Difference between revisions of "Waring2009"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Hansun Zhang Waring; |Title=Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A Single Case Analysis |Tag(s)=EMCA; classroom discourse;...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Hansun Zhang Waring; | |Author(s)=Hansun Zhang Waring; | ||
| − | |Title=Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): | + | |Title=Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): a single case analysis |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; classroom discourse; conversation analysis; IRF; learner initiation; single case analysis; participation structure; homework review | |Tag(s)=EMCA; classroom discourse; conversation analysis; IRF; learner initiation; single case analysis; participation structure; homework review | ||
|Key=Waring2009 | |Key=Waring2009 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=59 | |Volume=59 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=796–824 |
| + | |URL=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00526.x | ||
|DOI=10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00526.x | |DOI=10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00526.x | ||
| − | |Abstract=A common practice in classroom discourse is the IRF sequence (teacher | + | |Abstract=A common practice in classroom discourse is the IRF sequence (teacher initiation–student response–teacher feedback; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; cf. IRE in Mehan, 1979). Based on a single case analysis from an adult English as a second language (ESL) class, this article demonstrates how one ESL student manages, in close coordination with the teacher, to move out of a series of uninterrupted IRFs during a homework review activity, establishing instead a renewed participation structure that allows for student‐initiated negotiations, which her coparticipants then jointly orient to and successfully accomplish. The analysis suggests that creating negotiation‐rich opportunities is paramount not just during pair and group activities, but more critically, during teacher–whole class interactions. |
| − | |||
| − | 1979). Based on a single case analysis from an adult English as a second language | ||
| − | (ESL) class, this article demonstrates how one ESL student manages, in close | ||
| − | |||
| − | homework review activity, establishing instead a renewed participation structure that | ||
| − | allows for | ||
| − | and successfully accomplish. The analysis suggests that creating | ||
| − | |||
| − | during teacher–whole class interactions. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:19, 23 November 2019
| Waring2009 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Waring2009 |
| Author(s) | Hansun Zhang Waring |
| Title | Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): a single case analysis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, classroom discourse, conversation analysis, IRF, learner initiation, single case analysis, participation structure, homework review |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Language Learning |
| Volume | 59 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 796–824 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00526.x |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
A common practice in classroom discourse is the IRF sequence (teacher initiation–student response–teacher feedback; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; cf. IRE in Mehan, 1979). Based on a single case analysis from an adult English as a second language (ESL) class, this article demonstrates how one ESL student manages, in close coordination with the teacher, to move out of a series of uninterrupted IRFs during a homework review activity, establishing instead a renewed participation structure that allows for student‐initiated negotiations, which her coparticipants then jointly orient to and successfully accomplish. The analysis suggests that creating negotiation‐rich opportunities is paramount not just during pair and group activities, but more critically, during teacher–whole class interactions.
Notes
