ENED+690+Proposal

=
//**Context:** As an English Education major, the culminating project for the graduate degree is to engage in classroom-based research and methodology utilizing qualitative data from students. After taking Literature in School and Society, I realized that language is something of interest to me, and consequently, I was seeing language choices taking place in my classroom that I wanted to explore. Therefore, I built my research questions and literature review around not only a question I had concerning the occurrences in my classroom but also around a field of study that peaked my interest during my graduate studies. This page includes my proposal set to the Institutional Review Board at Gardner-Webb University for approval during the fall semester of 2011. //=====

=

 * I have not only placed my proposal below, but also linked it as a document. The formatting for my references page below is incorrect, but it is in correct APA format on the document link above. **=====

Discursive Moves: From Face-to-Face to Online Discussion in a High School English Classroom Lorelei N. Futrelle Gardner-Webb University INTRODUCTION  It was my first week of teaching AP Language & Composition last spring and in order to get my students to interact with each other outside the classroom, I set up an Edmodo account for each of my two classes. Their first assignment: view Stephen Colbert’s “newscast” about the raid and subsequent death of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and respond on a discussion thread. I turned the assignment off at 10:00 p.m. that night so I could review the discussion board before I went to bed that night. When I started reading, the number of students who either did not respond in a constructive manner to the discussion questions and/or each other’s post, or simply did not complete the assignment astounded me. In the moment, I thought to myself, I either didn’t give clear enough directions or my students have no idea what they are doing when it comes to online discussion.

 The next day, my students claimed they didn’t know how to “work it” or that they didn’t know what my expectations were. I asked them about their responses – the one-word answers or the “I agrees” that littered the discussion board after the first person posted. I asked why they decided to write that way because I was puzzled. They gave a variety of answers: that is “all they could think to say”; didn’t know how to “have a conversation with the person when they aren’t directly in front of me.” These types of commentary really baffled me. I thought, “They can have conversations over text messages or chat on facebook but they can’t work a discussion thread?” “How can they not have anything else to add to an on-going conversation? Can they not think on their own?” These types of responses, and my own questions, remind me now of my first semester of graduate school, the semester before I started teaching AP, in Literary Criticism in the fall of 2010 when I was introduced to the online world of education. I had never submitted //any// of my assignments through an online platform before, and to be quite honest, I wasn’t quite sure how to navigate it at all – not just the physical aspect but also the composition and rhetoric components. Without me knowing it at the time, my students were repeating my own questions straight back to me. “What does she expect out of this type of assignment?” “How should I be responding to this – the way I do in class or another manner?” “Who is my audience? Is it just the teacher?”

 As the semester went on, my AP students began to use Edmodo more often for different types of assignments other than the discussion board thread, but despite the regularity (at least twice a week) that we used it, there still seemed to be some disconnect between my intentions as a teacher and my students’ execution of any online assignment. However, despite some of the issues that were still going on, more students were engaged and learning in different ways. Because I saw the positive outcomes of my own “online education” – being able to extend my learning beyond the walls of the traditional classroom by utilizing the resources I had – my classmates - I decided to start a Ning with the other AP English teacher in my school this school year. Ning is a social networking site that includes many features such as discussion threads, blogs, profile pages, sharing documents, and more. I chose to use Ning as a class website space to safely continue communication outside the confines of our classroom walls. The other teacher and I share the Ning, but my students have their own class groups and discussion board topics within those groups. Because of this addition, my students had a newer environment to adapt to. I center my classroom on collaborative, student-centered learning through round table discussions, small group work, Socratic seminars, writing groups, writing and reading workshops, daybook writing, and portfolios. I’ve created this environment and these situations in order to foster student learning, and I knew that the Ning would be a great complement to this already existing way of learning and teaching. But I soon noticed that students had some of the same issues I did as a graduate student, and as their AP predecessors.

 For their summer assignment, students were asked to respond to several different discussion threads about their summer reading assignments - a choice novel and a required novel where I gave some parameters and tips about how to post their responses. Some students took the opportunity to “show off” their academic distinction by producing replies to their individual novels like Brenda:

I think that Ishmael was fighting two battles. The battle that was at hand, and the battle within himself. He said several times that they joined the army to live, because that was the only way to get food and shelter, and to also get "pay back" on the rebles that were accused of killing his family. However, i think that in Ishmael's mind he was just like the rebles. He realized that he was not just killing the people how killed his parents but he was also killing someone else's parents. Maybe the reason why remembering his parents was so hard on his was not only that he missed them but he had also just put someone else in the same situation.

I think the ending of the story was a great way to end. Ishmael had trouble all throughout the story remebering his childhood and not wanting to bring it up, and i feel that when he ended the story with a spicific story from his past showed that is some way he accepted what had happened to him and what he had done. I think this particular story also sums up the book very well. He had a choice, he could either kill the monkey or not, but either way someone he loved would be taken way. He had a choice, he could either fight or not, but either way the damage was already done.

Brenda’s response was essentially what I was looking for – a decent synthesis response to the novel, not just a brief emotional response to what they read and took away from the novel. But then I also had students who responded like Tiara: “i do agree gerge would have been better iff by himself, but wen you care about some one you think about them first”. Tiara’s response was not up to the expectations that I had for my AP students: it was not an in-depth synthesis of the novel, nor was it well thought out. Tiara seemed to have rushed through this assignment, as indicated by her severely careless errors.

 I’m still engaging my students in this online space, but now I see the need to look deeper into exactly what my students are doing in this space and be able to look at how it differs from the traditional classroom environment. Based on some ideas and work about language from Vygotsky (1975) and Gee (2009), I’m seeing that my students are learning to navigate different rhetorical situations, including those inside and outside of the traditional walls of a classroom.  There has been much research about the benefits of computer-based and collaborative learning in the English classroom as well as how people in general conceptualize and express language in either spoken or written forms [Vygotsky (1975), Emerson (1983), Holquist (1983)]. However, there is a gap in the literature exploring the change in language in native English speakers within those rhetorical contexts. Therefore, my research questions are as follows:
 * What happens, if anything, within students’ language in multiple rhetorical situations in a high school English classroom setting?
 * How, if at all, do students change their language according to different rhetorical purposes (daybook writing, Ning posts, reflections, essays, class discussions)?
 * How, if at all, do students change their language according to different audiences (face-to-face encounters [small groups, student-teacher, round table discussion], online discussion boards, administrator presence)?
 * How, if at all, do students conceptualize rhetorical concepts such as audience and purpose?
 * How, if at all, do students conceptualize their knowledge of rhetorical concepts, such as audience and purpose, and utilize that knowledge to gain awareness of their own responses?

