Blog 4 (9/12)

When I think about potential problems regarding my data collection, I worry about the complications of analyzing video and accurately translating ASL to English, but I had not even considered the issue of camera angles and framing. Luff and Heath make excellent points regarding these issues. If I hadn't read this article, I guarantee I would have failed to put sufficient thought into where and how to set up my video recorder. I especially like the advice of tilting the camera for the mid-shot angle when filming. It makes a lot of sense because then you can see more of the person in addition to what materials the individual may be referencing. Of course, as the writers mention, one camera would likely be insufficient in a classroom because if you had a good view of the teacher, your view of the students would be lacking and vice versa. Because the teachers of the classrooms I am planning to film are hearing, I don't believe I will need multiple cameras. Our classrooms are small, so I should be able to pick up sufficient audio of what the teacher says while capturing what the students sign. The only reason I can think I would want to video the teacher as well would be if I were analyzing her sign language, but I don't think that is fair or informative since our teachers are required to use both their voices and sign language simultaneously, which sometimes results in improper English grammar, and, most commonly, a mix of signed English and American Sign Language.

Although our easiest to read text so far, the Rapley book is not my favorite. Where I do not want elaboration, he provides it, and where I do want it, he does not. I'm confused by the second paragraph on page 4: Is he arguing against the existence of instinct entirely, or is he stating that sometimes we call things instinct that are not? I can agree with the idea that sometimes what we label instinct is more likely the result of a culture teaching us that we should feel a specific way, but I don't believe that to always be the case. In Chapter 2 Rapley elaborates on the differences between researcher-generated data compared to already existing data. Simply labeling different data as researcher-generated or already existing would have been sufficient, or he could have placed examples in parentheses. On page 10, however, I would have liked for him to elaborate on his preference of "generating an archive" over "generating data." These terms seem interchangeable to me. I don't understand why he felt the need to suggest the phrase "generating an archive" is more accurate (or perhaps more worthy?) than "generating data." On page 20, Rapley quotes Strong as stating that interview studies are not as valuable as observational data, but, depending on what you want to know, couldn't interviews potentially be more insightful? I understand that naturally occurring interactions are often more honest and interesting, but sometimes people either believe they believe something they don't or want others to believe they do. If, however, you conducted an interview, isn't it possible that by allowing them to talk through what they think and why they think that way, you could get a more accurate idea of what the believe? Or, what a person might not share in a social context because they don't want to offend their "friends," might they share in an interview when a stranger has asked them for their honest opinion? On page 37 I would have liked more explanation. Rapley states that "the division between researcher-initiated and naturally occurring recordings is very problematic and so can be misleading." Is there a disagreement over definition, validity, or both? On page 54, I am again wanting additional explanation. He explains we can call excerpts from transcripts by one of three names: extracts, transcripts, or fragments. He says there are politics behind these terms and that he prefers the term extract but proceeds to only explain the denotation of the term fragment. I also dislike the cliche list of contrasting facts about himself in Chapter 1. While I understand the importance of identity in DA and how it can be altered by context, the way he chose to illustrate it has been used so many times it has lost its effectiveness. 

Rapley does, however, make several good points and provide some useful advice. I find it interesting that fictional texts "offer another way to reflect on a specific topic or idea" (p. 14). I would have never thought to use works of fiction in conversation analysis, but it makes sense that they are a reflection of specific cultures at different times in history. Rapley's advice that creating an information sheet for potential participants will also help you clarify your own thoughts about the project was very useful. Writing about what I am planning to do always helps me to clarify for myself what my purpose is. I also hadn't considered that malls aren't actually public places...which would explain why security guards can ask you to leave even when you haven't actually done anything wrong. The most useful information Rapley provides is on page 44 where he explains the purposes of fieldwork prior to data collection (or is it building your archive?). While he gives some practical pointers on filming, such as that there is no good way to film a computer screen, the Luff and Heath article was more informative. I'm thinking I should plan on using the Jeffersonian method of transcription, but YIKES! Based on page 63, I should plan for it to take me 16 hours to transcribe my 30 minutes of data!

Update on my plan for my data collection (or archive, as Rapley would call it):  I would like to collect data from different English Language Arts (ELA) classrooms of teachers providing instruction using the "new" TNCore approach of "accountable talk." This would include video recordings of the lessons, the lesson plans, print documents from the TNCore website (sample lesson plans and rationale and research supporting TNCore strategies), and, potentially, blogs of other teachers using Common Core, ideally within the state of Tennessee. TNCore is very structured but not scripted, so I think it would be insightful to analyze the language teachers use to foster "accountable talk" within ELA lessons. On social media there have been very mixed responses to TNCore, so it will be interesting to see if those feelings are apparent in the lessons. I think it will also be interesting to guage student responses to this approach. Additionally, it may be interesting to use data from social media regarding the implementation of TNCore strategies and approaches. Is it acceptable to use data collected from multiple classrooms, or would it be preferable to use data from only one classroom?