Exploring the Assumptions that Underlie Knowledge Elicitation in Classroom Interaction
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
From a conversation analytic perspective, this paper explores the assumptions underlying the elicitation of knowledge display, in particular relation to an elicitation method. It begins with the classification of elicitation methods into the opening up and limiting methods, depending on whether teachers open up the opportunity to answer to all students, or limit it to one at a time. Based on the premise that teachers have certain expectation about the cohort’s access to a required answer and that this expectation is tied to how the answer is elicited, the paper focuses on evidencing the correlation between teachers’ answer anticipation and the use of an elicitation method, particularly, the opening up method. The examination of 12 video-recorded Korean primary school EFL classes suggests that the opening up method is used, conveying varying levels of teachers’ answer anticipation, expressed on a continuum of ‘only a few, possibly none of the cohort, can answer’ anticipation at one end and ‘all can answer’ anticipation at the other. This suggests that the opening up method is the default mode of elicitation reflective of all levels of answer anticipation, which is contrasted to the limiting method skewed toward one end of the continuum.
Abstract
From a conversation analytic perspective, this paper explores the assumptions underlying the elicitation of knowledge display, in particular relation to an elicitation method. It begins with the classification of elicitation methods into the opening up and limiting methods, depending on whether teachers open up the opportunity to answer to all students, or limit it to one at a time. Based on the premise that teachers have certain expectation about the cohort’s access to a required answer and that this expectation is tied to how the answer is elicited, the paper focuses on evidencing the correlation between teachers’ answer anticipation and the use of an elicitation method, particularly, the opening up method. The examination of 12 video-recorded Korean primary school EFL classes suggests that the opening up method is used, conveying varying levels of teachers’ answer anticipation, expressed on a continuum of ‘only a few, possibly none of the cohort, can answer’ anticipation at one end and ‘all can answer’ anticipation at the other. This suggests that the opening up method is the default mode of elicitation reflective of all levels of answer anticipation, which is contrasted to the limiting method skewed toward one end of the continuum.
참고문헌 (22)
- Goodwin, C., "Everyday anguage: Studies in ethnomethodology", pp.97~121 (1979), Irvington
- Heller, V., "Managing knowledge claims in classroom discourse : The public construction of a homogeneous epistemic status", Classroom Discourse, 8(2), pp.156~174 (2017)
- Heritage, J., "The terms of agreement : Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-ininteraction", Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), pp.15~38 (2005)
- Heritage, J., "Epistemics in action : Action formation and territories of knowledge", Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), pp.1~29 (2012)
- Heritage, J., "The epistemic engine : Sequence organization and territories of knowledge", Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), pp.30~52 (2012)
- Jefferson, G., "Conversation analysis:Studies from the first generation", pp.13~23 (2004), John Benjamins
- Koole, T., "Displays of epistemic access : Student responses to teacher explanations", Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), pp.183~209 (2010)
- Koshik, I., "Designedly incomplete utterances : A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences", Research on Language & Social Interaction, 35(3), pp.277~309 (2002)
- Koshik, I., "Why do you ask?: The function of questions in institutional discourse", pp.159~186 (2009), Oxford University Press
- Lee, Y. -A., "Respecifying display questions : Interactional resources for language teaching", TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), pp.691~713 (2006)
- Lee, Y. -A., "Yes-no questions in the third-turn position : Pedagogical discourse processes", Discourse Processes, 45(3), pp.237~262 (2008)
- Margutti, P., ""Are you human beings?"order and knowledge construction through questioning in primary classroom interaction", Linguistics and Education, 17(4), pp.313~346 (2006)
- Margutti, P., "On designedly incomplete utterances : What counts as learning for teachers and students in primary classroom interaction", Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(4), pp.315~345 (2010)
- Rusk, F., "Initiating and carrying out L2 instruction by asking known-answer questions : Incongruent interrogative practices in bi-and multilingual peer interaction", Linguistics and Education, 38, pp.55~67 (2017)
- Schegloff, E. A., "Sequence organization in interaction:A primer in conversation analysis I" (2007), Cambridge University Press
- Sert, O., "‘Epistemic status check’ as an interactional phenomenon in instructed learning settings", Journal of Pragmatics, 45(1), pp.13~28 (2013)
- Sidnell, J., "The handbook of conversation analysis" (2012), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
- Sinclair, J., "Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils" (1975), Longman
- Stivers, T., "The morality of knowledge in conversation" (2011), Cambridge University Press
- Stivers, T., "The morality of knowledge in conversation", pp.3~24 (2011), Cambridge University Press
- Waring, H. Z., "Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom : IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities", Modern Language Journal, 92(4), pp.577~594 (2008)
- Waring, H. Z., "Yes-no questions that convey a critical stance in the language classroom", Language and Education, 26(5), pp.451~469 (2012)