Teacher Directives in Children’s Musical Instrument Instruction: Activity Context, Student Cooperation, and Institutional Priority

References

• All European Academies (ALLEA). (2017). The European code of conduct for research integrity. Retrieved from http://www.allea.org/publications/joint-publications/european-code-conduct-research-integrity
   Google Scholar
• Broth, M., Cromdal, J., & Levin, L. (2017). Starting out as a driver: Progression in instructed pedal work. In Å Mäkitalo, P. Linell, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Memory practices and learning: Interactional, institutional and sociocultural perspectives (pp. 113–142). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer, C., & Wagner, J. (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 29–47. doi:10.1558/japl.v1.i1.29 doi: 10.1558/japl.1.1.29.55873
   Google Scholar
• Carlgren, I. (2009). CA-studies of learning – from an educational perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 203–209. doi: 10.1080/00313830902757618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, C. M. (1980). Choice of a model for research on teacher thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 12(1), 41–47. doi: 10.1080/0022027800120105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clift, R. (2016). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deppermann, A. (2015). When recipient design fails: Egocentric turn-design of instructions in driving school lessons leading to breakdowns of intersubjectivity. Gesprächsforschung, 16, 63–101.
   Google Scholar
• De Stefani, E., & Gazin, A.-D. (2014). Instructional sequences in driving lessons: Mobile participants and the temporal and sequential organization of actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 63–79. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickey, M. R. (1991). A comparison of verbal instruction and nonverbal teacher-student modeling in instrumental ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(2), 132–142. doi: 10.2307/3344693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). The scope of inquiry and goals of SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 3–15). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duke, R. A. (1999). Teacher and student behavior in Suzuki string lessons: Results from the international research symposium on talent education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 293–307. doi: 10.2307/3345485
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duke, R. A., & Henninger, J. C. (2002). Teachers’ verbal corrections and observers, perceptions of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 75–87. doi: 10.2307/3345694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duke, R. A., & Simmons, A. L. (2006). The nature of expertise: Narrative descriptions of 19 common elements observed in the lessons of three renowned artist-teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 170. Retrieved from http://cml.music.utexas.edu/assets/pdf/DukeSimmons2006.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J., Davies, B., & Rich, E. (2009). The body made flesh: Embodied learning and the corporeal device. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(4), 391–406. doi: 10.1080/01425690902954588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. (2012). Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. Retrieved from http://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ohje_2012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gabor, E. (2009). When work starts in childhood: The anticipatory socialization process of classical musicians (Doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, IN.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606–633. doi: 10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, M. H., & Cekaite, A. (2013). Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 122–138. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T. R., & Alho, I. (2004). Iso suomen kielioppi [The comprehensive grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23(1), 1–29. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500017656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hindmarsh, J., Hyland, L., & Banerjee, A. (2014). Work to make simulation work: ‘Realism’, instructional correction, and the body in training. Discourse Studies, 16(2), 247–269. doi: 10.1177/1461445613514670
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2010). Bodily quoting in dance correction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(4), 401–426. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2010.518065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2013). The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2013.753710
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keisanen, T., & Rauniomaa, M. (2012). The organization of participation and contingency in prebeginnings of request sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 323–351. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.724985
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent, A. (2012). Compliance, resistance, and incipient compliance when responding to directives. Discourse Studies, 14, 711–730. doi: 10.1177/1461445612457485
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuusisto, A., & Lamminmäki-Vartia, S. (2012). Moral foundation of the kindergarten teacher’s educational approach: Self-reflection facilitated educator response to pluralism in educational context. Education Research International, 2012, 1–13. doi: 10.1155/2012/303565
   Google Scholar
• Lappalainen, H. (2008). Kelan virkailijoiden henkilötunnuspyynnöt: Tutkimus rutiininomaisista toiminnoista [Asking for clients’ identity number or identity card at Finnish social security offices: A study of routinized activities]. Virittäjä, 112, 483–517.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J., & Wegner, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y.-A. (2010). Learning in the contingency of talk-in-interaction. Text & Talk – An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 30(4), 403–422. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2010.020
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (1995). Turn design and the organization of participation in instructional activities. Discourse Processes, 19(1), 111–131. doi: 10.1080/01638539109544907
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, D. (2015). New “field” of vocal music teaching and research: Research on the construction of a novel interaction mode. English Language Teaching, 8(12), 74–78. doi: 10.5539/elt.v8n12p74
   Google Scholar
• Lindwall, O., & Ekström, A. (2012). Instruction-in-interaction: The teaching and learning of a manual skill. Human Studies, 35, 27–49. doi: 10.1007/s10746-012-9213-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindwall, O., Lymer, G., & Greiffenhagen, C. (2015). The sequential analysis of instruction. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 142–157). Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Macbeth, D. H. (1991). Teacher authority as practical action. Linguistics and Education, 3, 281–313. doi: 10.1016/0898-5898(91)90012-8
   Google Scholar
• Martin, C., & Sahlström, F. (2010). Learning as longitudinal interactional change: From other -repair to self -repair in physiotherapy treatment. Discourse Processes, 47(8), 668–697. doi: 10.1080/01638531003628965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7, 183–213. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500005522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mehan, H. (1985). The structure of classroom discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 3, pp. 120–131). London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Melander, H. (2012). Transformations of knowledge within a peer group: Knowing and learning in interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(3–4), 232–248. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merlino, S. (2014). Singing in ‘another’ language: How pronunciation matters in the organisation of choral rehearsals. Social Semiotics, 24(4), 420–445. doi: 10.1080/10350330.2014.929390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millican, J. S. (2013). Describing instrumental music teachers’ thinking: Implications for understanding pedagogical content knowledge. Update, 31(2), 45–53. doi: 10.1177/8755123312473761
