Linguistics and Education 35 (2016) 2636

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Linguistics and Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/linged

Analyzing discourse analysis: Teachers views of classroom discourse

and student identity
Joseph C. Rumenapp
Judson University, Creekside South, 1151 North State Street, Elgin, IL 60123, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the current context of urban schools, strict curricula and rigid teaching practices are often used in
Received 26 April 2015 schools with high linguistic and cultural diversity. To understand how teachers can use more equitable
Received in revised form 14 March 2016 teaching methods in classrooms, it is important to explore how teachers make sense of multifaceted
Accepted 15 April 2016
student identities and how those identities play a role in making instructional decisions. Drawing on
a discursive understanding of identity, this paper reports on a study that seeks to analyze two cases of
Keywords:
teachers who employed discourse analysis with classroom transcripts in a community of practice and how
Discourse analysis
this may lead to new understandings of student identity, particularly in multilingual contexts. As teachers
Teacher education
Identity
appropriated the research practices of discourse analysis, they began to shift in the way they understood
Classroom discourse their students identities, from initially viewing them through institutional lenses to understanding the
Participatory methods agentive positions that students took up in classroom discourse. This study yields implications for teacher
English Learners development as well as furthering understanding about the relationship between language and identity
in urban schools.
2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in some cases, led to the assumption that students do not need
special services that would regularly be offered (Lew, 2004; Yang,
While external observations of learning processes, contexts, 2004). The assumptions that Asian students are high-achieving and
and instructional methods have often driven educational research, well-behaved are often carried into the classroom and are not cri-
understanding lived experiences of teachers and students pro- tiqued. The operating narratives around these identities play a role
vides deeper insight into teaching and learning. Furthermore, to in the way teachers plan for instruction and are implicit in instruc-
gain insight into the instructional decisions, understanding the tional decisions. Teachers who engage in reective practices such
world from teachers perspectives is important. In an education as using discourse analysis to understand classroom discourse may
system that is increasingly focused on standardization (Darling- challenge static notions of students and understand the discursive
Hammond, 2010), it is important to remember that classrooms are stances taken in classroom interaction. Using this type of reection
growing diverse in new ways, often due to changing and increas- may also draw out implications for pedagogy and the social organi-
ing migration patterns, technology, and globalization (Hull, Zacher, zation of the learning environment (Razfar et al., 2015). Therefore
& Hibbert, 2009). This juxtaposition of increased diversity and this paper explores how teachers analyses of classroom discourse
increased standardization merits further inquiry into the relation- may change their understanding of student identities and what
ship between how teachers understand their role in the classroom, implications there may be for instruction.
how they understand their students, and how they understand the While engaging in reective practice can be done in a variety of
relationship between teaching and learning. ways, one notable form of reection is action research, a method-
Though teachers understand who students are in moment-to- ologically rigorous form of inquiry intended to lead to practical
moment interaction, they may not explicitly reect on the way they change (Reason & Bradbury, 2013). Though there may be a num-
view students. For example, Lee (2009) notes that Asians and Asian ber of theories, methods, foci or purposes of action research, they
Americans are often stereotyped as a model minority, which has, share in common that they are action-oriented research activity
in which ordinary people address common needs arising in their
daily lives and, in the process, generate knowledge (Park, 2006, p.
E-mail addresses: joseph.rumenapp@judsonu.edu, jcrumenapp@gmail.com 83). Linguistic research methods, such as discourse analysis, may

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.04.002
0898-5898/ 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 J.C. Rumenapp / Linguistics and Education 35 (2016) 2636 27

Fig. 1. Timeline of the action research project.

Fig. 2. Allisons discourse analysis trajectory.

be used to analyze classroom data, leading to transformational Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977), and so forth. Cazden (1988), using CA
changes (Martn-del-Campo, Garca, Lorca, de las Heras Mnguez, & to study classroom discourse, found that the Initiate, Respond,
del Rosario Daz-Perea, 2010; Razfar, 2012). Developing discourse Evaluate (IRE) structure was often a dominant approach to teaching
focused research processes may allow teachers to view students and learning. In such an instance, the teacher and student are jux-
identities in new and more nuanced ways, which may allow for a taposed so that the teacher controls the questioning and evaluation
change in pedagogical decisions. pattern, though students may challenge it or assert agency to claim
discursive space (Baynham, 2006). Skidmore and Murakami (2012)
explained that the power of CA is in the ne-grained analysis that
2. Theoretical framework allows investigators to look at how the function of the structure of
talk is co-constructed between students and teachers. Others have
2.1. Analyzing classroom discourse noted that the function of dyadic and triadic structures, such as
IRE, in classroom dialogue is of primary importance in understand-
Discourse analysis focuses on the nature of language in use. ing classroom discourse because they can achieve many different
This includes, in the narrowest sense, the relationship between goals within interactional contexts (Kibler, 2011; Nystrand, Wu,
multiple utterances and in the broadest, the relationship between Gamoran, Zeiser, & Long, 2003; Wells, 2001). CA can also be par-
language use and language ideologies (Razfar, 2005). Linguistic acts ticularly useful in implementing new instructional strategies by
are meaningful only in the context of language ideologies, which are attending to the role language structure plays in constructivist
identied through the indexical qualities of language (Silverstein, paradigms of education and attempting to modify the classroom
1992, 2003). Language ideologies research has noted that classroom talk to allow for constructivist strategies (Martn-del-Campo et al.,
discourse patterns, such as repairing student talk, index particular 2010).
ideologies held by social actors about language and the relationship CA has also been extensively applied in second language acqui-
between language and identity (Razfar, 2005, 2010). Furthermore, sition (SLA) by Firth and Wagner (1997). Gardner (2008) noted that
Razfar and Rumenapp (2011) demonstrated that language ide- while a heavily applied focus on discourse patterns can result in
ologies played a mediating role in the social organization of the restrictive practices in the classroom, CA can be applied to address
classroom. pedagogical decisions connected to identity in second language
A range of traditions has developed to study classroom discourse (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998). While interlocutors are generally
specically. Conversation analysis (CA) (Psathas, 1995; Schegloff, perceived within groups such as native/non-native (Park, 2007),
2007) has been widely used to observe turn taking in social settings Bae and Oh (2013) noted that identities should be understood not as
(Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974), adjacency pairs (Schegloff & stable private properties but interactional achievements (p. 20).
Sacks, 1973), repair (Bae & Oh, 2013; Razfar, 2005, 2010; Schegloff,
28 J.C. Rumenapp / Linguistics and Education 35 (2016) 2636

