
• The study focuses on one student, Judy and
  presents two detailed interactions within the
  classroom.

4
Description of the study

• The study examines how best to create
  interactional inclusion (affirming and
  connecting academic contributions) for students
  with learning disabilities.
• The author claims that the study provides
• a) a sociocultural lens for looking at inclusion
  practices in the classroom and
• b) it focuses on discursive constructions or
  discourses.

5
Description of the study

• The study examines three discourse dimensions
• 1) learning the language of AFS
• 2) socioliteracy, asking a genuine question
• 3) self and peer constructions and
  reconstructions of standing in the class.
• The study provides heuristics for contextual
  conditions and teacher gatekeeping and
  mediational moves that lead to interactional
  inclusion.

6
Roles of the researchers

• For six years leading up to the study the
  researcher was a supervisor of student teachers
  at the school in the study
• Researcher was a participant observer in the AFS
  classroom during the study
• Teacher and researcher were co-researchers (not
  an author of the paper or other papers?)

7
Qualitative method

• The method used was a case study
• It was challenging in two respects, firstly it is
  a single case study (one student) and secondly
  it was part of an ethnographic study
• The authors apply Mitchells (1983, 1984) concept
  of a telling case rather than a typical case.

8
The qualitative method

• For six years leading up to the study the
  researcher was a supervisor of student teachers
  at the school in the study
• Researcher was a participant observer in the
  classroom during the study
• Teacher and researcher were co-researchers (not
  an author of the paper or other papers?)

9
Data collection and participants

• Collected data included participant-observation,
  field notes, videotapes (student collected),
  student artifacts, performance products,
  institutional records, teacher and student
  interviews
• The classroom is an AFS (Acadmic Foundation for
  Success) class and curriculum that brings
  together GATE (Gifted and Talented) students with
  general students and those with learning
  disabilities Judy).

10
Data analysis and design

• The data analysis was in design complex
• Spradleys (1980) ethnographic method (mixing of
  ethnomethodological and ethnographic)
• Discourse Analysis (Green Wallats (1981)
  method) for analysing data
• Interpretive Method (Erickson, 1986) for emergent
  questions and theorization
• Range of semantic and intercontextual approaches
  cited

11
Data analysis and design

• Researchers examined specific teaching-learning
  events that established expectations of academic
  literacy and competency
• Researchers discuss a part-whole analyses
  informed by the transcription of 14 interrelated
  cycles of academic activity (e.g. homework, free
  writes, report, etc). Patterns across activities
  were analyzed.
• Telling interactions were selected and
  presented (two in the paper)

12
Surprises and further questions

• The degree to which the paper rested on two
  telling cases. The complex data collection and
  analysis was not evident.
• Related to the above the resting on a single
  case Judy
• The lack of investigation into the more
  significant factor for interactional inclusion
  teaching practice or curriculum (or at least the
  interactions between them)

13
Value of the study

• The study provides a detailed account of
  interactions in a classroom within a particular
  setting
• The study provides heuristics for contextual
  conditions and teacher gatekeeping and
  mediational moves that lead to interactional
  inclusion.

14
Creswells criteria

• We use a tradition of inquiry the paper was a
  mix of ethnography and case study that resulted
  in a weaker approach
• Analyze data using multiple levels of
  abstraction the authors incorporated educational
  and qualitative methods literature extensively
  but the resulting analysis seemed less then
  promised given the design
• Writing is clear, engaging The writing was
  often in specialist language and left many
  concepts unexplained

15
Areas of improvement

• Extend the discourse analysis to other
  interactions with other participants.
• Strengthen the case study with analysis of other
  data (non discourse analysis).
• Separate units of analysis more clearly e.g.
  Judy, class, teacher, curriculum
• Study the roles of teacher and curriculum
• Show more evidence of the operationalization of
  the data analysis design

16
What did I learn

• Consider telling approach over typicality
  approach in case studies
• Pulling out of case studies in longer
  ethnographic studies
• The pressure on single cases to carry the
  evidence
• Follow-through from design to implementation

17
Questions?

• Ron Wakkary (rwakkary_at_sfu.ca)