This weeks topic on the interactions that occur within institutions is interesting, and I have seen it come up in past sociology classes. The order of talk within a university or school has a certain discourse and this is followed by students and tutors alike. Even the non verbal medium of interaction such as body language and classroom layout plays a part in what discourse the institution is following.
'Talk' as the medium that is discussed in the reading as the communication tool, follows certain social rules and regulations by all involved. It becomes evident then if these rules aren't followed, such as screaming randomly whilst in class or having your own conversation with friends, then loss of face will occur.
The reading labels this type of interaction as having a 'ritualistic or uniform' pattern, that is to say, every time we enter an institution (such as uni) we conform to a set of linguistic rules.
References
Benwell, Bethan, and Elizabeth Stokoe. 2002. “Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials:
shifting dynamics and identities.” Discourse Studies vol. 4, no. 4: pp. 429-453.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found it really interesting to focus on the institutional setting that is ‘the classroom’, specifically the university tutorial classroom, and the notion that no institution can exist independently of the discourse which constructs it. This being because institutions are ‘talked into being’. For example, university tutorials would not ‘be’ were students and teacher not there at the allocated time, critically engaging with the concepts of the subject and carrying out the processes that are required of them as students and teacher in order to successfully complete the tutorial. If no one went, then the class would not exist because the participants would have failed to discursively create it, or, as Andrew termed it in the lecture, ‘talk it into being’. As he said, institutions do not exist independently of the interaction through which they are produced and maintained.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most interesting while considering the readings, and articles I further sourced, is the notion of power in the classroom and its discursive construction, and the effect that this construction has on the institution itself. In the university tutorial setting we are theoretically exposed to critical discussion generated to enhance engagement with the subject by the students, whereby the tutor acts as an aid to develop the students’ understanding and to further enhance the independent-learning environment. In the institution that is the university classroom the nature of the relationship between teacher and student is discursively constructed. The teacher is generally understood to be in a position of authority on the subject at hand, and as such wields the power in the classroom dynamic.
There is however, the possibility of a discursive reconstruction of the power dynamic within the institution of the classroom. As Antonia Candela highlights, “the structure of discourse does not define who is in control of classroom interaction” (1998, p. 140). It is the goal of most university tutorials to structure and foster an environment in which the power relationship between teacher and student is horizontalised, in order to encourage student agency and effective independent learning. Though, as Mayes indicated, power was not always effectively redistributed as intended. This could be attributed to a lack of student engagement, and teachers feeling it necessary to be more directive, rather than more student-centred, in order for the students to effectively complete their tasks.
I found during most of my research that the common goal within the institution of the university tutorial classroom was predominately identified as being the horizontalising of the power relationship in the classroom dynamic; though it was suggested that theoretically this may be ideal, its effective implementation has proved more problematic.
References:
Candela, Antonia 1998, “Students’ Power in Classroom Discourse”, Linguistics and Education, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 139-163.
Mayes, Patricia 2010, “The discursive construction of identity and power in the critical classroom: Implications for applied critical theories”, Discourse Society, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 189-210.
Hi Josh, I also found this topic interesting as I could witness talk in institutional settings at uni everyday. What I found interesting about the reading was tutor-student interactions and Goffman's notion of face. 'Talk' in tutorials involves many features of politeness which are often used by a tutor to attend to the face needs of the students. I have seen and experienced examples of threats to individuals negative and positive face. Negative - when a tutor may make a demand of a student by asking them a direct questionand Positive - relates to self-image, when they evaluate their response negatively they are threatening their positive face.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that there are so many rules and regulations of 'talk' that need to be followed. However these way of talk are so ingrained into our sub-conscious that you often don't even realise that you are doing it
:)
I totally agree in the word count, I think I am definitely bordering on over. On the subject, when i posted for this week i focused on university tutorials as well mainly how the power struggle thats evident in most business places or other faculties isn't quite so evident in sociology, we use discourse as opposed to Discourse. We sit at desks in a u-shape, tutors sit on the desks and chat to us like we're equals. The body language is always so casual and the environment just made this subject enjoyable. But in saying that it's also important, and its still upheld, that there is a certain amount of respect and politeness given to the tutors in I guess a way of saving face or more so keeping face by allowing them to retain some level of institutional power.
ReplyDelete