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%; text-align: center;">REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">//Why is there a need for this research?// <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> In order to delve into the inner workings of a classroom centered in collaborative learning and the implications for students’ language because of this environment, we need to review the conversation going on between other researchers.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">The key questions guiding this literature review revolve around two ideas within my key research questions: language and the collaborative classroom. Defining terms such as language, discourse, discourse analysis and rhetorical situation are important in setting up this story. Therefore, there are four key questions that need to be answered. What does language look like in a collaborative classroom? In many instances as a classroom teacher, I have seen how a student’s language will change depending on the audience, subject and text. What do we mean when we talk about language? Language is used as a fairly broad term amongst students and teachers, so it’s important to understand language’s parts and pieces as well as its purpose according to researchers and linguists. What is discourse and how is it “different” from language? There have been movements in linguistics over the last 90 years that changes how we look at “language” and the ideas, especially contextual and social, behind how language functions in society. What is a rhetorical situation? A popular term in rhetoric, I am going to challenge the “standard” definition by creating my own that also includes some of the language used by discourse analysts and linguists.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">//What does language look like in my classroom?// <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Collaborative education is nothing new, but yet it still not seen as the “traditional” way of educating students, nor is it a “normal” view of learning from a students’ perspective. Vygotsky (1962) stressed “collaborative learning, either among students or between students and a teacher, is essential for assisting each student in advancing through his/her own zone of proximal development” (Warschauer 1997, 471). As defined by Vygotsky (1987), zone of proximal development (ZPD) is known as “what the child is able to do in collaboration today he will be able to do independently tomorrow” (p. 211). Vygotsky posited that all humans are social learners; therefore, collaboration during learning is a key to all learners reaching their potential and going beyond their ZPD. Therefore, collaborative and collective learning is a feature of education that all teachers should be attuned to and utilizing in the classroom. Face-to-face collaborative activities that include different audiences, such as writing groups, writing conferences, round-table discussions, small-group activities (read-around, think-pair-share, Socratic seminars), and dialogue journals, are all utilized in my classroom on a daily basis.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> As a writing tool for inside and outside the classroom, students are asked to keep a daybook in my classroom to “write about their lives, to keep track of their thinking, and to notice all the world around them with open eyes and ears and hearts” (Brannon et al., 2008). Students are asked to use their daybook as a space to explore their thinking and writing, but also as a place to reflect. This daybook serves as an extension of each of my students – each student’s daybook is specific to that particular person. Not only are daybooks essential to my students’ daily interactions with literary and non-literary happenings, it also serves as a communication tool through dialogue journals and portfolios (process and showcase).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Students are also a part of our class Ning, a safe, social networking site where my students can interact with or without my facilitation using discussion board threaded discussions or blogs. Students use Ning for online writing, something that is becoming more popular and inherently important in the educational field because “of their ability to foster interaction and communication between students” (Klopfer, et al., 2009, 1). This type of interaction between students, and also between students and teachers at times, tries to bridge the “sharp disconnect between the way students are taught in school and the way the outside world approaches socialization” (Klopfer, et al., 2009, 1). The utilization of Ning in my classroom allows my students to talk about their learning and discoveries in the environment they have been surrounded by since birth and because of that, they have “developed new ways of understanding, learning, and processing information” (Baird, 2005, 4). However, there are several questions about the language being used on sites like Ning. How are students utilizing language in these spaces? How does their language change from face-to-face interaction to online spaces? By using discourse analysis methods pioneered by James Gee (2009), this study will attempt to answer the questions of the influence of the change in language through different texts, contexts and audiences.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Katrina Meyer (2003) completed a study about the differences between face-to-face and online discussion boards in a graduate school classroom. Her findings revolve around five different trends in her data. The trends that are most important for this study are “experience of time,” “quality of discussion,” and “needs of the student.” In “experience of time,” Meyer saw that during face-to-face discussions, students “enjoyed its ‘speed,’ ‘spark,’ or ‘energy,’ the way they were able to build upon each others’ comments, collaborate on the spot, and benefit from the enthusiasm of others” (p. 61). However, Meyer also found that in reference to the “quality of discussion,” face-to-face discussions were not as beneficial as online discussions because some students found difficulty in asking for clarification and many didn’t feel like they were participating at a beneficial level for their needs (p. 61). Most importantly, Meyer’s data pointed to the importance of becoming an effective, skilled and clear writer utilizing online discussions, but also how the lack of the performative acts of language such as body language and other non-verbal cues may influence a student’s ability to effectively participate in an online discussion. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the ways students use language in the digital or online learning environment in contrast to the language used in a face-to-face environment.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">//What do we mean when we talk about language?