Positive evaluation of student answers in classroom instruction

References

• Alexander, R. 2008. Culture and Pedagogy. Rethinking Classroom Talk. 4th ed. York: Dialogos.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, M. 1981. “Systemic Linguistics and Discourse Analysis: A Multi-layered Approach to Exchange Structure.” In Studies in Discourse Analysis, edited by M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery, 120–145. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Brice Heath, S. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, J. 1982. “Discourse Style, Classroom Interaction and Differential Treatment.” Journal of Reading Behaviour 14: 429–437.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P. 1981. “Adults’ Corrections of Children's Mistakes: A Response to Wells and Montgomery.” In Adult-Child Conversation, edited by P. French and M. Maclure, 244–267. London: Croom Helm.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, R. 1997. “The Conversational Object Mm: Weak and Variable Acknowledging Token.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 30 (2): 131–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosse, G., and M. Tomasello. 2012. “Two-Year-Old Children Differentiate Test Questions from Genuine Questions.” Journal of Child Language 39: 192–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellermann, J. 2003. “The Interactive Work of Prosody in the IRF Exchange: Teacher Repetition in Feedback Moves.” Language in Society 32: 79–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellermann, J. 2005. “Syntactic and Prosodic Practices for Cohesion in Series of Three-Part Sequences in Classroom Talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (1): 105–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. 1984. “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement.” In Structures of Social Action, edited by John Maxwell Atkinson and J. Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., and Steven E. Clayman. 2010. Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, edited by Gene Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Koole, T. 2012. “Teacher Evaluations: Assessing ‘Knowing’, ‘Understanding’, and ‘Doing’.” In Evaluating Cognitive Competences in Interaction, edited by Gitte Rasmussen, Catherine E. Brouwer, and Dannis Day, 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Koshik, I. 2002. “Designedly Incomplete Utterances: A Pedagogical Practice for Eliciting Knowledge Displays in Error Correction Sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 35 (3): 277–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurentia Dascalu, J., and L. Vanelli. 1996. “Mi raccomando eh! A Pragmatic and Phonetic Analysis of the Italian Interjection eh.” Lingua e Stile 31 (3): 393–431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y. 2007. “Third Turn Position in Teacher Talk: Contingency and the Work of Teaching.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1204–1230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y. 2008. “Yes–No Questions in the Third-Turn Position: Pedagogical Discourse Processes.” Discourse Processes 45 (3): 237–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemke, Jay L. 1990. Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood, MA: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S.C. 1992. “Activity Types and Language.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, edited by P. Drew and J. Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lyle, S. 2008. “Dialogic Teaching: Discussing Theoretical Contexts and Reviewing Evidence from Classroom Practice.” Language and Education 22 (3): 222–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macbeth, D. 2004. “The Relevance of Repair in Classroom Correction.” Language in Society 33: 703–736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margutti, P. 2010. “On Designedly Incomplete Utterances: What Counts as Learning for Teachers and Students in Primary Classroom Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (4): 315–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHoul, A. 1978. “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language and Society 7: 183–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHoul, A. 1990. “The Organization of Repair in Classroom Talk.” Language in Society 19: 349–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehan, Hugh. 1979. Learning Lessons, Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. 1995. The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk Amongst Teachers and Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., L. Dawes, and Kleine Staarman J.. 2009. “Dialogic Teaching in the Primary Science Classroom.” Language and Education 23 (4): 353–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nassaji, H., and G. Wells. 2000. “What's the Use of ‘Triadic Dialogue’? An Investigation of Teacher–Student Interaction.” Applied Linguistics 21 (3): 376–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nystrand, M., and A. Gamoran. 1991. “Student Engagement: When Recitation Becomes Conversation.” In Effective Teaching: Current Research, edited by Hersholt C. Waxman and Herbert J. Walberg, 257–276. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
   Google Scholar
• Nystrand, M., L.L. Wu, A. Gamoran, S. Zeiser, and D.A. Long. 2003. “Questions in Time: Investigating the Structure and Dynamics of Unfolding Classroom Discourse.” Discourse Processes 35 (2): 135–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogden, R. 2006. “Phonetics and Social Action in Agreements and Disagreement.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1752–1775.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pine, J.M. 1992. “Maternal Style at the Early One-Word Stage: Re-evaluating the Stereotype of the Directive Mother.” First Language 12: 169–186.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by Max Atkinson and J. Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E.A. 1982. “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘uh huh’ and Other Things that Come Between Sentences.” In Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, edited by D. Tannen, 71–93. Wahington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E.A. 1996. “Confirming Allusions: Towards an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology 102 (1): 161–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E.A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Selting, M. 1994. “Emphatic Speech Style – with Special Focus on the Prosodic Signalling of Heightened Emotive Involvement in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 22: 375–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell, Jack, and Tania Stivers. 2012. Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Boston, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, John, and M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tarplee, C. 1996. “Working on Young Children's Utterances: Prosodic Aspects of Repetition During Picture Labelling.” In Prosody in Conversation, edited by Elizabeth Cooper-Kuhlen and M. Selting, 366–405. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tsui, A.B.T. 1989. “Beyond the Adjacency Pair.” Language in Society 18: 545–564.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar