SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 33 - Sayı: Özel Sayı

Doing Exploratory Talk in the Language Classroom: A Sequential Account

Nancy BOBLETT
Pages
266–282
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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)

The findings contribute to previous research on exploratory talk by locating this talk within largerexploratory sequences, calling attention to crucial nonverbal conduct, and examining these sequences in the adult ESLclassroom.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:: Building on William Barnes’ research (1992; 2008; 2010) on how exploratory talk can be used as a toolto work on understanding and promote learning in L1 elementary school classrooms, I examine exploratory talk in theadult ESL classroom.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The analysis shows that exploratory talk is implemented through a 5-stagesequential structure and can be teacher- or jointly-led.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings contribute to previous research on exploratory talk by locating this talk within largerexploratory sequences, calling attention to crucial nonverbal conduct, and examining these sequences in the adult ESLclassroom.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

: Building on William Barnes’ research (1992; 2008; 2010) on how exploratory talk can be used as a toolto work on understanding and promote learning in L1 elementary school classrooms, I examine exploratory talk in theadult ESL classroom. Ten hours of two adult ESL classes were videotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using aconversation analytic (CA) framework. The analysis shows that exploratory talk is implemented through a 5-stagesequential structure and can be teacher- or jointly-led. Each stage in the sequence is introduced, supported, andmanaged as much by gestures, gaze, and movement as by talk and silence. The findings not only suggest thatexploratory talk offers an important resource for resolving language issues but also how this can be done step-by-stepin real time. The findings contribute to previous research on exploratory talk by locating this talk within largerexploratory sequences, calling attention to crucial nonverbal conduct, and examining these sequences in the adult ESLclassroom.

🔖

Cite This Article

BOBLETT, N. (2022). Doing Exploratory Talk in the Language Classroom: A Sequential Account. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: Özel Sayı, 266–282. https://ajindex.com/articles/531679

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Barnes, D. (1976/1992). From communication to curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann. Barnes, D. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school: Inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes (pp. 1-16).
  2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Barnes, D. (2010). Why talk is important. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(2), 7-10.
  3. Barnes, D., Britton, J., & Torbe, M. (1969/1990). Language, the learner and the school. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
  4. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Dawes, L., Mercer, C., & Wegerif, R. (2000). Thinking together: A program of activities for developing speaking, listening and thinking skills for children aged 8-11. Birmingham: Imaginative Minds, Ltd. Fagan, D. S. (2012). ‘Dealing with’ unexpected learner contributions in whole group activities: An examination of novice language teacher discursive practices, Classroom Discourse, 3(2), 107-128.
  5. Fagan, D. S. (2014). Beyond “excellent”: Uncovering the systematicity behind positive feedback turn construction in ESL classrooms. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 8(1), 45-63.
  6. Fagan, D. S. (2015). Managing language errors in real-time: A microanalysis of teacher practices. System, 55, 74 -85. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2015.09.004. Fernandez, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2001). Reconceptualizing “scaffolding” and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(2), 40-55.
  7. Hall, J.K. & Smotrova, T. (2013). Teacher self-talk: Interactional resource for managing instruction and eliciting empathy. Journal of Pragmatics, 47, 75-92.
  8. Jarvis, J. & Robinson, M. (2007). Analysing education discourse: An exploratory study of teacher response and support to pupils’ learning. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 212-228.
  9. Jefferson, G. (2004). A sketch on some orderliness of overlap onset. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 43-59).
  10. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22-63.
  11. Koole, T. (2010). Displays of epistemic access: Student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 183-209.
  12. Lee, Y-A. (2007). Third-turn position in teacher talk: contingency and the work of teachin