The Sequential Analysis of Instruction

Building on a corpus of 70 hours of German driving lessons, this paper studies the use of declaratives vs. imperatives for instruction. It shows how these linguistic resources are adapted to different praxeological, temporal and participant‐related environments. Declaratives are used for first instructions, task‐setting and post‐trial discussions. They exhibit complex syntax and do not call for immediate compliance. Their high degree of explicitness conveys how the action is to be carried out. Imperative instructions overwhelmingly correct ongoing actions of students or respond to their failure to produce expected actions. They exhibit minimal argument structure. They are reminders which presuppose that the student monitors the scene and can perform the action unproblematically. They index that requests have to be complied with immediately or even urgently.

Section: Instructions In Driving Lessonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instruction practices in German driving lessons: Differential uses of declaratives and imperatives

Deppermann

2018

“…Similarly to various other educational environments, driving‐school lessons are typically organised around instructional sequences in which the teacher delivers an instruction and the student follows it, giving the teacher an opportunity to assess and possibly correct the student's understanding of the task at hand (see Lindwall, Lymer, & Greiffenhagen, ). A generic distinction can be made between instructional sequences that address the what and the how of driving: the instructor outlines what a student is to do, for example, to reverse the car out of a garage or to turn in the direction of a particular destination, and the instructor details how the student is to do it, for example, by pressing the brake, changing gears and looking through the mirrors or by applying the indicator, turning the wheel and pressing the accelerator (De Stefani & Gazin, ; Deppermann, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noticings with instructional implications in post‐licence driver training

Rauniomaa

Lehtonen

Summala

2018

Drawing on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, the study examines video data in which drivers with a valid licence participate in voluntary instructor‐led training. The study discusses noticings by the instructor that concern current events or states of affairs and prompt the driver to adjust her driving or that concern habitual practices developed by the driver over time and encourage her to alter them in the future. The former are simple noticings, whereas the latter are prefaced with “I notice that.” The design and timing of the noticings reveal how they are to be understood with respect to the mobile instructional situation. Moreover, they make visible the instructor's ongoing monitoring and assessment of the driver's performance and the instructor's expectations regarding the driver's experience and competence.

“…For instance, Lindwall, Lymer, and Greiffenhagen () discuss different uses of the term instruction in prominent strands of research on classroom instruction. The article distinguishes between: instructions as written manuals and such (a); instructions in a more discourse oriented perspective – as something akin to ‘directives’ (b); and instruction as the work of teaching more generally.…”

Section: Instruction Interaction and Mobile Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drilling the mirror routine: From non‐situated looking to mobile practice in driver training

Björklund

2018

This paper uses ethnomethodology and conversation analysis to trace the instructed development of a practical skill (the ‘mirror routine’) in a driving school in Sweden. Focusing the interaction between instructor and student, it applies a micro longitudinal perspective by examining five video excerpts from a total of ≈15 minutes of one driving lesson with a single constellation of student/instructor. Detailed analyses show how, by deploying different instructional resources, instructions are adapted to operate under a range of mobile and infrastructural contingencies, distinguishing between stationary and mobile instructions while considering the reflexive relation between the two. By and large, learning the mirror routine is a complex task in which the participants must deal with issues of instructions, temporality and practical multi‐activity at the same time.