Additionally, research in CA has pointed out that the use of multi- SLA and literacy, particularly, have long struggled with understand-
ple languages in classrooms may not necessarily follow dominant ing how, and in what ways, identity is continuous across different
power relationships in society as a whole, but instances of linguis- social contexts, and how it may be understood primarily in dis-
tic practices such as code-switching should be viewed within the course (Menard-Warwick, 2005). Bakhtin has indicated that the
context of the interaction (Unamuno, 2008). sense of continuous of identity is due, in large part, to the narration
Understanding the relationship between interactional positions of the self in social context (Bakhtin, 1981; Ivanic, 1998).
and wider institutional and cultural positions has been one of the The conceptualization of identity can be viewed from several
major goals of critical discourse analysis (CDA) (Fairclough, 2010; different perspectives. Gee (2001) categorized the following four
Luke, 1995; van Dijk, 1993). CDA has been used to connect local perspectives in the eld of education: the natural (N-identity),
instances of talk in the classroom to meso- and macro-level con- institutional (I-identity), discursive (D-identity), and afnity (A-
versations in society at large via intertextual analysis (Fairclough, identity) approaches. In each of these perspectives, there is an
1992). In this way, CDA approaches social interaction with a frame- assumption that identity is largely an extension of some larger
work to observe power, identity, and status. In classroom settings, source. For example, the N-identity assumes that identity is rooted
for example, interaction between students and teachers can be in nature, such as the biological categorization of sex. The I-identity
analyzed for links to and negotiations with institutional inequal- would assume that identity is rooted in an institution, such as one
ities and social ideologies (Peterson & Calovini, 2004). According to is identied as a student because he or she is in a school setting
Rogers and Mosley Wetzel (2014), CDA has been frequently used and is institutionally designated as a student. Likewise, D-identities
by teacher-researchers to achieve goals of critical literacy educa- emerge in the course of discourse and A-identities are rooted in how
tion. They also lay out a method of using CDA to not only analyze one nds afnity with others.
classroom instruction, but also to manage classroom discourse in Understanding identity is vital work within the classroom
more equitable ways. because the view of student identity has implications for the ped-
Similar to CDA, Gee (2011, 2014) has developed practical agogical decisions. Understanding multilingual students from an
research tools for conducting discourse analysis that considers, institutional designation English Language Learner (ELL), for exam-
particularly, the cultural and ideological framing in moment- ple, would place the burden on the teacher to provide particular
to-moment interaction. Gees systematic approach to discourse services or perform a particular way toward the student, sometimes
analysis has been used within teacher education and action leaving a higher representation of multilingual students in reme-
research (Razfar, 2011, 2012; Razfar & Rumenapp, 2014; Razfar dial services, special education, or pullout programs (Artiles, Rueda,
et al., 2015). His approach is also useful to understand the kinds Salazar, & Higareda, 2005) or of teachers providing less opportu-
of identities and gured worlds (Rogers & Mosely Wetzel, 2014, nities to talk (Mohr & Mohr, 2007). Understanding multilingual
p. 304) of teachers. Analytic connections between the global and students through a lens of discursive identity, on the other hand,
the local undergird Gees work (2001) to understand that each would mean that the identity is expressed in the context of talk
moment of interaction has implications for social actors, partic- and interaction in which classrooms could be organized to provide
ularly because those who have less social mobility tend to be left more opportunities for student interactions, which is consistent
to the denitions and constraints of institutions. He notes the fol- with recommendations on language learning (e.g., Cazden, 1988;
lowing: Perez, 1996; Wong Fillmore, 1991). This shift in thinking about
identity may lead to more equitable pedagogical decisions. There-
In such a world it is imperative that we imagine new forms of
fore, teacher reection on student identity in the classroom can be
identities that reinvigorate the local and empower the locals
an important tool for improving instruction.
through new forms of discourse and dialogue-forms that remain
aware, however, of the fact that, in our world, the global has
utterly infected the local. (p. 121) 3. Methods
By tying the local and global together, Gee complicates the
This paper reports on a yearlong study of a cohort of ve teacher-
notion that the scope of interactional analysis ends in the class-
researchers. The teachers in this study were a part of a professional
room. Each instance of discourse connects the local speech event
development program in which they collected data from their
to global interactions, thus allowing us to imagine identities that
classrooms, including videotapes, student work, and eld notes
exist beyond the static denitions of institutions. Discourse analy-
and analyzed them in a group. This study builds on sociocul-
sis can be a powerful tool for teachers in classrooms to imagine new
tural frameworks of education (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991) to
forms of identities for their students, thereby empowering them in
understand how teachers dialogically construct research practices
an increasingly globalizing world.
through engaging in participatory action research (McIntyre, 2008;
Park, 2006). Teachers are supported in this program to develop an
2.2. Identity and classroom pedagogy
analytic lens that may open up different possibilities of understand-
ing the relationship between classroom discourse and social actors
The relationship between identity and discourse has been well
(Razfar, 2012; Rex & Schiller, 2009). The focus of this paper is on
theorized by discourse analysts such as Gee (2008). Identity, how-
how they used discourse analysis as a method to study their own
ever, can be a nebulous term and there are many approaches to
classrooms and draw implications for practice, as I outline in the
and understandings of identity, spanning a plethora of elds and
following section.
disciplines. These different views of identity may have implica-
tions for classroom practice. For example, if identity is viewed as a
static attribute, students may be typed and assigned to particular 3.1. Professional development context
classrooms, programs, or reading levels whereas a view of iden-
tity as something practiced in social context may allow for a more The teachers were involved in two years of coursework at a
open and dynamic placement of students into social roles in the large university in the Midwestern United States that was focused
classroom (Nero, 2005) and among peers (Bottema-Beutel & Smith, on ESL and bilingual education (seven classes). During the second
2013). Over time the uidity of student social identication tends year, they began an action research project focused on their own
to become objectied, particularly due to the relationship between classroom. This year began with studying students lives through
and across different scales of time (Wortham, 2008). The elds of a funds of knowledge framework (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez,
 J.C. Rumenapp / Linguistics and Education 35 (2016) 2636 29

1992) and using the historically accumulated and culturally devel- Table 1
Participant information.
oped bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or
individual functioning and well-being (p. 134) to develop Name Allison Lee
problem-based curricular units aimed at students. As the teach- Years teaching 26 years 5 years
ers perceived technology to be a cultural domain of knowledge, Years at Warner 3 years 4 years
for example, they developed a unit around the theme of technol- Grade 6th grade 1st grade
ogy with a problem that students needed to solve by drawing on Self-identied ethnicity Chinese American Chinese American
Languages English English Cantonese
their funds of knowledge as well as classroom content. Three videos
were recorded of both small and whole class instruction and were
later transcribed. The transcripts allowed for the inquiry into the
between the teachers discourse analytic practices, and the way
relationship between language and positioning in the classroom.
they made sense of student identities.
After the rst unit, teachers analyzed data that was collected
The data includes teacher reections and analysis of classroom
to write an individual and group report. These reports served to
events. First, the teachers met together to code classroom data
make changes in second and subsequently third units. The profes-
and conduct discourse analysis (during each unit). Second, teach-
sional development culminated with the writing of a nal report
ers wrote up reections in the form of reports (after each unit).
which integrated their analysis throughout the year, synthesized
Finally, teachers reected in focus groups (after each unit). In addi-
their ndings, and reported on changes they saw in their students
tion to these sources, I have triangulated the data with teacher
and in their own teaching practices. Fig. 1 displays a timeline of the
eld notes, student work, and original classroom videos (collected
action research project and the different phases in which teachers
during each unit). Thus, the data set for this study focuses on all
engaged. The nal report took place after the academic year had
observed instances in which teachers were analyzing or presenting
ended.
their analysis of classroom discourse. Within this data, two cases
Teachers drew on several data sources, including eld notes,
were built to further understand the type of changes that took place
student work, and 10 classroom videos (approximately 3 from each
and are reported here.
unit) that were recorded at their discretion. Teachers had learned
how to conceptualize discourse (Gee, 2008) and use discourse anal-
ysis (Gee, 2011) during previous coursework to inform their own 3.3. Participants
teaching practice and were encouraged to study how discourse in
the classroom can be used to develop sociocritical perspectives on Both teachers discussed in this paper were from an elementary
education (Gutirrez, 2008; Razfar, 2012). Razfar (2012) demon- school in an urban Chinatown in the Midwestern United States.
strates that as teachers learn to understand how to see the discourse The participants are described in Table 1. These two teachers were
in situ and how it is related to student learning, they may begin also chosen because they demonstrated a shift in the ways they viewed
to see students shift as they appropriate discursive identities. student identities and also appropriated methods of discourse anal-
This paper was drawn from a larger, seven-year project from ysis in different ways. Therefore, they were telling cases (Mitchell,
which preliminary ndings of 22 participants have been reported 1984, p. 239) that allowed for a deeper analysis and comparison
(Razfar et al., 2015). One of the ndings was that when teachers of the affordances of discourse analysis for understanding student
engaged in this action research process, their language ideologies identities and classroom pedagogy. Warner Elementary School is
shifted. Initially, 21 out of 22 (95%) of participants aligned with a a K-8 public school located in a large city. In 2011 it had 704
decit view of the rst language of ELs, or a view in which students students. Approximately 93% of the students were Asian (mostly
were decient in some linguistic ability (Valencia, 1997). After their Cantonese Chinese), 6% African American, and 1% other. About 26%
action research projects, 18 aligned with a dynamic or additive ide- were documented as bilingual and 95% had free or reduced lunch.
ology of language in which the development of bilingualism was Pseudonyms were used for teachers and students in this study.
encouraged, recognizing a wider repertoire of linguistic practices Allison and Lee also had three other colleagues, two class-
(Flores & Schissel, 2014). These language ideological shifts were room teachers and a mathematics coach who were involved in
evidenced in classroom practice as teachers shifted from more dis- action research projects as well, and all ve met together with the
crete academic activities to interactive and embedded practices, researchers on a weekly basis.
thereby repositioning students into more active roles. The rela-
tionship between the views of students and classroom practices, 3.4. Data analysis
however, merits a closer investigation to understand specically
how discourse analysis contributed to these shifts. Participatory action research includes the process of explo-
ration, reection, and action (McIntyre, 2008), in which the
3.2. Research design participants of this study engaged. I engaged in an iterative process
of reviewing the artifacts and the videos of this research process
To restrict the current study to a bound eld for a deeper analysis to narrow the data to analytically meaningful units. To analyze
of how teachers shifted in the ways they viewed students identi- the data, I read through the teachers completed reports several
ties, I used case study methodology and developed two teacher times to get an understanding of what the teachers wrote about in
cases for this paper. Case study, as Yin (2009) points out, can be their most nalized version of analysis. I noted how teachers were
used to explain a phenomenon, which in this study is to consider describing their students in these analyses through an iterative
how the analysis of discourse is related to views of student identi- coding process including open, axial, and selective coding (Strauss
ties and what implications this may have for pedagogy. The case & Corbin, 1990; Yin, 2016). First, I used in vivo coding for every
is dened as the teachers trajectory of appropriating discourse instance in the data in which a teacher referenced particular stu-
analysis within their action research projects. dents or groups of students, yielding 125 instances for Allison and
Discourse analysis across speech events (Wortham & Reyes, 161 instances for Lee. Next, I engaged in axial coding, categorizing
2015) was used to understand the ways in which teachers made these codes into more abstract themes and compared them to Gees
sense of student identities in each of these cases because it (2001) identity taxonomy. For instance, if a teacher said She is shy,
allows the investigation of change over time. This allowed for a then I rst coded this as an instance of a teacher referring to a stu-
closer, more interpretive approach to understand the relationship dent identity. Then I grouped it into a larger theme and categorized
30 J.C. Rumenapp / Linguistics and Education 35 (2016) 2636

Fig. 3. Lees discourse analysis trajectory.

it after Gees (2001) N-, I-, D-, or A-identities described above. After students being passively positioned. For example, in her nal report
this step, I went through the data in which teachers were analyzing Allison noted
and using transcripts to perform discourse analysis, beginning with
The discourse shift of the project was evident
their nal reports, and selectively coded this data for the abstract
as the units progressed. There was a huge dis-
themes, which aligned with Gees identity taxonomy.
parity at the beginning of year because of the
The next step was to identify meaningful cases of the teachers
teacher-centered approach I had taken. I was
trajectory of appropriating discourse analysis practices. The case is
using a strict IRE teaching method to manage my
bound by the very rst instance of the teachers applying discourse
classroom.
analysis techniques during their research and the very nal presen-
tation of their analysis. Case study design allows for deeper analysis In this statement, Allison identied her own teaching in rela-
of the relationship between the use and development of discourse tion to her students, that the IRE structure put her in the center
analysis and the development of views of student identity. Addi- of classroom instructions and her students on the periphery, cor-
tionally, a case study also allows the exploration of pedagogical roborated by classroom observations. She recognized that this
implications. discourse structure did not allow for opportunities of student inter-
Using discourse analysis across speech events (Wortham & action, which could be leveraged to foster language learning. As
Reyes, 2015), when a teacher presented a notion of student iden- both teachers began to shift into more dialogic forms of teach-
tity from her research, I traced the historical development of how ing, such as allowing students to work in small groups or allowing
she got there. I had to backtrack the development of the teacher students more autonomy, the teachers also began to view their stu-
through linking what Wortham and Reyes (2015) recognize as dents in more dynamic ways. They began to see their students
narrating events (see also Jakobson, 1957/1971) in which the teach- take up multiple and multifaceted positions in discourse. Each
ers engaged in interpreting classroom transcripts. I dened these case will demonstrate how the teachers use of discourse anal-
narrating events by observing videos of teacher meetings and ysis corresponds to the different ways they view their students
reviewing teacher produced analyses. I then delineated the nar- roles in the classroom and how this related to their instruc-
rated events, which were indexed by the transcripts that were tion.
analyzed by the teacher during the narrating events and were iden-
tied by the teachers. I looked more closely at narrating events to
4.1. Allison: EL as shy to EL as a choice
understand how the linguistic and non-linguistic signs played a
role in the way the teacher interpreted the narrated events (see
In Allisons nal thesis, she focused part of her analysis on four
Appendix A for the distinction between narrated and narrating
students, who had been grouped together in her science class based
events).
on English prociency. All four were immigrants from China and
spoke Mandarin and, according to ofcial school documentation
4. Findings were dened as limited English procient (LEP), language minority
students (LMS), or English Language Learner (ELL), depending on the
The results of this analysis reveal that when teachers develop reporting agency or institution. For this reason, the term ELL will be
practices of discourse analysis, they come to new understandings used to index the I-identity. As demonstrated in Fig. 2, I followed
of students identities. Early in the year Allison and Lee were novices her analysis that was reported in her nal document and traced
at analyzing classroom transcripts. They also both reported to teach back her previous instances of using discourse analysis. Particu-
in a teacher-centered fashion, using IRE discourse structures most larly, I identied a moment in her nal report that referred back
of the time for the purpose of classroom management and expect- to two classroom events (November 3, 2010 and May 19, 2011).
ing quietness during group work, and this was veried when they From there, I was able to trace backwards to her third report, a dif-
reected on their rst three classroom videos and observed the ferent, and earlier, event in which Allison analyzed the May 19th
interactional structure pattern of their whole class discussion. Both classroom event. This reection report also linked back to the rst
teachers also acknowledged that their teaching contributed to the reection report in which Allison analyzed the November 10th and
 J.C. Rumenapp / Linguistics and Education 35 (2016) 2636 31

