Sunday, 30 August 2015

Multimodal Studies: Exploring Issues and Domains

O'Halloran, K., & Smith, B. A. (Eds.). (2012). Multimodal studies: Exploring issues and domains (Vol. 2). Routledge

There is some good contextualising material on the emergence of multimodality in the introduction to this book.

Backdrop of multimodality:
- social change
- video cameras and technology make multimodal transcription possible
- we are interacting with technology in new ways e.g. touchscreen


(p.1).

Everyone in multimodality is interested in 'the variety of semiotic resources used by humans to communicate meaning' (p.2).  Everyone is interested in the idea that communication is more than language and going beyond the monomodal.  However there is great diversity within this in terms of:

- disciplinary origin
- theoretical approach
- methodology
- domain of research

And researchers in multimodality still tend to be primarily affiliated with another established discipline (e.g. education, architecture, advertising, film studies etc.) which deeply shapes their theoretical, methodological and descriptive apparatus.

Most scholars in multimodality come from their own established disciplines which have their own 'theoretical and descriptive orientations, styles and concerns' (p.2). This may include phonology, grammatics, linguistics, musicology, theatrical and literary studies, film studies, art theory, education, anthropology, ethnography, psychology, architecture, advertising).  However there has also been a clear movement towards generalisations beyond particular domains that can be applied to multimodal phenomena in general.

People who have particularly tried to develop theoretical, descriptive and methodological resources of use to multimodality generally: O'Toole, Kress, Van Leeuwen, O'Halloran, Bateman, Lemke, Baudry and Thibault.

Jewitt's Handbook of Multimodal Analysis shows: although there is no single theory of multimodality as such, there are certainly distinct theoretical concepts and frameworks emerging from the study of multimodality as a field.  A field is emerging to take its place alongside other established fields such as linguistics.

The Issue-Domain Continuum in Multimodality
Issue: something of general relevance (e.g. theoretical or methodological apparatus, or the application/ comparison of different theoretical or analytical approaches or models to account for the integration of different semiotic modes).
Domain: particular areas of application (visual design, advertising, interactive digital media, mobile media, classroom discourse)

Authors argue that these two poles are better seen as a continuum - they represent 'poles of a cline along which individual works range in terms of their major concerns' (p.4). Thus for instance you can't talk about developing general theory without reference to data from some particular domain (otherwise the usefulness of your theory is questionable if you can't instantiate it) and you can't explore your own particular domain without (at least implicitly) saying something about multimodality in general.



(p.4)

Multimodal Studies as an Emerging Field
'There is a diversity of viewpoints and approaches that seems inherent in multimodal studies' (p.10).

This diversity is related to:
- the range of resources humans have managed to use for communication
- the many sites and social contexts in which multimodal communication is found

So there is 'a large range of disciplinary, theoretical and practical traditions implicated in the study of multimodality' (p.10)

Many studies draw upon social semiotics which has contributed a lot to multimodality.  However, studies may range in terms of their:

- disciplinary origin
- theoretical approach
- methodology
- domain of research

Difficulties in calling multimodality an 'academic discipline:
- the theoretical diversity
- most working in the field are still institutionally allied with established fields and funding tends to go there.

Multidisciplinarity
We need to find broad ways of classifying and categorising all the multimodal work that is going on within different disciplines.  We need to identify their challenges, concerns and scope.  However this is difficult because they each have their own methodological, theoretical and descriptive apparatus and we don't necessarily speak their language.

'No one discipline, theoretical tradition or academic style can claim ownership of this enterprise, either in terms of their discursive and analytical conventions, or institutionally'. (p.12)

So in the meantime 'multimodality' can provide a 'shared space' (p.12) for scholars to talk about multimodality using the academic discourse which is familiar to them.

Monday, 13 July 2015

Communicating (Ruth Finnegan)

Finnegan, R. H. (2002). Communicating: The multiple modes of human interconnection. Psychology Press.

