How do teachers manage topic and repair?

Abstract

A case study is presented of a 10-year-old child described as having comprehension dif culties, in conversation with a specialist teacher, a mainstream teacher and a peer. Tape recordings of social talk between the child and the adults and peer were made in the school setting. The data are subjected to detailed sequential analysis, drawing on some of the insights gained into the management of topic and repair by researchers working in the tradition of conversation analysis. We nd that both our subject's specialist teacher and the mainstream peer use some helpful devices to extend the topical material produced by the child and to repair 'troubles' in the conversation. We consider the language learning potential of these turns and the implications for classroom teachers working with children with language needs.

Opening up and closing down: How teachers and TAs manage turn-taking, topic and repair in mathematics lessons

“…In the classroom, teachers correct children's talk more readily than in everyday conversation (Hauser, 2005;Macbeth, 2006;McHoul, 1990). Yet, to foster student independence, teachers should avoid direct correction and, instead, employ strategies such as clueing (McHoul, 1990), prompting, hinting and supplying a model (Radford, 2010a(Radford, , 2010bRidley, Radford, & Mahon, 2002). These studies demonstrate that withholding correction, through use of devices like prompts and hints (also known as other-initiations), affords students the maximum opportunity to self-repair and find the answer by themselves.…”

Triadic Dialogue in Oral Communication Tasks: What are the Implications for Language Learning?

“…Importantly, also, as far as language learning is concerned, recasts and reformulations provide positive evidence of the syntax and/or semantics of the child's previous turns. As Ridley, Radford and Mahon (2002) also found in teacher and peer interaction, the follow-up turn affords contingent opportunities for additional syntactic and semantic elements to be added.…”

Informing choice: The organization of institutional interaction in clinical midwifery care

“…See Epperson & Zemel, 2008;Forrester, Ramsden, & Reason, 1997;Solomon, 1997;Ulvik & Salvesen, 2007;Yakel, 1997), conversation analysts have considered how speakers' talk performs a number of actions of potential interest to LIS scholars. These include "troubles telling" (Jefferson & Lee, 1992), raising new topics (Button & Casey, 1984), informing (Heritage, 1984;Schiffrin 1999), news giving (Maynard, 2003), advice giving (Heritage & Sefi, 1992;Pilnick, 2001), agreeing or disagreeing with prior talk (Kuo, 1994), claiming and challenging authority (Garcia & Parmer, 1999), managing discrepant perspectives (Lehtinen & Kääriäinen, 2005), counselling Silverman, 1997;He, 1995), negotiating (Karhila, Kettunen, Poskiparta, & Liimatainen, 2003), disclosing and responding to fears (Beach, Easter, Good, & Pigeron, 2005), presenting and discussing problems (Gill & Maynard, 2006;Robinson, 2006;Shaw & Kitzinger, 2007), repairing miscommunications (Ridley, Radford, & Mahon, 2002), making indirect requests (Gill, Halkowski, & Roberts, 2001;Weijts, Widdershoven, Kok, & Tomlow, 1993), discussing difficult or sensitive issues (Epperson & Zemel, 2008;Kinnell, 2001;Parry, 2004;Pilnick & Coleman, 2006), accounting for behavior (Fisher & Groce, 1990), making assessments (McHoul & Rapley, 2002;Jones, 2001), instructing (Epperson & Zemel, 2008), expla...…”