30th transcripts. Finally, this rst reection report was linked to just discussion about technology, she asks each group to select a
a few weeks earlier when Allison sat in the room with her colleagues speaker to share the results of the smaller discussions. The exam-
analyzing the November 3rd and 30th events for the very rst time. ple below is typical of the structure of the entire lesson. In
Throughout her action research, she wanted to understand how to the right column we see Allison and Lee talking about the clip:
best help her new comer students. The notion of shyness came
November 23, 2010 analysis of transcript from November 10, 2010
up 27 times in the data among all teachers and was associated only
with those ofcially categorized as ELLs; in six of these instances 01. Allison: So youre saying Lee: I felt like it was QUIET in
(2.0) theyre looking at there, like they didnt want to
Allison had been referring to a student in this group. While the
things on the internet (.) answer. So maybe they felt
identity of ELL was an institutionally dened identity, stemming and then what happens? tense, like a lot of pressure or
from ofcial documentation, shyness can be understood as a dis- (2.75) just didnt know what to say
cursive identity because of the way Allison interpreted silence in 02. PETER: ((inaudible 8.0))
classroom discourse (see below). However, in this instance, the two 03. Allison: so it makes them Allison: Well we talked about
less active? Anybody agree that at the meeting with
become linked to where the assumption of shyness is laminated on
or disagree? (1.0) What do [Professor]. It depends on the
the institutional identity ELL. you have to say. anybodys grade level, and I think thats
Allison had identied one student who had recently transitioned opinion on that? (2.75) true. Its the personality of the
from the bilingual program after receiving a particular test score Nobody has nothing to say class. They are a very quiet
that qualied her to be mainstreamed, Min Hin, as shy in her rst about that at all? (2.0) class. There is ZERO personality
Technology makes you less in this group. Zero
analysis of classroom discourse, in focus groups, and in her written active (..) So youre
reports. In this way, Min Hins identity was limited to the possibili- saying yes. you all agree?
ties allowed by the institutional discourses of the school. In the nal (2.0) Nobody has an
report, Allison notes that Min Hin, was extremely shy in the begin- opinion about any of that?
(1.0) I WANT TO HEAR from
ning of the year, but was much more comfortable toward the end of
you (2.0) SPEAKING GRADE
the year using both languages in classroom discourse. It is likely that (.) WEI SHENG
in the beginning of the year, based on the institutional identication
of Min Hin as an ELL and her natural identity as Chinese, that Allison In this excerpt, Allison controlled the conversation. She selected
interpreted silence in certain group interactions as being shy. Early the speakers and also asked repeated questions attempting to facil-
in the project several of the teachers had mentioned that the stu- itate a conversation. The 1.03.0 s pauses did not give the students
dents may be shy because they are Chinese and ELL, which would ample response time, nor did Allison share the power to initiate
align with the stereotypes noted by Lee (2009). In her nal report, questions. She attempted to implement a speaking grade, that is
Allison presents her analysis of the rst transcript she had done in grade points assigned if a student spoke in whole class discussion,
November of 2010. She notes the following about her observations: as a way to facilitate more whole class discussion. The trouble she
saw with the class was that they had no personality. Allison did
November 2010 analysis of transcript from November 3, 2010
recognize her own role; however, the interpretation early in the
01. Min Hin: ((speaking in During the rst year fell upon the students personalities, not her own instructional
Chinese)) videotaping from Unit choices.
02. ((covers her face as she 1, in [line 1], MH is so
responds to B3)) shy that she covers her
At this point in her action research process, Allison was a novice
03. B2: ((inaudible, speaks to B3)) face and pulls her body at analyzing classroom discourse. She based her interpretation of
04. B3: Shes too nervous away from the view of the data largely on turn taking and quantity of talk. Instead of dis-
((pointing to Min Hin, the camera. In [line 4] cussing Min Hin as an agent, using discourse to position herself, she
whispering)) (..) Shes too another member of the
attached the sign ELL to Min Hin and laminated the stereotype
nervous ((speaking louder, group tells everyone
looking at the boys across that MH is too shy to that minimal talking is equated to shyness.
from him)) (..) Shes too nervous to speak and Early in January, Allison explained in her rst reection report
nervous to look at that keeps telling everyone that
((looking at researcher, she is too nervous. As
pointing at G1 and video teacher I noticed that I learned from studying the transcripts, which
camera)) MH was always quiet Min Hin the only girl in that group, started
05. Min Hin: ((speaking in and shy in the
to speak up more. She was not as giggly and
Chinese)) classroom setting.
unwilling to speak into the microphone with her
Allison had understood that Min Hins body language and lack of group members as she was the first videotaping.
speaking was associated with shyness. Allisons analysis stemmed largely from turn taking and quantity
Other potential understandings of Min Hins identity were of talk during her analysis of the November 10 and November 30
essentially ignored in favor of institutionally dening her as an ELL, transcripts, but she fell back on the rst video to solidify her de-
which led to Allisons interpretation of Min Hins silence in certain nition of Min Hin. While she did recognize the change in Min Hins
transcripts as being shy. For example, in the classroom interac- behavior as not as giggly and unwilling to speak, she viewed her
tion above, Min Hin was able to effectively communicate with her identity in unchanging roles, not in terms of dynamic discursive
peers in Chinese about the topic, and the quietness seemed to be a positions.
temporary nervousness (as indicated by her peers) because of the This changes in June 2011 when Allison analyzed her second
classroom video taping, not the actual discursive role in the group unit, several months after having nished her analysis from unit 1.
(lines 1 and 3). Yet the identity of shy ELL was applied by Allison. She developed the practices to look at discourse in the transcripts
This was not the only time Allison attributed the discourse more deeply. Below is a typical transcript Allison used, in which
pattern in her classroom as a result of her students person- Chinese is not translated. Allisons analysis from her third reection
alities. In the analysis meeting on November 23, 2010, which report in June appears on the right side. The students were trying
took place after the analysis presented above, Allison showed to solve a simulated mystery on May 19, 2011, which appears on
a clip of her video from the November 10th class that began the left:
by focusing on interaction among four focal students and then
switched to the whole classroom. Directly following a small group
32 J.C. Rumenapp / Linguistics and Education 35 (2016) 2636