Communication as Information
Dominant underlying model: communication is ultimately something cognitive, prototypically formulated in spoken or written words.  There is an assumed equation of 'communication' with 'language' which is seen as the unique characteristic of human beings and thus central to human communicating.  Verbal language a self-standing autonomous system.  It is s cognitive-referential model of language.

Contains a referential view of language: that communication is a container or conduit in which objectively existing messages and statements reside and are transmitted.

Lockean position: language should be stripped of contextual and emotive associations, because what matters is abstraction and decontextualisation.  

But now a move towards embracing:
context, intertextuality, emotion, multisensory enactment, feeling and imagination.  'They get squeezed out of a model of communication where information or referential language set the framework' (p.13)

Three currently influential approaches share this common theme of communication as information:
- transporting messages
- sharing meanings
- transferring mental representations between minds

Transporting Messages
Shannon and Weaver - 'sender-message-receiver' model.
The sender 'encodes' a piece of information as a message, transmits it, and it survives more or less depending on the amount of 'noise'.  It reaches the receiver who decodes it on the other end.  The process is concluded by successful receipt of the message.

It could be criticised 'as implying a narrow, mechanistic and ultimately unrealistic view of what is involved in communication' (p.15).

'The 'message' dissolves into a fluid, situational and multiplex process.  It is a process through time, furthermore, where mutual understanding and influence may eventuate during the interaction, not just in a concrete message enunciated beforehand, and continue even after the apparent 'conclusion' of the message-transfer at its 'destination'.  Such emergent interaction is not well served by describing all this as noise - rather it is a positive dimension of much human communicating' (p.16).

'When the listener perceives and understands the meaning (the language meaning) of speech, he simultaneously takes an active, responsive attitude towards it ... the scheme distorts the actual picture of speech communication, removing precisely its most essential aspects ...the active role of the other in the process of speech communication (Bakhtin, 1986: 68-70)

Criticisms:
- the message is not 'a distinct entity which can be analysed separately from author or audience' (Sless, 1981:25).
- Is exact transmission of a message our prime aim in human communication?
- Is it feasible?
- Can communication be affective as well as referential?

Modified versions of SMR model do acknowledge a two-way process with a feedback loop - but there is still the concept of a specific message.  

It is still too simple in terms of 'sender' and 'receiver':
- there may be multiple parties (eavesdroppers, interrupters, people who are present but not ostensibly part of the interaction)
- there may be ongoing bodily movements or sequential postures from someone who has been designated the 'audience' - they are actually very active in co-constructing the dialogue!  We give continuing feedback through gestures, non-verbal sounds, positioning or touch.

'It is more illuminating to think of communication not as a two-sided relationship between two protagonists but as multidimensional processes involving a number of enactors participating to different degrees and in different ways' (p.17)

Sharing Meanings
Participants play some part in negotiating or exchanging shared meanings rather than receiving predefined transmitted messages.

Comes from semiotic and structuralist traditions and most recently cultural studies.

Willingness to include visual images, material artefacts and the works of the body in their study of communication.

Roland Barthes: images, gestures, music, objects, etc. if not languages are at least 'systems of meaning' (1964:1)

Criticisms:
- 'Meanings' are usually sought in abiding or widely applicable codes with less interest in the specificities of varying experiences, interpretations or performances.
- The 'sign' can be seen as autonomous of the user - a code that is drawn upon.  Instead this book argues that signs are created in and by the act of communication.
- Despite their inclusion of forms of communicating other than verbal, they still seem to draw predominantly on linguistic images: text, discourse, say, speak, etc. - all carry connotations of linguistic and ultimately verbalisable meaning.  Everything must be capable of verbal entextualisation.

Transferring Mental Representations Between Minds
Cartesian dualism - mind/body
The view that the mind is the site, origin and even definition of purposive human action shapes cognitivist approaches to communication.
Johnson-Laird: communication is when one speaker constructs a 'mental model' and then utters the words to convey this to a listener.

Brenda Farnell (1995:9): the logocentric and intellectual focus of such studies exclude a large part of the subject by 'stopping at the neck'.

