Abstract

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF TEACHER-STUDENT INTERACTION IN MA THESIS ORAL EXAMINATION: REFLECTIONS FROM ETHIOPIA

Abebe Asres Mengistu

Volume: 10 Issue: 1 2020

Abstract:

Teacher-student interaction is supposed to be harmonious since it plays an important role in the development of research in higher academic institutions. However, in Ethiopia, teacher-student interaction in the context of MA thesis oral examination remains a serious problem and many conflicts and misunderstandings among instructors and students were reported.This critical discourse analysis study highlightsthe relations of power in teacher-student interaction inthe context of MAthesis oral examination sessions at University of Gondar which is one of the first generation universities in Ethiopia.Five oral examination sessions were audio-recorded and interview sessions with three teachers and three students were conducted to substantiate the audio data. Both the audio and the interview data were transcribed and then analyzed based onFurlough’s (1995) critical discourse analysismodel. Based on the analysis, teachers were found powerful authorities in mistreating students by abusing their power. Students on the other hand were foundinferior to teachers who were unable to play their discursive role in presenting their research papers. It is thus recommended that teachers and students in this academic events need to create harmonious relation that would help them to freely share their research experiences. Teachers also should create a conducive atmosphere for students during oral examination sessions so that studentscan present their research work freely and confidently

DOI: http://doi.org/10.37648/ijrssh.v10i01.037

Back Download

References

• Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon: Oxford.
• Brown,P.and Levinson,S.(1987).Politeness:Someuniversalsinlangu ageusage.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
• Burling,R. (1997).TheNorwegiandisputas.Antropolognytt,2,8–21. Collins, B.andGuetzkow, H.(1964). Asocial Psychology ofgroup processesfordecision making.NewYork:Wiley
• Fairclough,N.(1992).Discourseandsocialchange.Cambridge :PolityPress.
• Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourseanalysis: The criticalstudyoflanguage. London: Longman.
• Fairclough,N.(2003).Analyzingdiscourse:Textualanaly sisforsocialresearch.LondonandNewYork:Rutle dge.
• Fowler,R.,Hodge,R.,Kress,G.andTrew,T.(1979).Langu ageandcontrol.London:Routledge.
• Gee, J. (2011). Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd Ed.). New York: Rutledge.
• Grimshaw,A.D.(1989).Collegialdiscourse:Professiona lconversationamongpeers.Norwood, NJ:Albex.
• HabtamuW. (2005). Challenges of PhD dissertation supervision at AAU: Education, Humanities,andSocialSciencesinfocus.AddisA babaUniversity.Inpress.
• Halliday,M.A.K.(1970).Functionaldiversityinlangu ageasseenfromaconsiderationof moodandmodalityinEnglish.
• FoundationsofLanguage, 4,225–42. Hartley, J. (2000). Nineteen ways to have a viva. Quarterly Newsletter, 35, 22–28.
• Linell, P. (1990). The power of dialogue dynamics. In I. Marková& K. Foppa, (Eds.), the dynamics of dialogue, 147–177. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Morand, D. (2000). Language and power: An empirical analysis of linguistic strategies used in superior-subordinate communication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 235-248.
• Mulholland, J. (1995). The language of negotiation: a handbook of practical strategies for improving communication. London and New York: Routledge.
• Pearce, L. (2005). How to examine a thesis.New York: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
• Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In G. Psathas (Ed.). Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: irvington.
• Scott, J. (Ed.). (2006). Sociology: The key concepts. London: Routledge. Swales, J.M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Tinkler, P. and Jackson, C. (2004). The doctoral examination process. London: Open UniversityPress.
• Van Dijk, T.A. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society, 6 (2), 243-289.
• WosenuYimam. (2009). „Thesis Examination Process in the College of Education/AAU/: Graduate students‟ Reflection‟. In Tirusew Tefera, AkliluDalelo and MekashaKassaye (Eds.) Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Educational Research for Development. Vol. II (258-274): Addis Ababa. College of Education.
• Zewdu, E. (2012). An Investigation into the Research Culture of Addis Ababa University: The Case of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) PhD Program. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Addis Ababa University