Establishing Scientific Discourse in Classroom Interaction Teacher Students’ Orientation to Mundane Versus Technical Talk in the School Subject Norwegian

References

• Aguiar, O., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge: Dialogis.
   Google Scholar
• Allington, D. (2012). Private experience, textual analysis, and institutional authority: The discursive practice of critical interpretation and its enactment in literary training. Language and Literature, 21(2), 211–225. doi: 10.1177/0963947011435864
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attenborough, F., & Stokoe, E. (2012). Student life; student identity; student experience: Ethnomethodological methods for pedagogical matters. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 11(1), 6–21. doi: 10.2304/plat.2012.11.1.6
   Google Scholar
• Baynham, M. (1996). Direct speech: What’s it doing in non-narrative discourse? Journal of Pragmatics, 25(1), 61–81. doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(94)00074-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. H. (2002). Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: Shifting dynamics and identities. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 429–453. doi: 10.1177/14614456020040040201
   Google Scholar
• Dysthe, O. (1993). Writing and talking to learn: A theory-based, interpretive study in three classrooms in the USA and Norway. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Tromsø: Avdeling for praktisk-pedagogisk utdanning.
   Google Scholar
• Dysthe, O. (1995). Det flerstemmige klasserommet. Skriving og samtale for å lære. Oslo: Gyldendal norsk forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Emanuelsson, J., & Sahlström, F. (2008). The price of participation: Teacher control versus student participation in classroom interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(2), 205–223. doi: 10.1080/00313830801915853
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fretheim, T. (1991). Formal and functional differences between S-internal and S-external modal particles in Norwegian. Multilingua, 10, 175–200.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, R. (2013). Conversation analysis in the classroom. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 593–611). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hägerfelth, G. (2004). Språkpraktiker i naturkunskap i två mångkulturella gymnasieklassrum. En studie av läroprocesser bland elever med olika förstaspråk (PhD), Malmö.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2011). The interaction order and clinical practice: Some observations on dysfunctions and action steps. Patient Education and Counseling, 84, 338–343. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.05.022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 370–394). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. C., & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language. Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). New York: Irvington Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. C., & Watson, D. R. (1980). Aspects of the properties of formulations in natural conversations – some instances analyzed. Semiotica, 30(3-4), 245–262.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325–356. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In G. Button & N. Casey (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 191–222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 86–100). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y.-A. (2006). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1204–1230. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. London: Ablex Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, INC.
   Google Scholar
• Majlesi, A. R., & Broth, M. (2012). Emergent learnables in second language classoom interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 193–207. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malmbjer, A. (2007). Skilda världar: en språkvetenskaplig undersökning av gruppsamtal som undervisnings- och lärandeform inom högre utbildning (Vol. 72). Uppsala: Institutionen.
   Google Scholar
• Mchoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2), 183–213. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500005522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377. doi: 10.1080/01411920410001689689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nyroos, L. (2010). ‘Om du har något annat ord för det?’ Hur deltagares skilda perspektiv kommer till uttryck i ett undervisningssammanhang [‘Could you rephrase that?’ Participants’ display of different perspectives in an educational setting]. Språk & Stil, 20, 165–188.
   Google Scholar
• Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Student engagement: When recitation becomes conversation. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 257–276). California: McCutchan.
   Google Scholar
• Peräkylä, A. (2004). Reliability and validity in research based upon transcripts. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed., pp. 282–303). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Peräkylä, A. (2011). Validity in research on naturally ocurring social interaction. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research (Third ed., pp. 365–382). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229. doi: 10.1007/BF00148128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahlström, F. (2009). Conversation analysis as a way of studying learning—An introduction to a special issue of SJER. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 103–111. doi: 10.1080/00313830902757543
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure (pp. 44–70). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45–80. doi: 10.1080/03057269808560127
   Google Scholar
• Scott, P., Ametller, J., Mercer, N., Staarman, J. K., & Dawes, L. (2007). An investigation of dialogic teaching in science classrooms. Paper presented at the NARST, New Orleans.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Aguiar, O. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605–631. doi: 10.1002/sce.20131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Ametller, J. (2011). Pedagogical link-making: A fundamental aspect of teaching and learning scientific conceptual knowledge. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 3–36. doi: 10.1080/03057267.2011.549619
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Solem, M. S., & Skovholt, K. (in press). Teacher-formulations in classroom interaction.
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society, 43, 185–207. doi: 10.1017/S0047404514000037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. doi: 10.1080/08351810903471258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2013). Introduction. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 1–8). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. Language and Education, 14(3), 184–203. doi: 10.1080/09500780008666789
   Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. (2011). Simulated interaction and communication skills training: The ‘Conversation-Analytic Role-Play Method’. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 119–139). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. (2013). The (in)authenticity of simulated talk: Comparing role-played and actual interaction and the implications for communication training. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(2), 165–185. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2013.780341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. (2014). The conversation analytic role-play method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 255–265. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2014.925663
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E., Benwell, B., & Attenborough, F. (2013). University students managing engagement, preparation, knowledge and achievement: Interactional evidence from institutional, domestic and virtual settings. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 2(2), 75–90. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2013.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotskij, L. S., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotskij, L. S., & Kozulin, A. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar