Difference between revisions of "Vine2008"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Elaine W. Vine |Title=CA and SCT: strange bedfellows or useful partners for understanding classroom interactions? |Tag(s)=EMCA; Classroo...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Elaine W. Vine | |Author(s)=Elaine W. Vine | ||
|Title=CA and SCT: strange bedfellows or useful partners for understanding classroom interactions? | |Title=CA and SCT: strange bedfellows or useful partners for understanding classroom interactions? | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Classroom interactions; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Classroom interactions; |
|Key=Vine2008 | |Key=Vine2008 | ||
|Year=2008 | |Year=2008 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=10 | |Volume=10 | ||
|Number=5 | |Number=5 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=673–693 |
| − | | | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461445608094218 |
| − | | | + | |DOI=10.1177/1461445608094218 |
| − | + | |Abstract=Understanding classroom interactions is a complex process. This article explores what conversation analysis (CA) and sociocultural theory of learning (SCT) can contribute to that process. The exploration is carried out through analyses of interactions between Brian, a five-year-old boy, and Ms Nikora, his teacher, during a nine-hour social studies curriculum unit in a New Zealand classroom. CA and SCT may appear to be strange bedfellows, in that the former concerns itself with language use (how participants organize and manage conversations), while the latter concerns itself with language as mediation (how learning occurs), but they turn out to be useful partners. The analyses reveal at least three perspectives from which participants need to be understanding what is going on in classroom interactions in order to participate in them appropriately and learn through them: how people organize conversations, institutional talk, and how teachers and learners jointly construct learning opportunities. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | Abstract | ||
| − | |||
| − | Understanding classroom interactions is a complex process. This article explores what conversation analysis (CA) and sociocultural theory of learning (SCT) can contribute to that process. The exploration is carried out through analyses of interactions between Brian, a five-year-old boy, and Ms Nikora, his teacher, during a nine-hour social studies curriculum unit in a New Zealand classroom. CA and SCT may appear to be strange bedfellows, in that the former concerns itself with language use (how participants organize and manage conversations), while the latter concerns itself with language as mediation (how learning occurs), but they turn out to be useful partners. The analyses reveal at least three perspectives from which participants need to be understanding what is going on in classroom interactions in order to participate in them appropriately and learn through them: how people organize conversations, institutional talk, and how teachers and learners jointly construct learning opportunities. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:11, 20 November 2019
| Vine2008 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Vine2008 |
| Author(s) | Elaine W. Vine |
| Title | CA and SCT: strange bedfellows or useful partners for understanding classroom interactions? |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Classroom interactions |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2008 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 10 |
| Number | 5 |
| Pages | 673–693 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445608094218 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Understanding classroom interactions is a complex process. This article explores what conversation analysis (CA) and sociocultural theory of learning (SCT) can contribute to that process. The exploration is carried out through analyses of interactions between Brian, a five-year-old boy, and Ms Nikora, his teacher, during a nine-hour social studies curriculum unit in a New Zealand classroom. CA and SCT may appear to be strange bedfellows, in that the former concerns itself with language use (how participants organize and manage conversations), while the latter concerns itself with language as mediation (how learning occurs), but they turn out to be useful partners. The analyses reveal at least three perspectives from which participants need to be understanding what is going on in classroom interactions in order to participate in them appropriately and learn through them: how people organize conversations, institutional talk, and how teachers and learners jointly construct learning opportunities.
Notes