// <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> “Language is man’s greatest tool; so it should be seen precisely as a tool, that is, as a means for communicating with and extracting from the outside world” (Emerson, 1983, p. 252). In the world of education, language is at the forefront of how teachers and students communicate with each other, whether it is spoken or written. Several linguists, specifically Mikhail Bakhtin and Lev Vyogtsky, drastically changed how many teachers talk and think about language, specifically what they think of what language entails and how it creates meaning.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> As Michael Holquist (1983) discussed, Bahktin saw language as a “constant struggle” (p. 310) that consisted of what he called “utterances.” An “utterance” is the merging of the “linguistic system and speech performance” in a “space where they intermingle, the force that binds them and the arena where the strength of each is tested” (Holquist, 1983, p. 310). But as Holquist discussed, it is much more than just an utterance, because “any utterance is a link in a very complexly organized chain of communication” (1983, 311). The linguistic system of a language is the phonological and morphological production of spoken words. Speech performances entail all of the “extra” things that are connected to the actual words being spoken. Gee (2009) would call these things “non-language stuff” (p. 355). For example, one of my former female students always greets me with the following two-word greeting, “Hey, Trelley!” This greeting is a shortened and slang version of the traditional, “Hello, Mrs. Futrelle” that I receive from the majority of my students. The student makes a choice to use the first greeting over the second due to the performance elements at work, which may include but are not limited to the length of our relationship, what context the language is occurring in, and the comfort level with me as her audience. As seen here, like Bahkin would also notice, “if we closely analyze exchanges between two speaking subjects, it quickly becomes apparent that what each says to the other is difficult to describe in terms of language alone” (Holquist, 1983, 312).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Bahktin also “posited four social factors that make the understanding of speech and writing possible”: language and its effects occur outside of themselves; the “outside” of language must be organized in some sort of social idea, the effects of language must be studied in relation to other language systems and phenomena, not as independent actions, and redefining the Word in order to bring it back to its original Greek sense of //logos// (Emerson, 1983, 347). Therefore, language does not simply exist in and of itself, but must be able to be related back to “the unique speech experience of each individual [that] is shaped through constant interaction” (Warschauer, 1997, 471). Although an online discussion seems to “exist in and of itself,” there are many outside influences and expectations at work within a student’s language in this production of language. Simply because language is not being created in a face-to-face environment does not take the social or cultural aspect of language out of the equation.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> In //Thought and Language//, Lev Vygotsky (1975) attempts to identify how language and thought are studied by linguists and psychologists. Vygotsky posits that those who see thought and speech as independent from one another only see “the relationship between them merely as a mechanical, external connection between two distinct processes” (p. 3). Throughout his study of language, Vyogtsky (1975) saw the danger in the “separation of sound and meaning” as it was “largely responsible for the barrenness of classical phonetics and semantics” (p. 4). Because there was no connection between the word and its meaning, there was no efficient or effective way to analyze language, because “a word without meaning is an empty sound, no longer a part of human speech” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 5). Within this pairing of speech and thought, Vygotsky also included the “social intercourse” element of language, which includes the “expressive movements” of a person trying to communicate with another. Because of this social element, Vygotsky (1975) also brought the inside-out, outside-in idea to linguistics, which <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> shows that every idea contains a transmuted affective attitude toward the bit of reality it refers…permits us to trace the path from a person’s needs and impulses to the specific direction taken by his thoughts, and the reverse path from his thoughts to his behavior and activity (p. 8).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Therefore, all speech and thought is social. Vygotsky’s work offers a way to discuss the sociolinguistic acts that occur within certain environments within my classroom because students’ language is influenced by the reality they are immersed in as well as how they know they should be performing using speech and thought.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">//What is D/discourse?// <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Gee (2009) describes “discourse” as “language-in-use” or “language [that] is used ‘on site’ to enact activities and identities” (p. 347) but that is also a “tool…to design or build things” (p. 437). Little “d” discourse simply deals with the actual language used during a specific language act. Gee explains that within our language-in-use, there are seven “building tasks” that “construct or build… ‘reality’” (p. 437, but that are also essential to analyzing D/discourse. The seven “building tasks” are significance, activities, identities, relationships, politics, connections, and sign systems and knowledge. Each of these tasks has an important part in discussing and analyzing language.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> When “discourse” interacts with “non-language ‘stuff’ to enact specific identities and activities then… ‘big D’ Discourses are involved” (Gee, 2009, p. 355). “Big D” Discourse is what Gee refers when he talked about discourse analysis because “we are interested in analyzing language as it is fully integrated with all the other elements that go into social practices” (p. 413). In order to be considered Discourse, there has “to be a particular //who// and to pull of a particular //what// requires that we act, value, interact, and use language //in sync with// or //in coordination with// other people and with various objects (‘props’) in appropriate locations and at appropriate times” (p. 721). Essentially, this is question of “//who// you are when you speak or write and //what// you are doing” (p. 692) because we project different identities in different times and different situations through our language (p. 699). Through these terms, Gee provides a way for me to look at the changes in my students’ language based on the “who-doing-what” they are engaged in during different writing or speaking environments, specifically using his seven “building tasks” and “tools of inquiry.”

