SavedAdd your journal

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

Script Proposals in Undergraduate Supervision

Marion WEST
Pages
179–196
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 implications for practical applications are briefly considered

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article explores a particular interactional practice surrounding advice in undergraduate supervision.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Script proposals allow advice-givers to individualise their advice, minimise resistance and provide a model while not undermining the client’s agency (Emmison, Butler and Danby 2011).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The implications for practical applications are briefly considered
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This article explores a particular interactional practice surrounding advice in undergraduate supervision. Script proposals allow advice-givers to individualise their advice, minimise resistance and provide a model while not undermining the client’s agency (Emmison, Butler and Danby 2011). This device has been studied primarily in helpline interactions (Hepburn, Wilkinson and Butler 2014) but not yet in higher education. The audiorecorded data are from a meeting in which the tutor addresses student concerns regarding her writing process and referencing conventions. Several hallmarks of script proposals are present, including the student’s previously displayed stance, the use of idiom, three part-lists (Jefferson 1990) and contrastive pairs. Membership categories are exploited to both include and exclude the student. The enactment of supervisory roles and qualities such as empathy is analysed and then discussed through the conceptual lens of the psychological contract (Cureton and Cousin 2012) and the educational alliance (Telio, Ajjawi and Regehr 2015). While also fulfilling her tutor-mentor role, in that she supports the student in her own decisions, the tutor acts as director or project manager (Derounian 2011), taking the student through the steps in the process in a logical order (Rowley and Slack 2004). The implications for practical applications are briefly considered

🔖

Cite This Article

WEST, M. (2022). Script Proposals in Undergraduate Supervision. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: Özel Sayı, 179–196. https://ajindex.com/articles/531690

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Antaki, C. (Ed.). (2011). Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bowker, D. (2012). Okay? Yeah? Right?: Negotiating understanding and agreement in master’s supervision meetings with international students. University of Stirling. Thesis submitted for Doctor of Education. Brew, A. (2001). Conceptions of research: A phenomenographic study. Studies in Higher Education, 26 (3), 271-285.
  2. Bryman, A. (2014). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Copland, F. (2012). Legitimate Talk in Feedback Conferences. Applied Linguistics, 33 (1), 1-20.
  4. Costley, C. and Gibbs, P. (2006). Researching others: care as an ethic for practitioner researchers. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (1), 89-98.
  5. Cureton, D., & Cousin, G. (2012). Consensus Oriented Research Approach: Reflexive Co-Enquiry with Students. Downloadable from: www.wlv.ac.uk/disa Defibaugh, S. (2014). Management of care or management of face: Indirectness in Nurse Practitioner/ patient interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 67, 61-71.
  6. Derounian, J. (2011). Shall we dance? The importance of staff-student relationships to undergraduate dissertation preparation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12, 91-100.
  7. Drew, P. and Holt, E. (1988). Complainable Matters - the use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems, 35 (4), 109-143.
  8. Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (2017). Some uses of subject-side assessments. Discourse Studies, 19 (5), 497-514.
  9. Ekberg, K. and LeCouteur, A. (2011). ‘Hypothetical active-voicing’: Therapists ‘modelling’ of clients’ future conversations in CBT interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (13), 3177-3192.
  10. Ekberg, K. and LeCouteur, A. (2015). Clients’ resistance to therapists’ proposals: managing epistemic and deontic status. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 12-25.
  11. Emmison, M., Butler, C.W. & S. Danby. (2011). Script proposals: A device for empowering clients in counselling, Discourse Studies, 13 (1), 3-26.
  12. Ford, J., Hepburn, A., Pino, M., Parry, R., Feathers, L., & Faull, C. (2016). How do doctors empathise with patients in palliative care consultations? Poster session presented at the 11th Palliative Care Congress, Glasgow. Frankel, R.M. (2009). Empathy: A Complex Challenge. Patient Education and Counselling, 75 (1), 1-2.
  13. Goffman, E. (1981). ‘Footing’, chapter 3 in Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell. Greenbank, P. and Penketh, C. (2009). Student autonomy and reflections on researching and writing the un