Skip Navigation

Applied Linguistics 2004 25(2):178-219; doi:10.1093/applin/25.2.178
© 2004 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Haneda, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The Joint Construction of Meaning in Writing Conferences

Mari Haneda

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Using an analytical framework that combines insights from a variety of previous studies, the current paper aims to contribute to the description of the joint construction of meaning in pedagogical discourse, in particular in one-on-one teacher–student interaction in writing conferences in a Japanese-as-a-foreign language (JFL) class. The argument is made that it is not the formal properties of the interaction, such as the use of triadic dialogue or the types of questions that teachers ask, that in themselves determine the pedagogical effectiveness of the interaction, but the way in which they are used to achieve particular instructional purposes in a specific setting. The findings indicated that the conferences were characterized by a back and forth movement between dialogic and monologic instructional sequences (Nystrand 1997). The teacher under study made flexible use of triadic dialogue, evident in the manner of exchange initiation and the options selected in follow-up moves, in order to achieve particular pedagogical goals in the moment. The patterns of discourse that occurred varied according to: the students' self-selected revision goals, which were related to their level of target language proficiency; the choice of discourse topic; and the teacher's underlying pedagogical goals.


Revised July 2003.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.