dent was mediated by the use of the transcript and allowed Allison
June 2011 analysis of transcript from May 19, 2011 to recast the identity ELL as a discursive identity rather than an
01. Wei Sheng: Maybe MH is very active in this video
institutional identity.
Genes dog might clip. She is engaged in the This change in the way she viewed identity seems to be dialecti-
bite Vera. conversation while students cally related to Allisons practice as well. Whereas early in the year
02. Min Hin: Maybe (..) were speaking in English and Allison maintained control of the classroom by identifying students
the dog bite. she understands what is going
to speak as seen in the example above from November 10, later she
03. Yaozu: Sounds like on.
lady. attempted to release control and foster dialogue among students.
04. Pengfei: Lets write She noted that the discourse structure of the classroom might not
it down first. actually be predetermined by student identity. In her nal report,
05. Min Hin: Maybe (..) In [previous conversation], she summarizes her learning and notes that
((talking Chinese notice that MH is laughing and
for about 1 min)) rocking back and forth and I discovered in reflecting on my practices, that
06. Pengfei: CAN YOU having a great time during the
because it was the first videotaping of the stu-
SPEAK ENGLISH? discourse (throughout the clip,
07. Wei Sheng: ((Talking MH is laughing). WS clearly dents, they were very quiet, possibly because I
Chinese)) dominates the English was using an IRE style. The whole class instruc-
08. Wei Sheng: So, he was conversation and takes the lead tion consisted of me prompting questions and
sleeping so I saw by discussing what he thinks trying to get the students to answer.
what happened. about the conclusion to the
09. Min Hin: ((Talking mystery. MH, in [line 1] speaks When she did not see students responding to her, or when she
Chinese)) in English indicating that she saw students hiding their faces, she attributed this to their person-
10. Min Hin: ((pointing can speak English. This is not
to Wei Sheng paper typical of her behavior during
ality and status as an ELL. However, as she rened her approach to
and turns the regular class time. She usually discourse analysis and looked at the roles her students were play-
pages.)) just sits quietly and there is no ing in classroom discourse, she started to view student identity as
11. Pengfei: Ok, now reaction or facial expression. something that is performative, not static. She then attempted to
what?
reorganize the classroom, including at least one instance (May 10,
MH is responding in
Chinese many times: 2011) in which she physically reorganized the room into a circle
[previous conversation, to allow for discussion among students, but more generally in her
line 5, and line 9]. She is attempt to open up opportunities in small groups for interactions.
talking so much in Chinese
that PF, yells at her and
tells her to speak English
4.2. Lee: students as passive learners to co-constructors
(line 6).
Throughout the year, Lee had an interest in understanding gen-
Min Hin used both languages with her group. Prior to this excerpt der roles in her classroom. By the time of her nal report she had
she had mostly been speaking in Chinese. In line 2 she offered a shifted from a dichotomist approach to gender as an explanation
hypothesis about the simulated mystery the group was attempting for student interaction to understanding student discourse as per-
to solve. Pengfei requested to begin writing rst before they got into forming identities. In Fig. 3 the trajectory for this case is displayed.
evidence to support their claims about the mystery (line 4), and Min Initially, Lee understood identity largely as N-identities as boy
Hin explained her thoughts for about one minute in Chinese. In my and girl as well as I-identities that she had created for an activity
observations, and corroborated by Allisons own account, Min Hin such as cutter, colorer, and other roles with specic responsi-
rarely had spoken for such long amounts of time, so this caught Alli- bilities that she had institutionalized within her classroom.
sons attention. As she transcribed the section, she noted that in line When she initially reected on a class period from November
6 Pengfei raised his voice telling Min Hin to speak in English. Allison 15th in the November 23rd meeting, she noted that the classroom
also explained that Wei Sheng, who she considered to be the leader seemed chaotic because she had several groups in which stu-
of the group, validated Min Hins point in Chinese and English. In dents were cutting paper and making a bar graph. The problem
line 9, Min Hin responded, refusing to acquiesce to Pengfei and was that if a student was a colorer, he or she could not begin
turned the paper to point to evidence she had been gathering in working until after the cutter was done. Her assumption was that
the mystery case. Allison wrote about this event in her nal report: the roles she assigned were problematic. Just a few months later
in February, after she had spent more time analyzing the video,
This is a change in student discourse. She is
she drew a dichotomy between boys and girls. Lee links these N-
more confident in speaking, and continues to
and I-identities and judges the boys and girls in relation to on-
interact with her peers, despite Pengfeis demand
task because they are positioned into passive interactional roles.
to use English.
Note this in the transcript and Lees interpretation of the transcript:
Allison picked up on something that she initially did not in pre-
vious analyses of transcripts. She noted that this decision to speak February reporting of analysis of November 15, 2010 transcript
in Chinese is not a result of limited English prociency, but rather 01. Leo: Why are you standing? As mentioned earlier in this
it is a choice that is actively made and expressed discursively as 02. Stanley: I want to say after paper, one of the things that I
she responded in Chinese many times. Additionally, Allison inter- ((inaudible word)) and was interested in nding out
thats it. was if my students were on
preted Pengfeis outburst as being a response to Min Hin talking too
03. Leo: La la la la ((banging task and how they
much in Chinese, and even challenging him by not writing things hands on desk)). communicated with each
down rst. Min Hin, rather than being shy and quiet, was now 04. Angela: Five plus one is other. As I observed the videos,
viewed as a leader and condent, an identity that stemmed from six. Six plus zero is six. I did notice how the boys
her discursive moves rather than passive role. Allison noticed the ((writes on paper)) tended to be distracted a lot
05. Leo: Say that easier than the girls.
rejection of Pengfeis demand to speak English as an asset, rather 06. Angela: <ten plus ten is one
than a decit and attributed it to Min Hins change in disposition three>
and discourse, though how she understood Min Hins interactions 07. Stanley: yeah I know that
also changed. This understanding of Min Hin as agentive and con-
 J.C. Rumenapp / Linguistics and Education 35 (2016) 2636 33

