Difference between revisions of "Emanuelsson-Sahlstroem2008"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Jonas Emanuelsson; Fritjof Sahlström; |Title=The Price of Participation: Teacher control versus student participation in classroom inte...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Jonas Emanuelsson; Fritjof Sahlström; | |Author(s)=Jonas Emanuelsson; Fritjof Sahlström; | ||
| − | |Title=The | + | |Title=The price of participation: teacher control versus student participation in classroom interaction |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Learning; Interaction; Mathematics | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Learning; Interaction; Mathematics | ||
|Key=Emanuelsson-Sahlstroem2008 | |Key=Emanuelsson-Sahlstroem2008 | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
|Pages=205–223 | |Pages=205–223 | ||
| − | |URL=https://doi | + | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00313830801915853 |
|DOI=10.1080/00313830801915853 | |DOI=10.1080/00313830801915853 | ||
|Abstract=The aim of this article is to further the understanding of how content is learned in classrooms, using conversation analysis (CA) and variation theory for the analysis. Classroom video materials from two mathematics classrooms in Sweden and the USA are analysed. A result of the study is the empirical explication of the tension between the need for teacher content control and the simultaneous contradictory need for student participation in educational interaction. The article also develops variation theory toward a more sensitive understanding of the sequential implications of interaction and suggests CA can benefit from more systematic understandings of content orientation in interaction. In doing so, the presumed gulf between acquisitionist and participation | |Abstract=The aim of this article is to further the understanding of how content is learned in classrooms, using conversation analysis (CA) and variation theory for the analysis. Classroom video materials from two mathematics classrooms in Sweden and the USA are analysed. A result of the study is the empirical explication of the tension between the need for teacher content control and the simultaneous contradictory need for student participation in educational interaction. The article also develops variation theory toward a more sensitive understanding of the sequential implications of interaction and suggests CA can benefit from more systematic understandings of content orientation in interaction. In doing so, the presumed gulf between acquisitionist and participation | ||
understandings of learning is challenged. | understandings of learning is challenged. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 00:01, 21 November 2019
| Emanuelsson-Sahlstroem2008 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Emanuelsson-Sahlstroem2008 |
| Author(s) | Jonas Emanuelsson, Fritjof Sahlström |
| Title | The price of participation: teacher control versus student participation in classroom interaction |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Learning, Interaction, Mathematics |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2008 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research |
| Volume | 52 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 205–223 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/00313830801915853 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The aim of this article is to further the understanding of how content is learned in classrooms, using conversation analysis (CA) and variation theory for the analysis. Classroom video materials from two mathematics classrooms in Sweden and the USA are analysed. A result of the study is the empirical explication of the tension between the need for teacher content control and the simultaneous contradictory need for student participation in educational interaction. The article also develops variation theory toward a more sensitive understanding of the sequential implications of interaction and suggests CA can benefit from more systematic understandings of content orientation in interaction. In doing so, the presumed gulf between acquisitionist and participation understandings of learning is challenged.
Notes
