Decontextualization and Recontextualization Understanding Reform Practice Through Teacher Discourse
Yang Fan,Chen Xiangming
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697291-13
2017-01-01
Abstract:More than a decade ago, a new curriculum reform substantially changed the outlook of China’s basic education. Yang (2007) stated that curriculum reform shattered the tedium of the classroom at elementary and middle schools, demonstrating to the vast teaching force another method of classroom teaching that has inspired innovation, change, and the pursuit of the autonomous, cooperative, and inquiring classroom. However, at the same time, many education scholars have noticed that despite the belief held by instructors that they are implementing teaching models and methods such as “inquiry teaching,” “task-based teaching,” and “cooperative teaching,” that are in line with new curriculum concepts, few classroom activities conform to reform expectations, and many scholars are constantly corroding and distorting the meaning of the reform (Yang 2007). For instance, inquiry teaching, as interpreted and championed by some schools, simply turns the cramming or “spoon-feeding” method of teaching into a learning experience characterized by “a class barraged with questions” (Zhong 2006). Conversely, task-based teaching and cooperative teaching only exist in activities such as playing games for the sake of playing games and dividing children into groups for the sake of dividing children into groups. In short, the initial meaning of the term “reform” in the Chinese context has shifted during the transition from theory to practice. Education experts and experienced teachers have very different views onwhether the meaning of reform has been distorted in practice. Colen’s probe into the relationship between instructional policy and teaching practice is a famous research case study. Colen chose Mrs. Oublier, a teacher who thought she was successfully compliant with the new instructional policy, as the study subject. Colen observed her classroom and compared her teaching practices to the traditional class teaching approach. The findings suggest a paradox, revealing that the innovations in her teaching had been filtered through a very traditional approach to instruction. Oublier eagerly embraces change andbelieves that she has made significant efforts to change her teaching and that she has in fact done so. However, experts note that her classroom has no history of progressive pedagogy (Colen 1990). Colen’s study illustrates the existence of the problem, but fails to explain the process and mechanism that contribute to the degeneration of the meaning of change. The present study adopts the approach of tracking the analysis of Chineseschool teachers’ instruction following the reform and investigates the process of change in the meaning of the term “reform.” Based on existing research, discourse analysis offers one of the most desirable perspectives from which to examine the relationship between school environment and reform. It can also reveal the tension between the “local, practical, and mundane” school culture and “general, authoritative, and professional” reform ideals, that is, the relationship between micro and macro discursive phenomena. However, as will be seen, some researchers disagree on the various findings of this study, particularly with regard to the role of the local and individual discourse of schools in the reform. Freeman conducted a study on the relationship between “spoken language”and the “professional discourse” practiced by teachers in a teaching development program. The study observed that the development of a professional discourse enabled the teachers to articulate and reflect on these tensions defined as “competing demands within their teaching,” and to reconceptualize their understandings of their practice in the process. Hence, Freeman (1993) concluded that, in the course of reform, there was a certain degree of justification for the mandatory replacement of native discourse with appropriate technical terminology, that is, professional discourse. Meanwhile, Elbaz-Luwisch (2005), using Bakhtin’s theory of polyphony asa foundation, argued that the “internally persuasive discourse” and the “authoritative discourses” that teachers experience are entangled and constantly shifting. She was more concerned about individuals then about professions per se, as her study raised the alarm on professional discourse as a powerful ideology. The same stance was taken by Wu (2005) in his examination of China’s curriculum reform process, in which he defined two different discourse structures as “top-down enforcement” and “bottom-up innovation.” He also perceived the reform as a conflict-evolving process that oscillated between ideology control and individual struggle and resistance. Existing research has begun to move from discourse to investigating edu-cation reform, but it still strongly emphasizes the “internal-external” and “top-down” binary relations as key aspects of the reform. However, this research overlooks the integration process of the individual in the curriculum reform and the relationship between native discourse and professional discourse. As a result of this oversight, the present study views reform as a unified process that combines professional development and social interaction and has as its goal the building of an analytical framework that will permit these concepts to be more fully understood. The present study investigates how the meanings of the current nationalcurriculum reform in China changed over time, meanings that were created inthe context of an external authoritative mandate but which were transformed in the context of local school teaching practices. One focus of this study is to analyze how teachers understand the meaning of reform practice. “Reform practice” generally refers to a series of new instructional methods that teachers in the reform era have to adopt, and here the term specifically refers to new teaching methods advocated in the national curriculum reform of basic education.1 This study investigates teachers’ understanding of the meaning of the reform through an analysis of the methods they use to interpret reform practice. Since “discourse” contains complex meanings in the social sciences, itsdefinition in this study is the following: “a system of meaning, or the expression, of systematically organized and expressed meanings and values of an organization” (Kress 1985: 6). A series of premises lies behind this particular definition. First, discourse refers to the collection of meanings, which limits the capacity and boundaries of subject cognition and action. Second, society makes up all knowledge; in the present context, the so-called “corrosion and distortion” of reform practice by teachers are the result of discursive communication, negotiation, competition, and compromise with regard to the meaning of the curriculum reform. Third, the tactical observation of discourse is conducive to reflecting on the way that power is created, altered, and transformed in the act of oral communication, a process that is often opaque. The present study borrows the concepts of “decontextualization” and“recontextualization” from Little (2003), who uses these concepts to observe and generalize the process that teachers use to understand and share the meaning of their practice. Decontextualization refers to teachers omitting details about their teaching situations that they feel are less important, so as to make it easier for the students to understand certain ideas or concepts. Recontextualization refers to when teachers use their individual experience to enrich the understanding of the subject matter, so as to avoid distracting students and keeping them focused on the intended material (Little 2003). The present study modifies these two borrowed concepts in important ways.Little’s study was carried out against the backdrop of teaching and research, whereas this study focuses on the observation of the reform process. Decontextualization in Little’s study refers to the teacher intentionally overlooking details, whereas in this study it refers to the cognition and expression mechanism faced by individual teachers when reform practice is introduced from outside. Recontextualization in Little’s study refers to the concrete contribution that teachers make to a given concept, whereas the present study identifies the process, carried out by teachers, of reconstructing and re-enacting the reform by resorting to their native discourse. The decontextualization and recontextualization mechanisms reflect therepresentation capacity of school discourse over reform practice. “Representation” refers to the process that discourse brings to the subject matter. For teachers, representation defines the meaning of reform in understandable and acceptable terms.