08. Charise: Three plus two is was afraid students may talk too long. This was part of her own
five learning process to allow students to be sharers of the conversation
09. Stanley: Thats not markers
10. Leo: You used the regular
and recognized that she needed to listen. She saw her role as steer-
markers? ing them back to the learning objective. The implicit assumptions
were that she was the teacher-expert and the students were sharing
When conducting her analysis, Lee seems to use the transcript to only information she had requested, thus restricting the possible
conrm her expectation that boys will be distracted more eas- social identities that students could perform. In her analysis, she
ily. She allows her association of the N-identity boy to guide focused mostly on turn taking and time of talk.
her analysis of the interaction. When she approached the tran- Lee changed throughout the year. She shifted in her practices
script, she carried into it the assumption that Leo (line 3) and of analyzing transcripts by focusing on D-identities of her students
Stanley (previous conversation) were off task because they were and the potential tensions those may pose for her as a teacher.
boys. However, in lines 9 and 10 Stanley and Leo were indeed Lee had developed her second unit around inquiry into air pollu-
on-task, talking about one of their assignmentscolorer. She tion. She posed questions, and allowed her students to respond.
identied them as being distracted because they were not assist- She noted in the following example that she challenged her stu-
ing the girls with the addition and were not talking about the dents about what they were saying, but that they had convinced
activity (lines 13). However, they did start to discuss their spe- her of their point.
cic roles. Lee also associated the N-identity boy with being 01. Lee: Ok. But Im saying. How We had great discussion as a
distracted and off task while analyzed the transcript below from can cellphones or phones help class on how they felt that
November 5th. The actual reporting of this event is found in her nal the Earth? Andrew said phones phones are things at home that
report, though the analysis would have taken place during unit 1. can help the Earth. Do you assist the earth. At rst I didnt
agree? Do you not agree? Not see it, but then they were able
Unit 1 analysis of transcript from November 5, 2010 agree? Who says not agree? to convince me that if their
((Students raise hands)) home caught on re, they
01. Lee: ((Students I saw that my students were very 02. Chrisian: I agree. would be able to call the re
reading a chart interested in Club Penguin. I did not 03. Lee: Those who say it does help department to put out the re
along with me of know what it was but I saw the our Earth. Why? before more smoke could
things they know)) excitement in my students voices and in 04. Mei Lian: Because when our pollute our air.
mouse, keyboard, their facial expressions when that topic house got on fire. We can
screens are a part came up. call 9-1-1 to the
of technology, firefighters to save us.
laptop, email, 05. Lee: Oh. So if our house gets
gmail, google, on fire, we can call 9-1-1 to
search button are help us right? And if our
all technology. We house gets on fire. Is fire
talked about Club good for our Earth?
Penguin. 06. Students: No!
02. Students: ((getting Ben especially wanted to share when he 07. Lee: And so if we have a phone.
louder, eyes kept calling for my attention, but I knew 08. Ashaunte: But sometimes fire
becoming wider and that he was one of my most talkative can help us warm up our food
students exchanging students so there was a good possibility 09. Lee: Oh and if our house
facial expressions)) that he would be talking about it for a catches on fire, we can call
03. Will: Ooh:: You can while. the firefighters to put out
collect money! our fire faster. Oh (..) I
04. Eric: I cannot play love it!
Club Penguin because
its too long. Whereas in the rst unit Lee was looking for conrmation of her
05. Lee: Yeah. Will brought the topic up again as if he
own expectations of how the classroom interaction should be
06. Ben: Ms. D. I have so really wanted to talk about Club Penguin
much money but I noticed that I dismissed him again. I organized, here she is viewing the students as co-constructors of
07. Lee: You do. Oh my was worried that by opening the oor up conversation. Even though she did not initially see their contri-
goodness. to him that it would open up a whole bution (i.e., cell phone) as environmentally responsible, because
08. Ben: I only got two new discussion where students would all they provided good reasons, Lee was willing to engage in discussion
pets. want to share and thus the topic of
09. Lee: Oh. Okay. technology would be delayed even
about the potential environmental.
10. John: I got three longer During unit 2, one student hypothesized that the air was pol-
pets. luted because people smoke. This led Lee to take a new approach
11. Will: and. Ms. D? in unit 3 and build a unit around smoking, which included a
12. Lee: Okay boys and
student-developed survey that was administered to their parents.
girls. Do you
remember you guys In this example, Lee developed a sense of the students identi-
drew a lot of paper ties, specically through creating and analyzing a survey with
the other day. students. Specically, she reected on how the wording of her
13. Will: Ms. D? I made a decision that I had to be interactions with students on the surveys may be misperceived by
14. Lee: Hold on one sensitive to what my students had to say
second Ben. So lets and make a conscious effort to
the parents. Below we can see how she began to analyze this class-
see. Remember we did attentively listen, but to also bring the room discourse differently from her initial attempts at analysis.
all these drawing on discussion back to the objective of the
what technology was lesson if I see that it is not benecial to
to you? learning.

Lee focused on both the content and pattern of talk in the

transcript. She noted that she stied the conversation because she
34 J.C. Rumenapp / Linguistics and Education 35 (2016) 2636

