This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bartu, H. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Decisions and decision making in the Istanbul Exploratory Practice experience

Yildiz Technical University, bartubartu{at}turk.net

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.

Language Teaching Research, Vol. 7, No. 2, 181-200 (2003)
DOI: 10.1191/1362168803lr121oa


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?