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">//How do I define rhetorical situation?// <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Traditionally, rhetorical situation is defined as “any set of circumstances that involves at least one person using some sort of communication to modify the perspective of at least one other person” where each rhetorical situation has four components: “author, audience, text and context” (Sproat, et al, 2010). I believe this is a good, general definition that touches on the purpose of rhetoric, but for my research, this definition is a little too broad and does not enact some of the important aspects of Gee’s idea of “big D” discourse that is important to analyzing the discursive moves in student language.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Lev Vygotsky, like explained previously, understood that language does not occur in a vacuum and that there are sociocultural aspects of language that influence the actual language being used by individuals during a communicative act. Because my research will be done within a high school classroom setting, this social aspect of language is not only important to the communicative acts going on but it is also important as it is an implication for the type of language being used. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> James Gee (2009) took Vygotsky’s ideas about language a step further and gave us the idea of “big D” discourse – “language-in-use” being “melded integrally with non-language ‘stuff’ to enact specific identities and activities (p. 355). Non-language events for Gee (2009) include “gestures, actions, interactions, symbols, tools, technologies, values, attitudes, beliefs, and emotions (p. 353). Discourse allows for other non-language events to be taken into serious consideration when discussing a particular rhetorical situation.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> From all of this information, the working and relevant definition of rhetorical situation being used for this research will refer to: the use of language between the speaker (or writer), its audience, and its subject, that includes the context and other non-language nuances that establish the speaker’s (or writer’s) Discourse, which establishes a relationship between all three elements of the communicative act. As referenced before, the student who acknowledges me with “Hey, Trelley” takes into account her audience (me), her subject (a greeting) and the context of the situation (in the hallway between classes) while also utilizing her facial expressions (normally a contagious smile and generally positive body language). She takes into considerations all of these elements to establish a relationship between her and I, and what the student deems an appropriate language choice.

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%; text-align: center;">METHODOLOGY <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">//Research Rationale// <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> The type of research that this work lends itself to is qualitative and naturalistic in form with a hermeneutic paradigm. This project’s concern “ is not with verification but with interpretation and analysis” (Falk & Blumenreich, 2005, p. 13). Because I will be the person collecting the data, it is important for me to “be upfront about [my] biases” within the research since it “utilizes a discovery process, often arrived at through the joint construction of meaning made by the many participants in the situation” (Falk & Blumenreich, 2005, p. 12-13). The sole purpose of this research is to “contribute useful understandings” that I am in the “best position to study, adapt and create” using the research that I will collect and analyze (Falk & Blumenreich, 2005, p. 14).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">//Context of the Research// <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> The research will be conducted at Maple Run High School. Maple Run is located in a suburban and rural part of the Southeastern part of the United States. Currently, there are 1209 students enrolled in Maple Run in grades 9-12. Of these 1209 students, approximately 4% are enrolled in “Advanced College Prep Courses” which includes AP courses (School Profile). For the 2008-2009 school year, 31% of students were eligible for the free lunch program through the United States Department of Agriculture. As I do my hallway monitoring duty between each class, it’s difficult to not notice the diversity amongst the students that attend Maple Run High School. Students represent every facet of the social and economical scale from around our district lines – and each student is just as unique as the next. Our African American students occupy almost 25% of our student population, white students occupy another 70% and other ethnicities make up the last 5%. While this may not seem very diverse, our students create a sense of diversity among themselves. We have students from every “social” group represented at our school, and almost every single student gets along with each other. Students communicate freely in the hallways in passing or in their groups around their classrooms. It’s rare to see a student not talking to someone else in his/her journey to class.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> There is a clear sense of order and expectation that illuminates through the actions of the students; most students are in their classrooms before the tardy bell rings each period. Most of our students are “good” students – they are driven in their studies and are amiable with their peers and the school’s staff members. Teachers are at their doors to greet their students into each class and are encouraged to establish relationships with each student that walks through their door each class period. It is this type of supportive and learning-conducive environment that fosters a school community that will come together and support any one of its members.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">//Participants// <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> My second period class consists of 18 juniors who range in age from sixteen to seventeen years old. At the time that the research will be collected, they will be in their second semester of AP Language and Composition. Within this class, there are six males and twelve females. Out of my 19 students four are African American. In order to effectively analyze information, I will gather data from all of my students over the course of three months and then develop individual case studies for a small group of students (three to five) to utilize for my data analysis. By looking at several students in detail, this will enable me to create a “holistic and in-depth examination that sheds light” on my research questions (Falk & Blumenreich, 2005, p. 18).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">//Data Collection// <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> In order to abide by the National Research Act, I will get informed consent from all of my participants in the data collection process through Gardner-Webb’s International Review Board as well as through our county’s consent process. In order to collect the most viable and useable data, I will be using several collection points.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> The first collection point I’ll be using is my own field notes and observations. Because of the multitude of conversation within a classroom cannot be recorded solely by a microphone, I will be taking notes during face-to-face interactions that I have with my participants as well as my observations during “normal” classroom procedures and happenings. This will ensure that I can contextualize the data that I collect using my other collection points. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> I will also be utilizing student artifacts which are as follows, but not limited to: students’ daybook entries, Ning blogs, discussion/comment posts, portfolios (process and showcase), essays (including process work and assessments), informal writing assignments (such as process work not brought through the entire writing process), assessments and reflections.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> My research requires evidence for discourse analysis, so I will also be utilizing voice-recorded data in order to capture the spoken language going on during in-class meetings. These instances may include teacher-student conferences, small group discussions, round-table discussions, Socratic seminars, writing workshop groups and writing conferences.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">//Data Analysis// <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> In //An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method//, James Paul Gee gives beginning linguists a way in to discussing the implications of language. Gee (2009) proposes that the purpose of discourse analysis allows us “to be in dialog with ourselves, to think more deeply about what we mean and how others will interpret us” (p. 179), but Gee also explains that the implications and purpose of discourse analysis is a much more important one – a task “to think more deeply about the meaning we give to people’s worlds as to make ourselves better, more human people, and the world a better, more human place” (p. 190). At the heart of Gee’s discussion of discourse analysis is his idea about “D/discourse” as discussed earlier.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Therefore when we talk about discourse analysis as a whole, we do not simply focus on the language, but also on the “tools of inquiry” that show “how people build identities and activities and recognize identities and activities that others are building around them” (p. 645). Gee (2009) identifies these “tools of inquiry” as social languages, Discourses, intertextuality and conversations. These tools work together with the seven “building tasks” in order to engage in two different types of discourse analysis: “form-function analysis” and “language-context” analysis.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Form-function analysis deals with the “general correlations between form (structure) and function (meaning) in language” (p. 1447). Form relates to the actual structure of any language, including parts of speech and sentence parts (clauses and phrases) (Gee, 2009, p. 1449). Function relates to the “sort of meanings a given form can communicate or the sorts of interactional work (purposes) a given form can accomplish” (p. 1451).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Language-context analysis is associated with “situated meanings”, which Gee (2009) explains as the “associations with certain types of functions or meanings” which “arise because particular language forms take on specific or situated meanings in specific contexts (p. 1512-20). In this instance, context includes “the ever-widening set of factors that accompany language in use” which include “the material setting, the people present…the language that comes before and after a given utterance, the social relationships of the people involved, and their ethnic, gendered, and sexual identities, as well as cultural, historical, and institutional factors” (Gee, 2009, p. 1520-24). Essentially, a language-context analysis looks at the “reflexive” relationship between language and context (p. 1526). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> These two types of discourse analysis will allow me to look at the language itself as well as the “situated meanings” behind the language being used when my students are asked to speak or write in different environments. Without the ability to use both, the discourse analysis would not be as fruitful and meaningful due to the associations that are evident in both face-to-face and online communication.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Because of the uncertainty of the language data that I will be recording and collecting, I will be utilizing Gee’s (2009) discourse analysis questions for each of his seven “building tasks.” They are as follows: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">**Significance**: “How is this piece of language being used to make certain things significant or not and in what ways?” (p. 446). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">**Activities**: “What activity or activities is this piece of language being used to enact (i.e., get others to recognize as going on)?” (p. 453). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">**Identities** “What identity or identities is this piece of language being used to enact (i.e., get others to recognize as operable)?” (p. 460). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">**Relationships** “What sort of relationship or relationships is this piece of language seeking to enact with others (present or not)?” (p. 467). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">**Politics** “What perspective on social goods is this piece of language communicating (i.e., what is being communicated as to what is taken to be ‘normal,’ right,’ ‘good,’ ‘correct,’ ‘proper,’ ‘appropriate,’ ‘valuable,’ ‘the way things are,’ ‘the way things ought to be,’ ‘high status or low status,’ ‘like me or not like me,’ and so forth)?” (p. 476). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">**Connections** “How does this piece of language connect or disconnect things, how does it make one thing relevant or irrelevant to another?” (p. 484). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">**Sign system and knowledge** “How does this piece of language privilege or disprivilege sign systems (e.g., Spanish vs. English, technical language vs. everyday language, words vs. images, words vs. equations) or different ways of knowing and believing or claims to knowledge and belief?” (p. 493).

