Difference between revisions of "ICCA2018 panel on teacher questioning"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
|To date=2019/07/15 | |To date=2019/07/15 | ||
|Address=Loughborough University, UK | |Address=Loughborough University, UK | ||
| − | |Location=52. | + | |Location=52.7682223012, -1.2443934381 |
| − | |Abstract due= | + | |Abstract due=2017/09/08 |
| − | |Submission deadline= | + | |Submission deadline=2017/09/30 |
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 10:07, 9 November 2017
| ICCA2018Tquestioning | |
|---|---|
| Type | Conference |
| Categories (tags) | Uncategorized |
| Dates | 2019/07/11 - 2019/07/15 |
| Link | http://icca2018.org |
| Address | Loughborough University, UK |
| Geolocation | 52° 46' 6", -1° 14' 40" |
| Abstract due | 2017/09/08 |
| Submission deadline | 2017/09/30 |
| Final version due | |
| Notification date | |
| Tweet | CFP: ICCA 2018 panel on the granularity of teacher questioning, DL: 8th Sept to organizers, 30th Sept abstract due |
| Export for iCalendar | |
CFP: ICCA2018 panel on teacher questioning:
Details:
Dear All,
Piera Margutti (piera.margutti@yahoo.it) and I (Michael Gosen - m.n.gosen@rug.nl) are organising a panel on The granularity of teacher questioning for the ICCA conference, to be held in Loughborough 11-15 July, 2018. Please find the panel abstract below. If you’re interested in contributing please get in touch with us by 8th September latest.
The granularity of teacher questioning
Since the first seminal studies on classroom interaction were published (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; McHoul, 1978; Mehan, 1979a), the most prevalent sequential structure that has been described is the Initiation–Response–Evaluation (IRE) structure in which so-called known information questions (Mehan, 1979b) play a prevalent role. Forty years later, this structure still appears to be widely used in classrooms, despite being recurrently brought under discussion. For years scholars have criticized its formality as limiting the opportunities for student participation, searching for ways to enhance student participation through a larger use of genuine questions; but IRE-sequences initiated by teacher questions are still widely used (Nassaji & Wells 2000; Lyle 2008; Gardner, 2012; Margutti & Drew 2014).
The current panel is not interested in the discussions about the IRE structure per se, but is fascinated by the fact that since teacher questioning has begun to attract interest, it is still mainly described in terms of the difference between known information questions and genuine questions. We are convinced that there is still a lot of work for CA with it’s expertise in (mundane) questioning to get better sight of the granularity of teacher questioning. This is important since questions are such a distinguishable part of the institutional setting of the classroom (Hayano, 2012). Therefore this panel aims to further identify and describe the pedagogic actions that are accomplished through questioning following the footsteps of for instance Levinson (1992), Lee (2007; 2008; for teacher evaluations), Lyle (2008), Margutti (2010) and Heritage and Heritage (2013).
The panel is open to analyses of educational data that fit in with CA-studies on sequence organization that move beyond labelling interactional practices as IRE-sequences. We would like to extend our knowledge about classroom interaction as well as our knowledge about questioning in institutional settings in general by organizing a panel with contributions covering a range of pedagogic activities that are embodied through teacher questioning.
References:
- Gardner, R. (2012). Conversation analysis in the classroom. In T. Stivers & and J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. (pp. 593–611). Oxford: Wiley; Blackwell.
- Hayano, K. (2012). Conversation analysis in the classroom. In T. Stivers & and J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. (pp. 395–414). Oxford: Wiley; Blackwell.
- Heritage, M., & Heritage, J. (2013). Teacher Questioning: The Epicenter of Instruction and Assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 26: 176–190.
- Lee, Y. A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(6), 1204–1230.
- Lee, Y. A. (2008). Yes–No Questions in the Third-Turn Position: Pedagogical Discourse Processes. Discourse Processes, 45 (3), 237–262.
- Levinson, S.C. (1992). Activity Types and Language. In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, edited by P. Drew and J. Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Lyle, S. (2008). Dialogic Teaching: Discussing Theoretical Contexts and Reviewing Evidence from Classroom Practice. Language and Education 22 (3): 222–240.
- Margutti, P. (2010). On Designedly Incomplete Utterances: What Counts as Learning for Teachers and Students in Primary Classroom Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(4), 315–345.
- Margutti, P., & Drew, P. (2014). Positive evaluation of student answers in classroom instruction. Language and Education, 28(5), 436-458.
- McHoul, A. (1978). The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom. Language and Society, 7, 183–213.
- Mehan, H. (1979a). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press.
- Mehan, H. (1979b). "What time is it, Denise?": Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 18(4), 285-294.
- Nassaji, H.,& Wells, G. (2000). What's the use of triadic dialogue? An investigation of teacher–student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21 (3), 376-406
- Sinclair, J.M., & Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
