Journals / Novitas-Royal / 2011 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1

"But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences

Pages
39–54
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

By detailing student use of post-expansion, this study demonstrates student use of power-moves in initiating sequences, role reversal, and student-created “wiggle room” (Erickson, 2004) – all of which suggest that the students are agents in their own learning.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Although conversation analysis (CA) began as a field focused on everyday talk-in-interaction, focus quickly extended to institutional talk (c.f., Drew & Heritage, 1992).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Conversation-analytic research on classrooms has yielded an enormous base of knowledge about how the work of classrooms is done in and through language.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By detailing student use of post-expansion, this study demonstrates student use of power-moves in initiating sequences, role reversal, and student-created “wiggle room” (Erickson, 2004) – all of which suggest that the students are agents in their own learning.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Although conversation analysis (CA) began as a field focused on everyday talk-in-interaction, focus quickly extended to institutional talk (c.f., Drew & Heritage, 1992). Conversation-analytic research on classrooms has yielded an enormous base of knowledge about how the work of classrooms is done in and through language. Language classrooms have received a great deal of focus, with entire monographs dedicated to the subject (Markee, 2000; Seedhouse, 2004). Using conversation analysis to examine one type of sequence in classroom talk, this study focuses on the occurrence of post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. In these cases, the traditional three-part exchange is inverted; a student initiates a sequence, the teacher responds, and the student follows-up in the third turn in some way. In particular, both minimal and non-minimal post-expansions are examined not only in terms of their sequential placement, but also in terms of the interactional accomplishments of such turns. By detailing student use of post-expansion, this study demonstrates student use of power-moves in initiating sequences, role reversal, and student-created “wiggle room” (Erickson, 2004) – all of which suggest that the students are agents in their own learning.

Özet

Konuşma Çözümlemesi (KÇ) günlük iletişimdeki konuşmaya odaklanan bir alan olarak başlamış olsa da, bu ilgi hızlı bir şekilde kurumsal konuşmalara da yayıldı (c.f., Drew & Heritage, 1992). Sınıflara yönelik konuşma çözümlemesi araştırmaları sınıftaki çalışmaların dil aracılığıyla nasıl yapıldığına dair çok büyük bir bilgi birikimi sağlamıştır. Dil sınıfları tamamiyle konuya adanmış monograflar (Markee, 2000; Seedhouse, 2004) ile büyük bir ilgi odağı olmuşlardır. Konuşma Çözümlemesi kullanarak sınıf içi konuşmadaki ardışımın bir türünü inceleyen bu çalışma, öğrenci girişimli ardışımlardaki art-genişletme oluşumuna odaklanmaktadır. Bu durumlarda, geleneksel üç bölümlü değişim tersine çevirilmektedir; bir öğrenci ardışımı başlatır, öğretmen cevap verir, ve öğrenci üçüncü sırada bir şekilde bunu takip eder. Özellikle hem minimal hem de minimal olmayan art-genişletmeler sadece ardışıklıktaki yerleri bakımından değil, ayni zamanda bu tür sıralamalarin etkileşimsel tamamlanmaları bakımından da incelenmektedir. Öğrencinin art-genişletme kullanımını detaylı bir şekilde inceleyen bu çalışma, öğrencinin ardışımları başlatmadaki güç hamlelerini kullanımını, rol değişimlerini ve öğrenci tarafından oluşturulan “esneklik payını” (Erickson, 2004) sergilemektedir; ki bunların hepsi öğrencilerin kendi öğrenmelerinde etken olduklarını önermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

JACKNICK, C. M. (2011). "But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. Novitas-Royal, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 39–54. https://ajindex.com/articles/291046

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Allwright, R.L. (1980). Turns, topics, and tasks: Patterns of participation in language learning and teaching. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 165-187).
  2. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers,
  3. Inc. Beach, W.A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325-52.
  4. Beach, W.A. (1995). Conversation analysis: “Okay” as a clue for understanding consequentiality. In S.J. Sigman (Ed.), The consequentiality of communication (pp. 121- 161). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Damhuis, R. (2000). A different teacher role in language arts education: Interaction in a small circle with teacher. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 243-264).
  5. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
  7. Hall, J. K. & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186-203.
  8. Heap, J. L. (1997). Conversation analysis methods in researching language and education. In N. H. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 8. Research methods in language and education (pp. 217- 225). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  9. Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299-345).
  10. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachicotte Jr., W., & Cain, C. (2001). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  12. Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kasper, G. (2009, March). Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. In G. Kasper (Organizer), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition: A comparative perspective. Colloquium conducted at the meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Denver, CO. Kitz