Intentionality Issue
Hall (1966): Communication can 'occur simultaneously on different levels of consciousness, ranging from full awareness to out-of-awareness' (4).

Behavioural Impact
Rather than focus on communication in terms of meaning or mental models, we could look at it in relation to its impact on the behaviour of others.
Sometimes still quite mechanistic: e.g. the initiating communicator's actions had a direct impact on the comunicatee's behaviour.

Evolutionary perspectives
In general not so relevant - although  it does usefully remind us how our communicative capabilities are biologically grounded.

'As a species, humans have developed wonderfully diverse modes for communicating whilst sharing certain basic biological foundations which both facilitate and limit our powers to do so' (p.25)

Problem:
It views the emergence of human language capability as 'the quintessential human attribute' (p.26) - 'through this we emerged as intelligent beings capable of symbolic and rational thinking, leaving behind - more or less - the emotional, gestural, non-rational and non-verbal forms of animal communication.  This account of the crucial link between verbal language and human-ness is near-universal in both academic analysis and popular wisdom' (p.26)

Assumptions - literate societies better than oral, Western alphabetic writing system superior to all others which are 'proto-writing'.

'We now increasingly appreciate that linguistic expression in explicit propositional and linear form is itself only one special case in the context of the many practical activities and bodily experiences of human beings ,,, a rounded view of human-ness has to include more than brains, print or verbally articulated meaning, and go beyond self-congratulatory assumptions of evolutionary divides between ourselves and others' (p.28)

Communicating: A Multiple, Relative and Emergent Process
Questions:
- to what extent does communication have to be conscious/ verbally explicit?
- how does it take place between participants (straight line transmission?  exchange? mutual influence?)
- what is involved?  (messages, meanings, mental representations, symbols, social processes?)
- how far does it have to influence the behaviours of the recipient?
- do modes of communication mark the difference between human and animal communication?
- is cognition/ verbalised expression central?

Finnegan's definition of communication:
'Communication is here taken to be a dynamic interactive process made up of the organised, purposive, mutually influential and mutually recognisable actions and experiences that are created in a variety of modes by and between active participants as they interconnect with each other'. (p.29)
A pretty good definition for my purposes?

Finnegan makes some comments on her chosen definition:
- It lacks the sharp focus of some definitions and does not sharply distinguish between communication and other forms of human behaviour.
- She argues that this is a positive rather than negative - it's a 'bundle definition'.  Communication is not one single once-and-for-all thing which you have or don't but is a 'bundle of features, themselves graduated rather than absolute' (p.29).

'A process that can be described as communicating may be more, or less, purposive, organised and conscious, more or less mutually influential or recognisable, work simultaneously or sequentially on multiple levels, develop and change during its temporal process, draw on relatively standardised systems or on less widely agreed or only partially shared conventions, and involve more, or less, explicit interacting among the enactors who (to different degrees and in different ways) participate more (or less) creatively in the process and at greater or lesser temporal or spatial distance from each other.  Communication in this view is a relative process with multiple features each of which may in any given case be present to a greater or lesser extent - a multidimensional spectrum of acting and experiencing, not a bounded entity.  And just because the spectrum is multifaceted the boundaries between communicative and non-communicative action are not absolute.  Perhaps all human action involves some degree of communicating, but in some cases only minimally.  Other cases are clearer, with a strong input from all the elements mentioned.  In other cases yet again, some may be clearly in play, other weak or absent.  It is a multifaceted matter of degree'.  (p.29)

'This is a wide perspective on communication, and in consequence, on humanity.  It enlarges the scope beyond information-transfer and linguistic articulation to encompass all the modes exploited in our active human sociality'. (p.32)




Theories of Human Communication (Littlejohn and Foss)

Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2010). Theories of human communication. Waveland Press.


Defining Communication

Communication is very difficult to define.  'Scholars have made many attempts to define communication, but establishing a single definition has proved impossible and may not be very fruitful' (p.3)

Dance (1970) outlined three points of 'critical conceptual differentiation' in different definitions of communication.


