"Kindergarten, can I have your eyes and ears?" politeness and teacher directive choices in inquiry-based science classrooms

Cultural Studies of Science Education

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 803-846

  Oliveira, Alandeom Wanderlei ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Authority; Directives; Discourse; Inquiry; Politeness; Teacher student interaction

Indexed keywords

EID: 79951757822     PISSN: 18711502     EISSN: 18711510     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11422-009-9193-6     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ash, D., & Kluger-Bell, B. (1999). Identifying inquiry in the K-5 classroom. In Foundations volume II: A monograph for professionals in science, mathematics, and technology education: Inquiry, thoughts, views, and strategies for the K-5 classroom (pp. 79-85). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
2. Bingham, C. (2004). Let's treat authority relationally. In C. Bingham & A. C. Sidorkin (Eds.), No education without relation. New York: Peter Lang.
3. Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art of common talk. London/New York: Routledge.
4. Christie, F. (2000). The language of classroom interaction and learning. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching languages in schools and communities (pp. 184-203). New York: Cassell Wellington House.
5. Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241-267. doi:10.1093/ applin/aml007.
6. Douglas, D., & Myers, C. (1989). TAs on TV: Demonstrating communication strategies for international teaching assistants. English for Specific Purposes, 8, 169-179. doi:10.1016/0889-4906(89)90028-8.
7. Erickson, F. (1996). Ethnographic microanalysis. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 283-306). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Frankel, R., & Beckman, H. (1982). Impact: An interaction-based method for preserving and analyzing clinical transactions. In L. Pettigrew (Ed.), Explorations in provider and patient interaction (pp. 71-85). Louisville: Humana.
9. Friedrichsen, P. M., Munford, D., & Orgill, M. (2006). Brokering at the boundary: A prospective science teacher engages students in inquiry. Science Education, 90(3), 522-543. doi:10.1002/sce.20112.
10. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
11. He, A. W. (2000). The grammatical and interactional organization of teachers' directives: Implications for socialization of Chinese American children. Linguistics and Education, 11(2), 119-1140. doi:10.1016/ S0898-5898(00)00025-5.
12. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2007). From intended curriculum to written curriculum: Examining the "voice" of a mathematics textbook. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(4), 344-369.
13. Holmes, J. (1983). The structure of teachers' directives. In J. C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 89-115). London: Longman.
14. Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23, 215-239. doi:10.1093/applin/23.2.215.
15. Iedema, R. (1996). 'Save the talk for after the listening': The realization of regulative discourse in teacher talk. Language and Education, 10, 82-103. doi:10.1080/09500789608666702.
16. Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1991). The constitution of expert-novice in scientific discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 149-181.
17. Kerbel, D., & Grunwell, P. (1997). Idioms in the classroom: An investigation of language unit and mainstream teachers' use of idioms. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 13(2), 113-123. doi:10.1177/ 026565909701300201.
18. Lawrence Hall of Science. (2005). FOSS, full option science system. Nashua, NH: Delta Education.
19. Lazar, R. T., Warr-Leper, G. A., Nicholson, C. B., & Johnson, S. (1989). Elementary school teachers' use of multiple meaning expressions. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 20, 420-429.
20. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
21. Lewis, B. F., & Wagner, N. (2002). Who's teaching whom? In D. Tippins, T. Koballa, & B. Payne (Eds.), Learning from cases: Unraveling the complexities of elementary science teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
22. Manke, M. P. (1997). Classroom power relations: Understanding student-teacher interaction (pp. 75-91). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Associates, Inc.
23. Morgan, C. (1996). "The language of mathematics": Towards a critical analysis of mathematics texts. For the Learning of Mathematics, 16(3), 2-10.
24. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25. Oliveira, A. W., Sadler, T. D., & Suslak, D. F. (2007). Analyzing language, interaction and outcomes in an inquiry-oriented classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(1), 165-170. doi:10.1007/ s11422-006-9039-4.
26. Oyler, C. (1996). Making room for students: Sharing teacher authority in room 104. New York: Teachers College Press.
27. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge Kegan & Paul.
28. Rowland, T. (1999). Pronouns in mathematics talk: Power, vagueness and generalization. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19, 19-25.
29. Tapper, J. (1994). Directives used in college laboratory oral discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 205-222. doi:10.1016/0889-4906(94)90002-7.
30. van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 229-271. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0602_3.
31. White, J. J. (1989). The power of politeness in the classroom: Cultural codes that create and constrain knowledge construction. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4(4), 298-321.