Final report analysis of transcript from June 10, 2011 the transcript until later. During unit two she was more aware of the
01. Lee: So what happens to My students are having a
role students played in constructing the curriculum. She allowed
us if we smoke? conversation on their own and the analysis of classroom talk to drive her understanding of stu-
02. Kevin: Your lungs will be asking questions. After Will asked his dent identity, rather than vice versa, as was evident in her earlier
black and get a hole in question of why people can have analyses. This was a struggle she mentioned she had been having
it. holes in their lungs, Eric was able to
all year, How much authority should I actually give them, where
03. Lee: Ok. Vera? make a personal connection that he
04. Vera: You can die. had holes in his teeth. Yong, a and when should I draw this boundary, and how much should I
05. Will: Ms. D. How can you bilingual student who rarely tolerate before things get out of hand? (nal report). The distribu-
get holes? participated in whole group tion of authority reorganizes the possibilities for student identities.
06. Lee: Hmm (.) How do we discussion, raised her hand and made In the beginning of the year, Lee controlled the conversation, stu-
get holes? How do you a connection of her own about
think we get holes in peoples teeth changing color. I know
dents were largely seen as tting into N- or I-identities, but when
our lungs? that her dad smokes which is where the control of classroom discourse was somewhat relinquished, Lee
07. Will: Maybe the smoke her comment and background saw her students identities as being performed. In her nal anal-
damages it (.) Maybe knowledge came from. These ysis, she began to identify students in an agentive way, not just as
like (.) like the smoke activities that are meaningful and
passive learners of teacher content. Students were not achieving
08. Ethan: Probably the lung where students have had prior
cells. experience show that students can a particular objective, but were co-creating the very objectives of
09. Eric: I have holes in my be the leaders. They allow students to the lessons. This opens up new possible identities for students as
teeth. exercise and express their thoughts Lee restructured her discussions with students around their own
10. Lee: Yong? and opinions, thus encouraging them ability to guide the direction of the conversation.
11. Yong: If youre smoking to be independent thinkers. Ethan
your teeth can change expressed his thoughts very
color (.) um (.) like articulately of how he believes holes
brown in your teeth or are created in lungs which allowed 5. Discussion
yellow. me to see how he processes
12. Lee: Uh huh. Yong? information. It was unbelievable!
The two cases presented above demonstrate that as teachers
13. Yong: Youll meet the Guy
of Death! engaged in new analytic practices, they viewed their students in
14. Lee: Oh yes, you might new and multiple ways. Initially, both Allison and Lee viewed their
meet him. Yes Ethan? students from static categories that roughly correspond to Gees
15. Ethan: uh (.) your lungs
N- and I-perspectives of identity. Through their action research
probably get holes
because um (.) because
projects, teachers tended to shift to understand student identity
of your lung cells (.) in terms of discursive moves (D-identities), allowing their analy-
your lung cells protect sis to inform their view of students and subsequent instructional
the lung and the lung planning. Action research, and more specically discourse analysis,
and outside of the
then, can be used as a tool to reect on social relationships in the
lungs (.) and some
cells might die and classroom and the potential possibilities for pedagogy.
create a hole. The teachers in this study did not change their assumptions and
16. Lee: Wow, I like that expectations of students after a rst analysis of text. It took many
answer! readings of text, including the transcribing of video les, coding
for discourse structures and interactional roles, and discussion of
This example demonstrates a shift in analysis. Rather than focus-
texts to be able to get to the point where they broke away from ini-
ing on the structure and order, she analyzed the logical connection
tial perspectives about students. In the two cases discussed in this
between student statements. Will and Ben, in November, were
paper, we could point to a shift beginning in unit two. On initially
assumed to be leading the conversation off-track. Here, Lee noted
approaching a transcript, teachers only seemed to note structural
that Yongs comments (line 11) are a connection to the conversa-
features of text. However, as they began to make sense of what
tion. Additionally, the gender distinction made above is not nearly
the text means for social interaction, they saw different possible
as distinct as she mentions Eric, Ethan, and Will as contributing
identities for their students and may have organized instruction to
substantially along with Yong (lines 5, 7, 8, 9, 15). Lee allowed her
allow for a more full expression of these identities. They tended to
reading of the transcript to inform her own thinking about students
move from assumptions of passive identities to observing students
rather than previously bringing in her assumptions about students
as agentive.
to interpret the transcript. We see a shift in Lees practice of doing
In the rst case Allison viewed her students as quiet and shy,
discourse analysis from textual analysis to analysis of what lan-
especially Min Hin who was in her focal group. However, when she
guage is doing and what it means for students to interact in the
began to look closely at the group interactions, she saw that what
manner in which they are.
initially may have appeared as shyness or fear of speaking could
Lee mentioned that Yong, a bilingual student, has a qualitative
actually be understood as a form of agentive interaction. That is, in
shift in discursive practice. She also noted that Ethan expresses his
the instance in which Min Hin seemed to directly resist Pengfei, Alli-
thoughts articulately. Whereas in the beginning of the year she
son saw Min Hin as enacting agency through her discursive choice.
was looking at static categories of on/off task and natural identities
Likewise, while initially she viewed students as quiet or having
of boy/girl, using a dichotomy to interpret the transcripts, here she
zero personality and just reporting ndings to the class, she later
allowed students to develop more complex discursive identities.
observed that her own discursive choices may have been restricting
She noticed that something that seems off task might actually
the possible roles students could take up in the classroom.
have a broader purpose such as making personal connections.
In the second case we see Lee study classroom discourse. Initially
We see this struggle over how to understand student identity in
she had set her classroom up to restrict discursive interaction and
Lees case. In her rst attempt at analyzing classroom discourse, Lee
avoid students being too loud and chaotic, though she attempted
saw students as struggling for time, and that using too much time
to intentionally open up the opportunity for student interaction.
could be problematic, as indexed by her referring to Ben as one of
Lee notices that students can have agentive stances when their
the most talkative. While she was reective about her own role in
voices are heard. What may seem like off-task talking may very well
the classroom, she did not develop more critical ways of analyzing
be moral tensions playing out in the classroom. Carrying assump-
 J.C. Rumenapp / Linguistics and Education 35 (2016) 2636 35

Narrating Event:
November 23rd Analysis Meeting

Narrated Event:
November 10th Classroom
Allison
Allison Wei Sheng

Lee Peter
Other
Students

Fig. 4. The relationship of narrated and narrating events.

tions of student identity into the classroom seemed to align with Fortune and the anonymous reviewers for their insights and feed-
more restrictive teaching practices (i.e., boys are off-task). When back.
Lees analysis allowed for the inductive investigation of student
interaction she saw that they had the power to co-construct the
conversation, even if it may seem to conict with her own thoughts Appendix A. Methodological appendix
and ideas. Thus, Lees analysis of the classroom allowed for her to
open up new identity possibilities for students. The distinction between narrated and narrating events was pro-
The use of discourse analysis allowed both teachers to move posed by Jakobson (1957/1971) and has continued to be a central
from apparently static assumptions of student identity used to tenet to many approaches of discourse analysis. Narrated events
interpret classroom interaction to using classroom interactions to are events that are talked about in narrating events. In other words,
infer student identity possibilities. The appropriation and use of the distinction provides a way to analyze speech by looking back
discourse analysis requires a particular set of perspectives about at the moments which are being talked about. Drawing on the
how language works. Reecting on how language works in the methodology proposed by Wortham and Reyes (2015), Fig. 4 below
classroom seems to play a role in shifting the practice and the organizes these events of the second example presented in Allisons
view of student identity. As teachers change their view of student case study.
identity, their pedagogical decisions may also change. This is sup- The narrating event consists of Allison and Lee talking about an
ported by the literature on using forms of discourse analysis to event that had occurred in Allisons classroom on November 10th.
change practices (Barraja-Rohan, 2011; Razfar, 2011) and the CA Specically, they were analyzing the discourse between Allison,
and CDA literature on identity (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998; Bae & Peter, Wei Sheng, and other students. Thus, I examined the link
Oh, 2013; Park, 2007; Rogers & Wetzel, 2014). Furthermore, these between these two events, specically by attending to how Allison
ndings seem to be corroborated by the language ideologies litera- and Lee refer to the narrated event.
ture in which the common sense beliefs about language seem to be
dialectically related to instructional decisions (Razfar & Rumenapp,
2011). References
More research is needed to investigate the particulars of the
relationship between how teachers view student identities and Antaki, C., & Widdicombe, S. (Eds.). (1998). Identities in talk. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in
their pedagogical choices, such as if there is a causal or dialectical minority disproportionate representation: English Language Learners in urban
relationship. Teachers can use discourse analysis to develop their school districts. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283300.
own praxis by closely looking at the social interactions in the class- Bae, E. Y., & Oh, S. Y. (2013). Native speaker and nonnative speaker identities in
repair practices of English conversation. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,
room. Discourse analysis provides a structured and sound way to 36(1), 2050.
reect on language use in the classroom and could be implemented Bakhtin, M. (1981). In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: four essays.
in teacher education courses or communities of practice in schools Austin: University of Texas Press. C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.
Barraja-Rohan, A. M. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language
to further complicate restrictive classroom environments and bet- classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research,
ter understand the role language and literacy plays in the identity 15(4), 479507.
formation of students. Discourse analysis provides the potential Baynham, M. (2006). Agency and contingency in the language learning of refugees
and asylum seekers. Linguistics and Education, 17(1), 2439. http://dx.doi.org/
for change in classroom practice when teachers actively reect on
10.1016/j.linged.2006.08.008
classroom discourse and, specically, the roles and identities of Bottema-Beutel, K., & Smith, N. (2013). The interactional construction of identity:
students in classroom discourse. an adolescent with autism in interaction with peers. Linguistics and Education,
24(2), 197214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.12.002
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The at world and education: how Americas
Acknowledgements commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and
Data collection for this study was funded by the Department Education, 4, 269293.
of Educations Ofce of English Language Acquisition through a Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language (2nd
training grant focused on improving instruction for English Lan- ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some)
guage Learners under the direction of Dr. Aria Razfar at the fundamental concepts in second language acquisition research. Modern
University of Illinois at Chicago. I would also like to thank Angela Language Journal, 81(3), 285300.
36 J.C. Rumenapp / Linguistics and Education 35 (2016) 2636