1. Level of observation or abstractness (can be inclusive or restrictive).  

2. Intentionality.  Some definitions include only purposeful message sending and receiving, others do not impose this limitation.
3. Normative judgement - some definitions include a statement of success, effectiveness or accuracy, others do not contain such implicit judgements.

'While there is not a right or wrong perspective, choices regarding [definitions] are not trivial.  These perspectives launch scholars down different theoretical trajectories, predispose them to ask distinct questions, and set them up to conduct different kinds of communication studies' (Andersen, 1991)


The authors conclude:

'A definition should be evaluated on the basis of how well it helps scholars answer the questions they are investigating.  Different sorts of investigations requires separate, even contradictory, definitions of communication.  Definitions, then, are tools that should be used flexibly' (p.3).

Similarly, Craig (1999) argues that theories of communication will always reflect the diversity of practical ideas about communication in ordinary life, so we will always have a multiplicity of approaches.


West-East difference:

'Eastern theories tend to focus on wholeness and unity, whereas Western perspectives sometimes measure parts without necessarily being concerned about an ultimate integration or unification of those parts.  In addition, much Western theory is dominated by a vision of individualism: people are considered to be deliberate and active in achieving personal aims ... [Western theories] tend to be individualistic and highly cognitive, whereas most Eastern traditions stress emotional and spiritual convergence as communication outcomes' (p.5).

East - more likely to value silence and intuitive insight gained from direct experience, scepticism regarding verbal symbols and rational/ logical western thinking.


Seven Traditions of Communication Theory


1) The Semiotic Tradition.  

The study of signs: how signs come to represent objects, ideas, states, situations, feelings and conditions outside of themselves.

Some scholars distinguish between signs and symbols (the former have clear referent to something in reality while symbols are arbitrary).


2) The phenomenological tradition.

People actively interpret their experiences and come to understand their world by personal experience with it.

Interpretation is an active process of the mind, a creative act of clarifying personal experience.  Interpretation involves going back and forth between experiencing an event or situation and assigning meaning to it, moving from the specific to the general and back to the specific again, in what is called a hermeneutic circle.


3) The Cybernetic Tradition

The idea of a system forms the core of cybernetic thinking.  Systems are sets of interacting components that together form something more than the sum of the parts.

4) The sociopsychological tradition.

'This psychological view sees persons as entities with characteristics that lead them to behave in independent ways.  It views the single human mind as the locus for processing and understanding information and generating messages'.

5) The sociocultural tradition.

Sociocultural approaches address the ways our understandings, meaning, norms, roles and rules are worked out interactively in communication.  It focuses on patterns of interaction rather than individual characteristics or medical models.  Although individuals do process information cognitively, this tradition is much less interested in the individual level of communication.  Various subdivisions: symbolic interactionism (SI), constructionism, sociolinguistics, philosophy of language, ethnography and ethnomethodology.  

6) The critical tradition.

Interest in questions around privilege and power: what symbols, rules and meanings have emerged from communication within our society that give power to some groups and take it away from others?  How do these power arrangements get reinforced through communication?  Influenced by feminist, postmodern and postcolonial discourses.

7) The rhetorical tradition

Rhetoric involves a rhetor, or symbol user, who creates a text or artifact for a particular audience.  It is the study of texts that are created for audiences and their meaning and impact.





Communication in Everyday Life (Duck and McMahan)

McMahan, D. T., & Duck, S. (Eds.). (2009). Communication in Everyday Life. SAGE.