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%; text-align: center;">REFERENCES <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Baird, D. (2005, Nov 1). The promise of social networking. Retrieved from http://www.techlearning.com/story/ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=172302903

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Brannon, L., Griffin, S., Haag, K., Iannone, T., Urbanski, C., & Woodward, S. (2008). //Thinking out loud on paper: The student daybook as a tool to foster learning.// Portsmouth: Heinemann.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Emerson, C. (1983 Dec). The outer word and inner speech: Bahktin, Vygotsky, and the internalization of language//. Critical Inquiry,// 10(2), 245-264.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Falk, B., & Blumenreich, M. (2005). //The power of questions: A guide to teacher and student research.// Portsmouth: Heinemann.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Gee, J.P. (2009). //An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method//. Britain: T&F Books.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Holquist, M. (1983, Dec). Mikhail Bahktin’s trans-linguistics. //Critical Inquiry,// 10(2), 307-319.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Groff, J. & Haas, J. (2009). The instructional power of digital games, social networking, simulations and how teachers can leverage them. //Education Arcade//. Creative Commons.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Meyer, K. (2003). Face to face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. //Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks//, 7(3), 55-65.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">School Profile (2011). NC School Report Card. Retrieved from[| http://www.ncreportcard.com/src/schDetails.jsp?pYear=2010-] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">2011&pLEACode=230&pSchCode=324

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Sproat, E., Driscoll, D., & Brizee, A. (2010, Apr 17). Rhetorical situation. Retrieved from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/625/01

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Vygotsky, L.S. (1975). //Thought and language.// Cambridge: MIT Press.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. //The Modern Language Journal//, 81(4), 470-481.