Flores, N., & Schissel, J. L. (2014). Dynamic bilingualism as the norm: envisioning a Razfar, A. (2010). Repair with conanza: rethinking the context of corrective
heteroglossic approach to standards-based reform. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), feedback for English Learners (ELS). English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(2),
454479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tesq.182 1131.
Gardner, R. (2008). Conversation analysis and orientation to learning. Journal of Razfar, A. (2011). Action research in urban schools: empowerment,
Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 229244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/japl.v5i2.229 transformation, and challenges. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(4), 2544.
Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Razfar, A. (2012). Discoursing mathematically: using discourse analysis to develop
Research in Education, 25(1), 99125. a sociocritical perspective of mathematics education. Mathematics Educator,
Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). 22(1), 3962.
London, New York: Routledge. Razfar, A., & Rumenapp, J. C. (2011). Developmental context(s): mediating learning
Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method (3rd ed.). through language ideologies. Human Development, 54(4), 241269.
New York: Routledge. Razfar, A., & Rumenapp, J. C. (2014). Applying linguistics in the classroom: a
Gee, J. P. (2014). How to do discourse analysis: a toolkit (2nd ed.). New York, NY: sociocultural approach. New York: Routledge.
Routledge. Razfar, A., Troiano, B., Nasir, A., Yang, E., Rumenapp, J. C., & Torres, Z. (2015).
Gutirrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Becoming teacher researchers: using English learners linguistic capital to
Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/rrq.43.2. socially re-organize learning. In P. Smith, & A. Kumi-Yeboah (Eds.), Handbook of
3 research on cross-cultural approaches to language and literacy development (pp.
Hull, G., Zacher, J., & Hibbert, L. (2009). Youth, risk, and equity in a global world. 261298). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Review of Research in Education, 33, 117159. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/ Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2013). The SAGE handbook of action research:
0091732X08327746 participative SAGE inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: the discoursal construction of identity in Rex, L. A., & Schiller, L. (2009). Using discourse analysis to improve classroom
academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. teaching. New York: Routledge.
Jakobson, R. (1957/1971). Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In R. Rogers, R., & Mosley Wetzel, M. (2014). In P. J. Dunston, S. K. Fullerton, M. W. Cole,
Jakobson (Ed.) Selected writings: vol. 2. (pp. 130147). The Hague: Mouton. D. Herro, J. A. Malloy, P. M. Wilder, & K. N. Headley (Eds.), 63rd yearbook of the
Kibler, A. (2011). Understanding the mmhm: dilemmas in talk between teachers Literacy Research Association (pp. 296307). Altamonte Springs, FL: Literacy
and adolescent emergent bilingual students. Linguistics and Education, 22, Research Association.
213232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2010.11.002 Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the
Lee, S. J. (2009). Unraveling the model minority stereotype: listening to Asian organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696735.
American youth (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: a primer in conversation
Lew, J. (2004). The other story of model minorities: Korean American high school analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
dropouts in an urban context. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35(3), Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289327.
303323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2004.35.3.303 Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction
Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: an introduction to critical in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361382.
discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21(3), 348. Silverstein, M. (1992). The indeterminacy of contextualization: when is enough
Martn-del-Campo, B., Garca, L. R., Lorca, M. M., de las Heras Mnguez, G., & del enough? In P. Auer, & A. Di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp.
Rosario Daz-Perea, M. (2010). When the old is stronger than the new: 5576). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
introduction of constructivist methodology in a special education school. Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life.
Linguistics and Education, 21(3), 143170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged. Language and Communication, 23, 193229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0271-
2009.09.003 5309(03)00013-2
McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory action research (qualitative research methods). Skidmore, D., & Murakami, K. (2012). Claiming our own space: polyphony in
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. teacher-student dialogue. Linguistics and Education, 23(2), 200210. http://dx.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2005). Both a ction and an existential fact: theorizing doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.02.003
identity in second language acquisition and literacy studies. Linguistics and Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park,
Education, 16(3), 253274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.02.001 CA: Sage.
Mitchell, J. C. (1984). Case studies. In R. F. Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographic research: a guide Unamuno, V. (2008). Multilingual switch in peer classroom interaction. Linguistics
to general conduct (pp. 237241). Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc. and Education, 19(1), 119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2008.01.002
Mohr, K. J., & Mohr, E. S. (2007). Extending English-Language Learners classroom Valencia, R. (1997). Conceptualizing the notion of decit thinking. In R. Valencia
interactions using the response protocol. The Reading Teacher, 60(5), 440450. (Ed.), The evolution of decit thinking: educational thought and practice (pp.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for 112). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society,
Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132141. 4(2), 249283.
Nero, S. J. (2005). Language, identities, and ESL pedagogy. Language and Education, Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman
19(3), 194211. (Eds.), Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in Wells, G. (2001). Action, talk, and text: learning and teaching through inquiry. New
time: investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom York, NY: Teachers College Press.
discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ Wertsch, J. V. (1991). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L. B.
s15326950dp3502 3 Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared
Park, J. E. (2007). Co-construction of nonnative speaker identity in cross-cultural cognition (pp. 85100). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
interaction. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 339360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). Second-language learning in children: a model of
applin/amm001 language learning in social context. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in
Park, P. (2006). Knowledge and participatory research. In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury bilingual children (pp. 4969). New York: Cambridge University Press.
(Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 8393). London: Sage Publications. Wortham, S. (2008). The objectication of identity across events. Linguistics and
Perez, B. (1996). Instructional conversations as opportunities for English language Education, 19(3), 294311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2008.05.010
acquisition for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Language Arts, Wortham, S., & Reyes, A. (2015). Discourse analysis beyond the speech event. New
73(3), 173181. York, NY: Routledge.
Peterson, S., & Calovini, T. (2004). Social ideologies in grade eight students Yang, K. (2004). Southeast Asian American children: not the model minority. The
conversation and narrative writing. Linguistics and Education, 15(1), 121139. Future of Children, 14(2), 127132.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2004.12.001 Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: the study of talk-in-action. Thousand CA: SAGE Publications.
Oaks: Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to nish (2nd ed.). New York:
Razfar, A. (2005). Language ideologies in practice: repair and classroom discourse. Guilford Press.
Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 404424.