"Each time you talk to someone, from your culture or another, you are taking knowledge for granted, doing what your culture expects, and treating people in ways the culture acknowledges.  You are doing, performing and enacting your culture through communication; you are not just making sound waves but speaking into the relationships recognised by your culture' (p.8)

Three ways of seeing communication:

1. Communication as action - you send the email, so that is communication even if not received.

2. Communication as interaction - you send the email and it is read -that is communication.

3. Communication as transaction - the construction of shared meanings and understandings between two or more individuals.  e.g. as a result of the above emails the two people arrive at a deal.  It is not just the exchange of literal messages - they get more out of it, and extra meanings (e.g. about the nature of the relationship) is communicated above and beyond actual content. 'In all cases, the communication message (the actual words, gestures or actions) transacts or constitutes something above and beyond the words, gestures or actions' (p.12).

Symbols
'Symbols can be split into those that are iconic and those that are not.  Both are representations of ideas ... but icons look like what they represent' (p.14)

'Communication requires that symbols convey meaning or ... that they permit the communicator to "go beyond' one item to another' (p.16)

Frames
'Talk is used in social frames.  Frames are basic forms of knowledge that provide a definition of a scenario, either because both people agree on the nature of the situation or because the cultural assumptions built into the interaction and the previous relational context of talk give them a clue' (p.18)

Intentionality
Guerrero and Floyd (2006) argue that there are four types:

1. Successful communication (sent intentionally and interpreted the way the sender intended
2. Miscommunication: sent intentionally but not interpreted the way the sender intended
3. Accidental intention: sent without intent but interpreted accurately as something that the "sender" was truly feeling
4. Attempted communication: sent intentionally but not received

However, authors note that intentionality can be contested and difficult to ascertain and can depend on knowing your partner well.

Five essential elements of a 'communication' definition
1. Presentation: presenting a preferred way of knowing or understanding the world
2. Relational: all communication is speaking into relationships
3. Going beyond.  Steps out of the present and points somewhere else, referring to objects, people or ideas not actually in the interaction (really??)
4. Taken for granted: assumes certain ways of looking at the world
5. Shard assumptions: involves sharing viewpoints, vocabulary and meaning, or else it would not be possible. 

Monday, 29 June 2015

Inclusive Pedagogy

Lewis and Norwich (2005) argue that inclusive pedagogy involves the balance of common pedagogy (suited to all children), specific pedagogy (suited to children with specific/impairment-related difficulties) and individual pedagogy (suited to the unique individual). Jordan (2005) further argues that although it is good to remember that children on the autistic spectrum share the same common
needs as all children to be emotionally engaged in learning, there are biological factors making this difficult for them.  For Jordan this means teachers need to compensate for the abilities lacking in children with autism and remediate in these areas. She concludes that ‘children with ASDs often
(but not always) require different approaches rather than more (or more focused) of the same’ (p. 117).

From Theodorou, F., & Nind, M. (2010). Inclusion in play: A case study of a child with autism in an inclusive nursery. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs10(2), 99-106.

Thursday, 18 June 2015

Mercer: The Analysis of Classroom Talk

The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and Methodologies (Mercer).

Linguistic Ethnography
Might deal with questions such as:
·         How does classroom discourse enable, or inhibit, the expression of identities?
·         How are the languages/language varieties of different cultures recognized and used in schools?
·         Is current educational policy sensitive to the linguistic and cultural reality of         
school life?
‘Linguistic ethnographers commonly emphasize that language and social life are mutually shaping; that talk is always referential, interpersonal, emotive, and evaluative; that socialization is a never-ending process, mediated through talk and interaction; that language genres are important features of educational culture; and that children use talk, in classrooms as much as anywhere else, to negotiate and explore their identities. They also often argue that social situations are unique and so generalizations of the kind commonly made by quantitative researchers are of dubious validity’.  (p.2)

Sociocultural Approaches

Sociocultural researchers, on the other hand, are more likely to affiliate to research
traditions in social and developmental psychology and pedagogical studies, with strong attachments to the work of Vygotsky.  Sociocultural studies may be observational, interventional, and/or quasi-experimental. Researchers
quite often combine qualitative and quantitative methods (as described under ‘Mixed
methods’ later in the article). They have addressed questions such as:

·         How does dialogue promote learning and the development of understanding?
·         What types of talk are associated with the best learning outcomes?
·         Does collaborative activity help children to learn, or assist their conceptual
development?              

