Establishing understanding during student-initiated between-desk instructions in project work

References

• Åberg, M. (2015). Doing project work: The interactional organisation of tasks, resources, and instructions [Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg]. Göteborg: Acta universitatis Gothoburgensis.
   Google Scholar
• Åberg, M. (2017). Talk, text, and tasks in student-initiated instructional interaction. Discourse Processes, 54(8), 618–637.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldrup, M. (2019). ‘Well, let me put it uhm the other way around maybe’: Managing students’ trouble displays in the CLIL classroom. Classroom Discourse, 10(1), 46–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antaki, C., Barnes, R., & Leudar, I. (2007). Members’ and analysts’ interests: ‘Formulations’ in psychotherapy. In A. Hepburn & S. Wiggins (Eds.), Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction (pp. 166–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehviläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 107–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Badem-Korkmaz, F., & Balaman, U. (2020). Third position repair for resolving troubles in understanding teacher instructions. Linguistics and Education, 60, 100859.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baraldi, C. (2014). Formulations in dialogic facilitation of classroom interactions. Language and Dialogue, 4(2), 234–260.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, R. (2007). Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in Meetings Talk. Text & Talk - an Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies, 27(3), 273–296.
   Google Scholar
• British Council. (2013). TBL and PBL: Two learner-centred approaches. Retrieved October 20, 2021, from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/tbl-pbl-two-learner-centred-approaches.
   Google Scholar
• Carlgren, I., Klette, K., Mýrdal, S., Schnack, K., & Simola, H. (2006). Changes in Nordic Teaching practices: From individualised teaching to the teaching of individuals. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 301–326.
   Google Scholar
• Deppermann, A. (2013). Multimodal interaction from a conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duran, D., & Sert, O. (2021). Student-Initiated multi-unit questions in EMI classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 65, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2021.100980
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giota, J., & Emanuelsson, I. (2018). Individualised teaching practices in the Swedish comprehensive school from 1980 to 2014 in relation to education reforms and curricula goals. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 4(3), 144–155.
   Google Scholar
• Giota, J., Bergh, D., & Emanuelsson, I. (2019). Changes in individualized teaching practices in municipal and independent schools 2003, 2008 and 2014 – student achievement, family background and school choice in Sweden. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 5(2), 78–91.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organisation interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19(1), 283–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, M. H., Goodwin, C., & Yaeger-Dror, M. (2002). Multi-modality in girls’ game disputes. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10–11), 1621–1649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In K. S. Mahwah (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 217–241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2012). The co-operative, transformative organisation of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greiffenhagen, C. (2012). Making rounds: The routine work of the teacher during collaborative learning with computers. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 11–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). New York: Irvington.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R. (1980). Aspects of the properties of formulations in natural conversations: Some instances analysed. Semiotica, 30(3–4), 245–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1985). Analysing news interviews. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 95–117). London: Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I. (2005). Active Listening: Formulations and the elicitation of feelings-talk in child counselling. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 303–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I. (2010). Feelings-talk and the paradoxes of child counselling. In H. Gardner & M. Forrester (Eds.), Analysing interactions in childhood: Insights from conversation analysis (pp. 146–162). Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Jakonen, T. (2020). Professional embodiment: Walking, re-engagement of desk interactions, and provision of instruction during classroom rounds. Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 161–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapellidi, C. (2015). The practice of (re)formulating in classroom interaction: Some preliminary remarks. Pragmatics and Society, 6(4), 565–592.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaur, B. (2009). Characteristics of good mathematics teaching in Singapore grade 8 classrooms: A juxtaposition of teachers’ practice and students’ perception. ZDM, 41(3), 333–347.
   Google Scholar
• Knol, L., Huiskes, M., Koole, T., Meganck, R., Loeys, T., & Desmet, M. (2020). Reformulating and mirroring in psychotherapy: A conversation analytic perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoll, M. (1997). The project method: Its vocational education origin and international development. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34(3), 59-80.
   Google Scholar
• Koole, T. (2012). The epistemics of student problems: Explaining mathematics in a multi-lingual class. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1902–1916.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koshik, I. (2005). Alternative questions used in conversational repair. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 193–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunitz, S. (2021). Instruction-giving sequences in Italian as a foreign language classes: An ethnomethodological conversation analytic perspective. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (pp. 133–161). Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Landmark, A. M. D., Svennevig, J., & Gulbrandsen, P. (2016). Negotiating treatment preferences: Physicians’ formulations of patients’ stance. Social Science & Medicine, 149, 26–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2011). Uses of ‘understand’ in science education. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 452–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macbeth, D. (2011). Understanding understanding as an instructional matter: Understanding understanding in action. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 438–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markee, N. (2015). Giving and following pedagogical instructions in task-based instruction: An ethnomethodological perspective. In P. Seedhouse & C. Jenks (Eds.), International perspectives on the ELT classroom interaction (pp. 110–128). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Markee, N. (2017). Are replication studies possible in qualitative second/foreign language classroom research? A call for comparative re-production research. Language Teaching, 50(3), 367–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 542–552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, C., Xu, L. H., Clarke, D. (2006). Kikan-Shido: Between desks instruction. In D. Clarke, J. Emanuelsson, E. Jablonka, & I. A. C. Mok (Eds.), Making connections: Comparing mathematics classrooms around the world (pp. 73–105). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Pulles, M., Berenst, J., Koole, T., & Glopper, K. D. (2021). Text formulations as practices of demonstrating understanding in dialogic reading. Text & Talk - an Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Discourse Communication Studies, 41(4), 515–538.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, C. W. (2019). Intersubjectivity, normativity, and grammar. Social Psychology Quarterly, 82(2), 182–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, A. E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sert, O. (2019). The interplay between collaborative turn sequences and active listenership: Implications for the development of L2 interactional competence. In R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 110–131). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sert, O., & Amri, M. (2021). Learning potentials afforded by a film in task-based language classroom interactions. Modern Language Journal, 105(S1), 126–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skarbø Solem, M. (2016). Displaying knowledge through interrogatives in student-initiated sequences. Classroom Discourse, 7(1), 18–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skarbø Solem, M., & Skovholt, K. (2017). Teacher formulations in classroom interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education] (2021). Kommentarmaterial till ämnesplanerna i moderna språk och engelska [Commentary material on the syllabi in modern languages and English]. Retrieved January 7, 2022, from https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=7842
   Google Scholar
• Somuncu, D., & Sert, O. (2019). EFL trainee teachers’ orientations to students’ non-understanding: A focus on task instructions. In H. T. Nguyen & T. Irba (Eds.), Conversation analytic perspectives on English language learning, teaching, and testing in global Contexts (pp. 110–131). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• St. John, O., & Cromdal, J. (2016). Crafting instructions collaboratively: Student questions and dual addressivity in classroom task instructions. Discourse Processes, 53(4), 252–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svennevig, J. (2003). Echo answers in native/non-native interaction. Pragmatics, 13, 285–310.
   Google Scholar
• ten Have, P. (2007). Doing Conversation Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Vehviläinen, S. (2003). Avoiding providing solutions: Orienting to the ideal of students‘self-directedness in counselling interaction. Discourse Studies, 5(3), 389–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vetenskapsrådet [Swedish Research Council] (2017). Good research practice. Retrieved August 10, 2021, from: https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/reports/our-reports/2017-08-31-good-research-practice.html
   Google Scholar
• Waring, H. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities in the language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 2(2), 201–218
   Google Scholar