Seeking advice: Epistemic asymmetry and learner autonomy in writing conferences

Park, Innhwa

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.012

Cited by 32 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In educational interaction, students may either show or claim their position as K-in response to a teacher's initiative (e.g. Park, 2012;Sert, 2013;Sert & Walsh, 2013), but they may also direct a teacher's attention to an imbalance of information in first position by doing a request for assistance (e.g. Koole, 2010;Merke, 2016;Park, 2012).…”

Section: Epistemics In (Classroom) Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Park, 2012;Sert, 2013;Sert & Walsh, 2013), but they may also direct a teacher's attention to an imbalance of information in first position by doing a request for assistance (e.g. Koole, 2010;Merke, 2016;Park, 2012). In doing so, they are possibly confronted with what Koole (2012a) described as the epistemic paradox "of having to 'know what you don't know' or 'understand what you don't understand'" (Koole, 2012a(Koole, : 1902.…”

Section: Epistemics In (Classroom) Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Teachers' Demonstrations of Epistemic Access in Teacher-Student Interactions in a Digital Setting

Gosen¹

2018

HUJE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is concerned with a Conversation Analytic (CA) study of teachers' demonstrations of epistemic access to a student's domain or territory of information in teacher-student interactions in a digital setting. It describes interactional practices analyzed in 12 excerpts with an explicit reference to information about students' progress provided by the digital system. It will be shown that teachers initiate interactions about already fulfilled assignments that are shown to be problematic. In the opening of the interaction, teachers more or less explicitly refer to the digital programme as an information source and/or to the hitches in student's progress. In the continuation of the interaction, teacher and student are concerned with a redoing of assignments. In this phase of the interaction, the teacher demonstrates epistemic access to possible causes for students' mistakes. In all cases, students do not show resistance to teachers' demonstrations of epistemic access to knowledge and experiences falling into their epistemic domain. The findings confirm teachers' and students' orientation to the educational context as being a specialized context where students' problems are not treated as 'theirs to know and describe'. The findings in this paper shed light on interactional practices in relation to epistemics, as well as on interactional practices in a digital setting.

show abstract

Section: Epistemics In (Classroom) Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Epistemics In (Classroom) Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teachers' Demonstrations of Epistemic Access in Teacher-Student Interactions in a Digital Setting

Gosen¹

2018

HUJE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although research attention has focused on interactions in peer tutoring (Waring 2007 andPark 2012), writing conferences (Mayes 2015), office hours (Limberg 2010) and masters supervision e-ISSN: 2536-4758 http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/ (Bowker 2012, Svinhufvud andVehviläinen 2013), there is no extant CA research on undergraduate supervision in a UK setting. Research has focused on staff and student perceptions of the supervisory relationship (Jamieson and Gray 2006) rather than interaction in first degree supervisory meetings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Script Proposals in Undergraduate Supervision

West¹

2018

HUJE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores a particular interactional practice surrounding advice in undergraduate supervision. Script proposals allow advice-givers to individualise their advice, minimise resistance and provide a model while not undermining the client's agency (Emmison, Butler and Danby 2011). This device has been studied primarily in helpline interactions (Hepburn, Wilkinson and Butler 2014) but not yet in higher education. The audiorecorded data are from a meeting in which the tutor addresses student concerns regarding her writing process and referencing conventions. Several hallmarks of script proposals are present, including the student's previously displayed stance, the use of idiom, three part-lists (Jefferson 1990) and contrastive pairs. Membership categories are exploited to both include and exclude the student. The enactment of supervisory roles and qualities such as empathy is analysed and then discussed through the conceptual lens of the psychological contract (Cureton and Cousin 2012) and the educational alliance (Telio, Ajjawi and Regehr 2015). While also fulfilling her tutor-mentor role, in that she supports the student in her own decisions, the tutor acts as director or project manager (Derounian 2011), taking the student through the steps in the process in a logical order (Rowley and Slack 2004). The implications for practical applications are briefly considered.

show abstract

“…The delivery and reception of advice is one of the practices integral to a wide range of settings in both ordinary conversation (Jefferson and Lee 1992) and institutional contexts (Limberg and Locher 2012), including medical interaction (Heritage and Lindstrom 1998;Heritage and Sefi 1992;Lepp€ anen 1998;Ragan 1995), HIV counseling sessions (Kinnell and Maynard 1996;Koenig 2011;Silverman 1997), helpline calls (Landqvist 2005;Lepp€ anen 2005;Pudlinski 2002), and academic discourse (He 1994;Park 2011Park , 2012aPark , 2012bVehvil€ ainen 2001Vehvil€ ainen , 2009Vehvil€ ainen , 2012Waring 2005Waring , 2007aWaring , 2007bWaring , 2011. In advice delivery, the advice giver 'describes, recommends or otherwise forwards a preferred course of future action' (Heritage and Sefi 1992, 368).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stepwise advice negotiation in writing center peer tutoring

Park

2014

Language and Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the delivery and reception of advice is a practice integral to a wide range of settings, little attention has been given to the detailed practices of advice resistance and how it leads to advice negotiation. Based on 7 hours of videotaped tutoring interactions among 6 tutors and 11 tutees, this conversation analytic study examines the interactional practices of advice negotiation in peer tutoring at an undergraduate writing center. In particular, the study focuses on advice negotiation sequences in which students initially resist tutors' advice. The findings are in line with the current knowledge that advice resistance is presented and treated as interactionally dispreferred. In addition, the analyses contribute to further specifying the stepwise interactional practices through which advice resistance is produced and managed in a way that it results in successful advice negotiation with the more tailored advice forwarded by the tutor. The study shows how the context of tutoring is a site not only for knowledge development but also for the negotiation of epistemic rights and their interactional management by both participants.

show abstract

Seeking advice: Epistemic asymmetry and learner autonomy in writing conferences

Cited by 32 publications

References 46 publications

Teachers' Demonstrations of Epistemic Access in Teacher-Student Interactions in a Digital Setting

Teachers' Demonstrations of Epistemic Access in Teacher-Student Interactions in a Digital Setting

Script Proposals in Undergraduate Supervision

Stepwise advice negotiation in writing center peer tutoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About