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2014a). Cooking instructions and the shaping of things in the kitchen. In M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, & M. Rauniomaa (Eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity (pp. 199–226). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2014b). Instructions in the operating room: How the surgeon directs their assistant’s hands. Discourse Studies, 16(2), 131–161. doi: 10.1177/1461445613515325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2014c). Requesting immediate action in the surgical operating room: Time, embodied resources and praxeological embeddedness. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 269–302). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366. doi: 10.1111/josl.1_12177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nishizaka, A. (2006). What to learn: The embodied structure of the environment. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(2), 119–154. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3902_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parton, K. (2014). Epistemic stance in orchestral interaction. Social Semiotics, 24(4), 402–419. doi: 10.1080/10350330.2014.929389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Raevaara, L. (2017). Adjusting the design of directives to the activity environment. In M.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp. 381–410). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Rauniomaa, M. (2017). Assigning roles and responsibilities: Finnish imperatively formatted directive actions in a mobile instructional setting. In M.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp. 325–355). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Reed, D., & Szczepek Reed, B. (2014). The emergence of learnables in music masterclasses. Social Semiotics, 24(4), 446–467. doi: 10.1080/10350330.2014.929391
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi, G. (2012). Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes, 49(5), 426–458. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2012.684136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouhikoski, A. (2015). Laita, laitatko vai laitat? Kolmen direktiivirakenteen variaatio asiakaspalvelutilanteessa [Imperative, interrogative or 2nd-person declarative? Variation of three directive constructions in service encounters]. Virittäjä, 2015(2), 189–222.
   Google Scholar
• Rusk, F., Pörn, M., Sahlström, F., & Slotte-Lüttge, A. (2015). Perspectives on using video recordings in conversation analytical studies on learning in interaction. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38(1), 39–55. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2014.903918
   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
• Sahlström, F. (2011). Learning as social action. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 43–62). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X027002004
   Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. S. (2013). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Journal of Education, 193(3), 1–11. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004 doi: 10.1177/002205741319300302
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of conversation analysis. Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Lääkärin ohjeet [Doctor’s instructions]. In M.-L. Sorjonen, A. Peräkylä, & K. Eskola (Eds.), Keskustelu lääkärin vastaanotolla [Conversation during doctor’s consultation] (pp. 89–111). Tampere: Vastapaino.
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M. (2011). Participants’ deontic rights and action formation: The case of declarative requests for action. Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt), 52. Retrieved from http://www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/52/
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M. (2017). Managing compliance in violin instruction: The case of the Finnish clitic particles –pa and –pas in imperatives and hortatives. In M.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp. 357–380). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
   Web of Science ®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(2), 185–207. doi: 10.1017/S0047404514000037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2016). Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(2), 148–166. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• St. John, O., & Cromdal, J. (2016). Crafting instructions collaboratively: Student questions and dual addressivity in classroom task instructions. Discourse Processes, 53, 252–279. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1038128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. D. (2011). Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. D. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp. 1–26). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Szczepek Reed, B., Reed, D., & Haddon, E. (2013). NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating restarts in the pursuit of learnables in vocal master classes. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(1), 22–46. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2013.753714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vehviläinen, S. (2009). Problems in the research problem: Critical feedback and resistance in academic supervision. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 185–201. doi: 10.1080/00313830902757592
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vehviläinen, S. (2012). Question-prefaced advice in feedback sequences of Finnish academic supervisions. In H. Limberg & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Advice in discourse (pp. 31–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Veronesi, D. (2014). Correction sequences and semiotic resources in ensemble music workshops: The case of conduction®. Social Semiotics, 24(4), 468–494. doi: 10.1080/10350330.2014.929393
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (initiation-response-feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59(4), 796–824. doi:10.1080/10350330.2014.929393 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00526.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks, P. (1985). Error-correction techniques and sequences in instructional settings: Toward a comparative framework. Human Studies, 8(3), 195–233. doi: 10.1007/BF00142993
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks, P. (1996). A rehearsal of a Beethoven passage: An analysis of correction talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(3), 247–290. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wootton, A. J. (1997). Interaction and the development of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wootton, A. J. (2005). Interactional and sequential configurations informing request format selection in children’s speech. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 185–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Yli-Vakkuri, V. (1986). Suomen kieliopillisten muotojen toissijainen käyttö [Secondary uses of Finnish grammatical forms]. Publications of the Department of Finnish and General Linguistics 28. Turku: University of Turku.
   Google Scholar
• Zemel, A., & Koschmann, T. (2011). Pursuing a question: Reinitiating IRE sequences as a method of instruction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 475–488. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zemel, A., & Koschmann, T. (2014). ‘Put your fingers right in here’: Learnability and instructed experience. Discourse Studies, 16(2), 163–183. doi:10.177/0891241613485905 doi: 10.1177/1461445613515359
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zinken, J., & Ogiermann, E. (2011). How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of Polish Trzeba x (“one needs to x”). Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(3), 263–287. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2011.591900
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zinken, J., & Ogiermann, E. (2013). Responsibility and action: Invariants and diversity in requests for objects in British English and Polish interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(3), 256–276. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2013.810409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar