Decisions and decision making in the Istanbul Exploratory Practice experience

Abstract

This paper makes its distinctive contribution to this collection by taking us behind the puzzlement processes of Exploratory Practice (EP) to help us understand the interactive workings of an EP group, and in particular the threats to sustainability that emerged. It reports a discourse analytic enquiry into the nature of the decisions taken and the decision-making process employed at the EP group meetings held at the Teachers’ Centre of the British Council in Istanbul between the years 1994 and 1997. The EP group consisted of three regularly attending core members, who held meetings with a total of 11 teachers and teacher trainers from various institutions in Istanbul. In addition to the extensive supplementary data collected over the time span, the selected basic data consist of 13 hours of audio-recording of six group meetings. Initial examination of the data revealed that decisions were taken in identifiable long stretches of discourse, beginning with an initiation, continuing with negotiation, which can further be categorized into clarification, contribution, acceptance, and rejection moves, and ending with finalization. The analysis based on this model suggested that the group made three types of decisions: content, (i.e., what do we work on?), procedure (i.e., how do we work?) and aims (i.e., why do we work?). The most general conclusion that can be drawn from the study is that the group could not complete the EP stages due to recurrences of past decisions, different attitudes and expectations of members, and lack of a systematic reflection and evaluation component in their mode of work. The article ends with implications and suggestions for EP groups in similar contexts in the future.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allwright, D. 1983: The nature and function of the syllabus in language teaching and learning. Unpublished manuscript.

Bartu, H. 1996: Bor accepts what Joh rejects: a language classroom in Turkey. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Linguistics, Lancaster University, UK.

Bartu, H. 1998: Two approaches to teacher education . In M. Engin , Harvey, J. and O’Dwyer, J. , editors, Teacher training/teacher development: integration and diversity, Proceedings of the IATEFL Teacher Training and Teacher Development SIG Conference, Ankara: School of English Language, Bilkent University Publications, 177-182 .

Bartu, H. 2000: Teachers’ sense of achievement in Exploratory Teaching . In Mair, J. , editor, Excellence in teaching: promoting, implementing and sustaining effective practice, proceedings of the 5th International Bilkent University Conference, Ankara: School of English Language, Bilkent University Publications, 93-102 .

Breen, M. P. 1984: Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In Brumfit, C. J. , editor, General English syllabus design, Oxford: Pergamon Press and the British Council , 47-60.

Breen, M. P. and Littlejohn, A. 2000: The significance of negotiation. In Breen, M. P. and Littlejohn, A. , editors, Classroom decision-making: negotiation and process syllabuses in practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 5-38.

Brown, G. and Yule, B. 1983: Discourse analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

Burns, A. 1999: Collaborative action research, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

Bush, T. 1986: Theories of educational management, New York: Harper and Row .

10.

Coulthard, M. , editor, 1992: Advances in spoken discourse analysis, London and New York: Routledge .

11.

Edge, J. 1992: Cooperative Development, London and New York: Longman .

12.

EP Centre web site: http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk./groups/crile/EPCentre/epcentre.htm (last accessed 29 December 2001).

13.

James, P. 2001: Teachers in Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

14.

Jefferson, G. 1972: Side sequences. In Sudnow, D. , editor, Studies in social interaction, New York: The Free Press , 294-338.

15.

Nassaji, H. and Wells, G. 2000: What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction . Applied Linguistics, 21(3): 376-406 .

16.

Nunn, R. 2001: Language learning across boundaries: negotiating classroom rituals . In TESL-EJ, 5(2): http://www.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej18/al.html (last accessed 6 March 2002).

17.

Reprinted in Schenkein, J. , editor, 1978: Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, New York: Academic Press , 7-55.

18.

Schegloff, E. A. 1972: Notes on conversational practice: formulating place. In Sudnow, D. , editor, Studies in social interaction, New York: The Free Press , 75-119.

19.

Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, R. M. 1975: Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

20.

Tsui, A. B. M. 1994: English conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

21.

van Lier, L. 1988: The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman .

22.

Wallace, M. 1987: A historical review of Action Research: some implications for the education of teachers in their managerial role . Journal of Education for Teaching 13(2): 97-115 .