‘Sociocultural researchers commonly emphasize that language is a cultural and
psychological tool which (in Vygotskian terms) links the intermental and intramental –
so, for example, classroom dialogue could have an important influence on the
development of children’s reasoning. They also typically emphasize that knowledge and understanding are jointly created, that talk allows reciprocity and mutuality to be
developed through the continuing negotiation of meaning, and that education depends upon the creation and maintenance of intersubjectivity or ‘common knowledge’. An implication often drawn is that teachers need to guide and scaffold learning, balancing the control of dialogue between teachers and students (Myhill, Jones, & Hopper, 2005).  I would suggest that it is because of the directly ‘applied’ orientation of many sociocultural researchers that they are positively inclined towards the use of pre/post interventional designs, seeking to measure differential effects of talk on problem solving, learning, and conceptual change’.  (p.3)

Things they would agree on:
1.    classroom education cannot be understood without due attention to
the nature and functions of talk (and that means there must be a qualitative element to the analysis)
2.    cultural and local norms shape the processes of teaching and learning
in the classroom,
3.     meanings are continually renegotiated through talk and interaction over variable periods of time
4.    one-off, ‘snapshot’ studies of classroom talk are unlikely to yield as valid results as those which involve continuous and repeated observations, such as over a series of lessons.
5.    likely to be critical of forms of classroom research which do not appear
to recognize the importance of these principles – for example, through the use of simplistic coding schemes which treat all similar-looking utterances as repeated instances of the same event
6.    They would probably also agree that the careful observation of classroom life commonly reveals much of interest that will not normally have been apparent to the teachers involved.

Ethnographic analysis
Ethnographic methods are an adaptation of methods developed by social
anthropologists and sociologists in non-educational fields (see e.g. Hammersley, 1982; Woods, 1983, for accounts of this). Ethnographic analysis aims for a rich, detailed description of observed events, through the researchers’ continuous and close involvement in the social environment they are studying.

Sociolinguistic discourse analysis
Some methods for researching talk in educational contexts have their roots in linguistics or, more precisely, sociolinguistics. Sociolinguistics is concerned, broadly, with the relationship between the forms and structures of language and its uses in society.  Sociolinguistic research is normally qualitative, and often resembles ethnographic research; but it can also incorporate the methods of descriptive linguistics – such as the identification of distinctive sound patterns (phonology), grammatical constructions, or vocabulary items.

Conversation analysis
Conversation analysis (commonly abbreviated to CA) really deserves to be described as a methodology, rather than just a method. Its roots are in a radical sociology called ethnomethodology, which emerged during the 1960s through a dissatisfaction with the focus of the then dominant sociology on the structural organization of society on a grand scale (Garfinkel, 1967; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). Ethnomethodology aimed instead to explain how the social world operates through people’s actions, by focusing on how social interaction is achieved, minute by minute, through everyday talk and non-verbal communication, and how people ‘account for’ their social experiences. CA is a demanding methodology, because it uses a very detailed and laborious style of analysis and sets very strict criteria for the kinds of interpretations which an analyst can make from the data of recorded talk.

Strengths of Qualitative Research in Classrooms:
·         Any transcribed talk remains throughout the analysis (rather than being reduced to categories at an early stage) and so the researcher does not have to make initial judgments about meanings which cannot be revised;
·         any categories emerging are generated by the analysis, not by codings based on prior assumptions;
·         in research reports, examples of talk and interaction can be used to show concrete illustrations of your analysis: researchers do not ask readers to take on trust the validity of abstracted categorizations;
·         the development of joint understanding, or the persistence of apparent
misunderstandings or different points of view, can be pursued through the
continuous data of recorded/transcribed talk; and
·         because the analytic scheme is not established a priori, the analysis can be
expanded to include consideration of any new aspects of communication that
emerge in the data.

Weaknesses:
·         It is difficult to use these methods to handle large sets of data, because they are so time consuming. It is commonly estimated that transcribing and analysing 1 h of talk using such methods will take between 5 and 12 h of research time;
·         it can be difficult to use such analyses to make convincing generalizations, because only specific illustrative examples can be offered; and
·         researchers are open to charges of selecting particular examples to support their arguments.

Mercer’s take on multimodality:
‘Some might say that researchers should not just focus on talk itself, but instead make ‘multimodal’ analyses which treat talk as one of several communicative modes (along with gaze, gesture, written texts, pictures, video, and so on) as only in that way can the richness of classroom interaction be properly appreciated (see, for example, Jewitt, Kress, Ogborn, & Tsartsarelis, 2004).  I have engaged in some multimodal analysis myself, when studying how teachers use interactive whiteboards, and have some sympathy with that argument (Gillen, Kleine Staarman, Littleton, Mercer, & Twiner, 2007). But language remains for me the prime cultural tool of the classroom. Spoken language enables, in unique ways, the
development of relationships amongst teachers and learners and the development of
children’s reasoning and understanding; so I would not subscribe to an analytic

approach which diluted its significance to that of just one of several modes’ (p.10).

Qualitative Perspectives on Classroom Interaction

Skukauskaite, A., Rangel, J., Rodriguez, L. G., & Ramón, D. K. Understanding Classroom Discourse and Interaction: Qualitative Perspectives.

Key advantages of qualitative approaches to classroom research:

1) making visible the role of language in constructing classroom life; 
2) shifting the focus on processes rather than outcomes;
3) demonstrating how learning and education are overtime phenomena linked to moment-by moment interactions;
4) emphasizing the intertextual nature of human interaction; and 
5) questioning terminologies and phenomena under study.

Also Sara Delamont (2012) has said the need to “fight familiarity” (p. 2) through different ways of conceptualizing, seeing, and studying phenomena of interest - which I think is another key advantage.  e.g. you go into measure 'PECS' in a quantitative study with pre-conceived ideas of the meaning of what is going on without seeing how many clinical preconceptions you have imposed on the situation which are not visible to the child.  cf. distinction between PECS cards and visual timetables cards from child perspective.

The authors also talk about how language-based approaches can reshape how linguistic and cultural diversity is transformed from a deficit and a problem to a resource for teachers and students - this is generally in the context of cultural/ ethnic diversity and changing perceptions of how it is a barrier to accessing traditional 'canon' to how it brings richness and diversity - could be transferable to my study.

Also shift from 'language as transparent window' (behaviour exhibited through talk) to language as interesting in its own right: 

I think this is really useful list esp. (2) because the shift from outcome measures to process is important - shift from measuring e.g. 'AAC success' to examining the embedded process. Also process studies work better with e.g. Intensive Interaction.  In relation to (2) the authors later say:

'By studying not only what students learned, but how such learning took place through discursive practices and interactions between and among students and teachers, qualitative researchers opened up the “black boxes” of classrooms.' (p.15)

History of Qualitative Methods in Classrooms ...
* Research on classrooms through the 1960s was mostly observational and
quantitative, measuring how teacher variables affected particular student outcomes. 

* Qualitative researchers entered classrooms in the 1960s, seeking to understand discrepancies in achievement of students from varied linguistic and ethnic backgrounds (Green & Dixon, 2008).  Most of this early qualitative work was ethnographic, conducted by scholars grounded in anthropology, sociology, and sociolinguistics.

Rex, Steadman and Graciano (2006): 7 perspectives on classroom interaction: 
 1) process-product; 
2) cognitive; 
3) sociocognitive, situated cognition and activity theory; 
4) ethnographic; 
5) sociolinguistic and discourse analysis; 
6) critical; and 
7) teacher research.

Early ethnography/ education studies:
One of the earliest studies of phenomena related to education was Margaret Mead’s
(1928) anthropological study Coming of Age in Samoa, but George Spindler (1955) is one of the first scholars who entered schools to examine educational problems. He is credited with bringing Anthropology to Education to study educational problems and the ways in which culture was perpetuated through education.

Mid-20th century:
The 1960s is seen as the era of methodological developments in qualitative research,
marked by the publication of the Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This volume sought to demonstrate rigorous and systematic ways of conducting qualitative research and was a direct response to earlier criticisms of qualitative methodologies (After the Second World War, with the renewed expansion of positivist epistemologies,
qualitative ways of conducting research through fieldwork, participant observation, and openended interviewing were criticized for their lack of objectivity, validity, reliability and
generalizability of knowledge (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011)).

The first set of language-based contributions to understanding education, classroom
discourse, and interaction was formulated between 1964-1972 when sociolinguists,
anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, and educators came together to explore Functions of Language in the Classroom (Cazden, John, & Hymes, 1972) and developed Ethnography of Communication (Gumperz & Hymes, 1972) as an approach to study how people constructed and interpreted cultural worlds through their language use. These scholars emphasized the interrelationships between language and contexts of language use.

'In studying language variation and language use in school (classrooms in particular), in homes, and in the community, researchers like Cicourel, Fishman, Green, Gumperz, Koschman, Labov, Mehan, Phillips and others (e.g., see chapters in Cazden et al., 1972; Green & Wallat, 1981) made visible the richness of linguistic repertoires available to students and teachers. These studies examined language in context from different perspectives and helped mediate the transition from the earlier “deficit” theories that blamed minority students for not knowing a school’s primary language to a “difference” perspective which viewed student diversity as a resource. The emphasis on language in the context of its use (discourse-in-use, Bloome & Clark, 2006), on linguistic variation, and on repertoires of knowledge that students and teachers brought to the classroom influenced generations of scholars who examine interaction and discourse in classrooms as multifaceted social phenomena. Ethnography of communication, sociolinguistic ethnography, interactional ethnography, critical ethnography and other ethnographic approaches that examine language use in context and overtime in educational settings, grew out of these
multi-perspective and inter-disciplinary dialogues about language, context, culture, and language variation' (p.8-9)

'The agency of language enables and constrains what students can do and say, when, where, in what ways, with whom, in what contexts, and with what outcomes or consequences in classrooms and other social settings. These language-based
approaches shaped or intersected with the development of qualitative approaches such as
interactional ethnography, discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis, ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and some forms of narrative research.' (p.10)

Zooming in and Zooming Out Quotation
'Qualitative interests in meanings and processes have also fostered an understanding that learning and education are overtime processes, which cannot be captured solely through the use of outcome measures administered at one point in time. The variety of qualitative approaches demonstrated the importance of looking both in-time and overtime. By zooming in to examine specific interactional patterns (e.g., the use of humor within moments of interaction), as can be done using conversation analysis and ethnomethodological approaches, qualitative researchers made visible the artistry and power of people’s discursive actions. Then, by zooming out and using ethnographic, case study, or grounded theory approaches, researchers can demonstrate the consequentiality of such discursive moves overtime. People learn, construct identities and shape new social worlds in dynamic ways both moment-by-moment and overtime' (p.16).  

Intertextuality
'Qualitative research has made visible the intertextual nature of human interaction.
As people talk and work together to accomplish particular tasks and construct opportunities for themselves and others, they draw on a broad range of linguistic, historical, and societal
resources. As Erickson and Shultz (1981) argued, people are texts for each other, and they bring their personal, historical, and social knowledge and ways of being to moments of interaction (Bakhtin, 1979/1986). As they act and react with each other, they draw on a variety of resources to interpret and construct their worlds and positions in such worlds (Bloome, Carter, Christian, Otto, & Shuart-Faris, 2005). Qualitative approaches that take into account societal, historical, and cultural contexts (e.g. ethnography, critical discourse analysis), make visible how interaction at any particular moment or in any social space is shaped by larger social forces and historical resources (Fairclough, 1992). In this way, qualitative research demonstrates the intersections of individual, social, cultural, and societal forces that influence what and how people accomplish in and through their interactions.' (p.16).