Transforming practice: Changing patterns of participation in post-observation meetings

Language Awareness

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 153-172

  Vásquez, Camilla ^a   Reppen, Randi ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Action research; Corpus based analysis; Discourse analysis; Institutional discourse; Post observation meetings; Teacher supervision

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249159191     PISSN: 09658416     EISSN: 17477506     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2167/la454.0     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Acheson, K. A., and Gall, M. D., 1997. Techniques in the Clinical Supervision of Teachers:Preservice and Inservice Applications, 4th edn, New York:Wiley.
2. Arcario, P., 1994. Post-observation conferences in TESOL teacher education programs Teachers College, Columbia University Unpublished doctoral dissertation
3. Blumberg, A., and Cusik, P., 1969. Supervisor-teacher interaction:An analysis of verbal behavior. Education, 91:126–134.
4. Burns, A., 1999. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
5. Chamberlin, C., 2000. Nonverbal behaviors and initial impressions of trustworthiness in teacher-supervisor relationships. Communication Education, 49 (4):352–364.
6. Christensen, P. S., 1988. The nature of feedback student teachers receive in postobservation conferences with the university supervisor:A comparison with O'Neal's study of cooperating teacher feedback. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4 (3):275–286.
7. Copeland, W. D., 1980. Affective dispositions of teachers in training toward examples of supervisory behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 74 (1):37–42. Transforming Practice 171
8. Copeland, W. D., and Atkinson, D. R., 1978. Student teachers' perceptions of directive and non-directive supervisor behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 71:123–126.
9. Davies, B., and Harré, R., 1990. Positioning:Conversation and the production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20 (1):43–63.
10. Farr, F., 2003. Engaged listenership in spoken academic discourse:The case of studenttutor meetings. English for Academic Purposes, 2:67–85.
11. Farr, F., and O'Keeffe, A., 2002. “ Would as a hedging device in an Irish context ”. In Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation, Edited by:Reppen, R., Fitzmaurice, S., and Biber, D., 25–48. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
12. Grimshaw, A., 1989. Collegial Discourse:Professional Conversation among Peers, Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
13. Holland, P. E., 1989. Implicit assumptions about the supervisory conference:A review and analysis of literature. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4 (4):362–379.
14. Jones, J., 2003. Speaker Splitter ‘computer program created for the authors; not available commercially’
15. Kurtoglu-Eken, D., 1999. Trainer language in post-observation feedback sessions. Teacher Trainer, 13 (2):16–20.
16. O'Neal, S., 1983. Supervision of Student Teachers:Feedback and Evaluation, Austin, TX:Research andDevelopment Centre for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED240106)
17. Perlberg, A., and Theodor, E., 1975. Patterns and styles in the supervision of teachers. British Journal of Teacher Education, 1 (2):203–211.
18. Phillips, D., 1994. The functions of silence within the context of teacher training. ELT Journal, 48:266–271.
19. Reppen, R., and Vásquez, C., 2007. “ Using corpus linguistics to investigate the language of teacher training ”. In Corpora and ICT in Language Studies:PALC 2005, Edited by:Gozdz-Roszkowski, S., Kredens, K., and Walinski, J., Frankfurt:Peter Lang.
20. Roberts, J., 1992. Face-threatening acts and politeness theory:Contrasting speeches from supervisory conferences. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7 (3):287–301.
21. Schiffrin, D., 1994. Approaches to Discourse, Oxford:Blackwell.
22. Sergiovanni, T. J., and Starratt, R. J., 2002. Supervision:A Rede.nition, 7th edn, Boston, MA:McGraw Hill.
23. Simon, A., and Boyer, G., 1970. Mirrors for Behavior, Philadelphia, PA:Research for Better Schools.
24. Tannen, D., 1984. Conversational Style:Analyzing Talk among Friends, Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
25. Vásquez, C., 2004. ‘Very carefully managed’:Advice and suggestions in post-observation meetings. Linguistics and Education, 15 (1 & 2):32–58.
26. Vásquez, C., 2005. Teacher positioning in post-observation meetings Northern Arizona University Unpublished doctoral dissertation
27. Waite, D., 1992. Supervisors' talk:Making sense of conferences from an anthropological linguistic perspective. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7 (4):349–371.
28. Waite, D., 1993. Teachers in conference:A qualitative study of teacher-supervisor faceto-face interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 30 (4):675–702.
29. Weller, R., 1971. Verbal Communication in Instructional Supervision, New York:Teachers College Press.
30. Williams, M., and Watson, A., 2004. Post-lesson debrie.ng:Delayed or immediate? An investigation of student teacher talk. Journal of Education for Teaching, 30 (2):85–96.
31. Zeichner, K. M., 1999. The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 6:4–15.
32. Zeichner, K. M., and Liston, D. P., 1985. Varieties of discourse in supervisory conferences. Teaching & Teacher Education, 1 (2):155–174.