SavedAdd your journal

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

A Chorus Line: Engaging (or Not) with the Open Floor

Christine JACKNICK
Sarah C CREIDER
Pages
72–92
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)

Pedagogical implications include problemetizing motivations and objectives for a common classroom ritual

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Turn-taking in classrooms has long been a topic of interest to discourse analysts, with attention paid to turn allocation in teacher-fronted settings (McHoul, 1978; Mehan, 1979), and recent research identifying teacher practices for managing "competing voices" (Waring, 2013).
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study builds on such work, asking how students engage with an open floor in "materials mode" (Walsh, 2006, 2011), where teacher and students are focused on a written text and students respond in apparent chorus.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Pedagogical implications include problemetizing motivations and objectives for a common classroom ritual
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Turn-taking in classrooms has long been a topic of interest to discourse analysts, with attention paid to turn allocation in teacher-fronted settings (McHoul, 1978; Mehan, 1979), and recent research identifying teacher practices for managing "competing voices" (Waring, 2013). This study builds on such work, asking how students engage with an open floor in "materials mode" (Walsh, 2006, 2011), where teacher and students are focused on a written text and students respond in apparent chorus. We are interested in looking at students who actively bid for turns as well as those who do not contribute verbally. Based on videotaped data from an English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom and from a college reading class (both in the United States), this multimodal conversation analytic study (Mondada, 2016) identifies relevant interactional resources and practices, including talk, gaze, body position, gesture, and the physical environment. Findings suggest that 1) these apparently mundane interactions are a site for complex actions on the parts of individual students, and 2) the focus on text materials in these exchanges has consequences for participation, including temporality, sequentiality, and turn-taking. Pedagogical implications include problemetizing motivations and objectives for a common classroom ritual

🔖

Cite This Article

JACKNICK, C., CREIDER, S. C. (2022). A Chorus Line: Engaging (or Not) with the Open Floor. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: Özel Sayı, 72–92. https://ajindex.com/articles/531700

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Box, C. D. (2011). Embodied (non)participation in a tutoring session. Special Issue of Language and Information Society, 16. 79–108.
  2. Brown, H.D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by Principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. 4th Edition.
  3. Pearson Education. Creider, S. (2016). Encouraging student participation in a French-immersion kindergarten class: A multimodal, conversation analytic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Teachers College, Columbia University. Drew, P. (2013). Turn design. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 131-149).
  4. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Dobs, A. (2014). Collective translation: An interaction practice of translating together in a Chinese foreign language class. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Language and Social Interaction (LANSI) Working Group, New York, NY. Goffman, E. (1981).
  6. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  7. Goodwin, C. (1999). Participation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1-2), 177-180.
  8. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489– 1522. Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53-73.
  9. Gourlay, L. (2005). OK, who's got number one? Permeable triadic dialogue, covert participation and the co-construction of checking episodes. Language Teaching Research, 9(4), 403-422.
  10. Hall, J. K. (2009). Interaction as method and result of language learning. Language Learning, 43(2). 202-215.
  11. Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation Analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
  12. Jacknick, C. (2009). A conversation analytic account of student-initiated participation in an ESL classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Teachers College, Columbia University. Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. In V. D'Urso and P. Leonardi (Eds.) Discoure analysis and natural rhetoric (pp. 11-38).
  13. Padua, Italy: Cleup Editore. Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: a pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(3), 277-309.
  14. Lerner, G. (2002). Turn-sharing. In C.E.