This material was produced using the an interview protocol derived from the protocol Haiwisher & Selfe used for Literate Lives from the Information Age. We took a minute to look at how this protocol was built, and noticed that:
- There was a statement of purpose at the beginning, so the participant has a written statement indicating the focus of the interview and how the data will be used.
- Easy, orienting questions were first
- (After the orienting questions - many interviews include a general, overview question, which allows the participant to introduce/set up material which THEY feel is important or central to what they want to say BEFORE the interviewer limits their opportunities to say these things by asking directed questions.)
- Most of the questions are open. Yes/No questions have follow-up tags to open up the discussion.
- The protocol is organized in sections which ask parallel questions grounded in different times and places from the participant's life. This allows the participant multiple ways to associate to material central to the interview's purpose. Fits with the way memory works.
We also, briefly, discussed how the researcher's orientation to interviewing will shape the way the interview goes. If you view the participant as a "container" with information you want to extract - you will get one kind of a "window" on who s/he is and what s/he thinks. If you engage your participant in a conversation where you explore the material together, you will get a different kind of data. Both kinds of data are valuable - but will need to be interpreted differently.
Analyzing the transcript
After reading the transcript, we started by naming some of the "moves" and noticing the contexts where they occurred (use of you know + like + laughter as indication of comfort, use of hedges as being on guard, changing/taking control of the subject . . .)
We noticed the "stories" L told, including the prompts/material that set them up, and the form of the stories she told.
We noted that, in general, L told stories which resolved into positive conclusions
We noted the "valence" (how or whether each story was associated to either positive or negative emotions.)
We identified themes for each of the stories, and thought about how (or whether the stories fit together).
Although we didn't get to much time for this part, (and we in fact needed some more time to look at the transcript before moving to this step, but we ran out of time) we started asking questions about what the way L was telling her stories suggested about her relationship to literacy and the different connections (to friends, school, family) that were impacted by the way literacy was valued and taught in her home and school.
I gave you two handouts which proposed different ways to categorize/organize this section of transcript for the purpose of thinking about how the stories worked. We didn't have much time to talk about them - but I am hoping what they show is kind of evident.
For next class:
Review Mertens Chapter 8 with attention to ethnography.
Read: Bartholomae + Heath
Write: Using the patterns for analyzing the transcript which we started on in class, develop an analysis of the Returning adult learner transcript posted to the right.
For your analysis of the transcript, you might want to use this list of suggestions for how to interpret certain patterns in language use (these features "mean" differently for different speakers - so use them tentatively).
As you work through the transcript, list and interpret the following:
any features you have identified (named)
Any patterns, repetitions, omissions, incongruences that you notice in the talk in the transcript
a description of what you see as characteristic interactions (exchanges where M and Ch speak back and forth); important interactions
any "turning points" where either speaker changes her mind (explore describe)
significant language features (see list)
stories (note their context, focus, form, purpose, etc)
Come to class with the above list & interpretations. During the first part of class, you will work with a group to come up with an interpretation of your analysis which sheds light on the values, beliefs, identities etc that are embedded in these conversations.
No comments:
Post a Comment