LEARNING AS CHANGING PARTICIPATION: DISCOURSE ROLES IN ESL WRITING CONFERENCES

By R. Young, E. Miller. 2004

339 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/590d354df3862914231dc56c56fd26d9cb4f3a04

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

1. Anne-Marie Barraja-Rohan
2. Numa Markee
3. Daniel M. K. Lam
4. John Hellermann
5. Carsten Roever
6. Thorsten Huth
7. Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm
8. Asta Cekaite

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. Carsten Roever
2. Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm
3. Daniel M. K. Lam
4. Anne-Marie Barraja-Rohan
5. Asta Cekaite
6. G. Kasper
7. Thorsten Huth
8. Numa Markee

Citations in the corpus

• Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence (2011, methodology): “This new concept of IC was then applied by Young and Miller (2004).”
• Toward a Learning Behavior Tracking Methodology for CA-for-SLA (2007, background): “The first solution (see Young and Miller 2004) essentially ignores these problems.”
• How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? (2006, background): “Young and Miller (2004) demonstrate how this process can be observed with CA in realtime interaction.”
• Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking (2018, methodology): “Their IC allows them to deploy these methods for local, context sensitive and practice specific use (Young & Miller, 2004) and the achievement of mutual understanding.”
• What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence (2018, background): “…the following: (1) shifts from peripheral participation to taking initiating roles in different interactional contexts (e.g. Achiba, 2012; Hellermann, 2006; Young & Miller, 2004); and (2) changes in the use of linguistic resources to accomplish interactional actions (e.g. Masuda, 2011; Ohta, 2001).”
• A Child's Development of Interactional Competence in a Swedish L2 Classroom. (2007, background): “Thus, at the end of the year, by repeating Fusi’s contributions as well informed and relevant, the teacher offers Fusi more rights to participation, thereby co-constructing Fusi as a competent and motivated student (e.g., Cekaite, 2006; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Young & Miller, 2004).”