What Teachers Say When they Write or Talk about Discourse Analysis
DISCUSSION
The results of the analysis of the spoken data obtained from the peer-mediated discussion groups show that our informants were much more forthcoming in terms of what they perceived as a positive outcome from the two discourse modules. They claimed to favor the study of texts, rather than isolated sentences; to adopt authentic materials in their classrooms, rather than made-up texts; to address the question of text variety in a consistent way, choosing different genres for classroom work, thus suggesting an awareness of the nature of discourse as language above sentence level; of the interactive nature of discourse and of the notion of genre. In addition to these professional gains, our informants also mentioned having developed an awareness of academic discourse conventions. These, however, were not felt to have a direct bearing on their classrooms, but rather on their lives as students. In spite of these positive results, our informants also verbalized serious misconceptions of the nature of language and of FL teaching. One such misconception is the ingrained notion of language as a hierarchical structure, comprising separate components.
The differences between the two methods of data collection may account for the contrast in findings. Whereas contact with the researchers was minimal in the focus groups, the written answers were e-mailed as attachments to one of the researchers, which may have constrained what could be said. Another important factor may be related to the distinct generic features of the two methods of data collection. Unlike the focus group, which elicits texts derived from reaction, or spontaneous response, the written essay allows for reflection, revision and pruning. Finally, the written data were produced in a foreign language, which in itself may have been a further constraint to what was said. These three variables, namely, researcher/respondent bias, genre expectations and the language adopted, may have contributed to varied expression of attitude on the part of the teachers.
All in all, a positive inference from the results obtained is related, therefore, to the methods of data collection used. The peer-mediated focus group seems to provide research subjects with more room for voicing their beliefs and attitudes. However messy the spoken data produced may seem, the focus group opens up the possibility of an emic perspective, that is, the participants’ own perspective on an area investigated. The open essay-like question, on the other hand, seems to favor the researchers’ particular foci (an etic, or outsider’s, perspective).
