Text selection proposals in dialogic reading in primary school

References

1. Antaki, Charles. C.
   2011 Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230316874
   https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230316874 [Google Scholar]
2. Bereiter, Carl
   2009 Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Berenst, Jan
   2011 Samenwerken en taalvaardigheid. Samenwerkend leren als werkvorm voor de stimulering van de mondelinge en schriftelijke taalvaardigheid van basisschoolkinderen. Raak-PRO projectvoorstel. [Cooperation and Language Proficiency. Collaborative learning as a practice for promoting children’s oral and written language proficiency in primary school. Raak-Pro Research Proposal. Leeuwarden: NHL University of Applied Sciences.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Braam, Hilde M.
   2015 Voorstellen en reacties tijdens peer-interactie in de midden- en bovenbouw van het primair onderwijs. [Proposals and responses during peer interaction in primary education] (Unpublished Master ‘s thesis). University of Groningen.
5. Braam, Hilde M. , Maaike Pulles , & Jan Berenst
   2015 Bibliotheek in de les. Werken aan leesmotivatie en informatievaardigheden bij wereldoriëntatie. Onderzoeksverslag. [Library in the lesson. Working on reading motivation and information literacy in cultural-historical subjects. Research report] Leeuwarden: NHL University of Applied Sciences.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
   2014 What does grammar tell us about action?Pragmatics24(3): 623–647. doi:  10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
   https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou [Google Scholar]
7. Drew, Paul
   2013 Turn design. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.131–149). Oxford: Blackwell.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Ford, Cecilia E. , Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson
   1996 Practices in the construction of turns: The “TCU” revisited. Pragmatics6(3), 427–454. 10.1075/prag.6.3.07for
   https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.07for [Google Scholar]
9. Heritage, John
   2012 Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction45(1): 1–29. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
   https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
10. Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke
    1987 Establishing agreement. An analysis of proposal-acceptance sequences. Ph.D diss., University of Amsterdam. 10.1515/9783110849172
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110849172
11. Howe, Christine
    2010 Peer dialogue and cognitive development. A two-way relationship?In Karen Littleton & Christine Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues. Understanding and promoting productive interaction. (pp.32–47). London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Jefferson, Gail
    1984 Transcript Notation. In John M. Atkinson and John Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp.ix–xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Lerner, Gene H.
    1994 Responsive list construction: A conversational resource for accomplishing multifaceted social action. Journal of Language and Social Psychology13(1): 20–33. doi:  10.1177/0261927X94131002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X94131002 [Google Scholar]
14. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1992 Activity types and language. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp.66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1979).
    [Google Scholar]
15. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2013 Action formation and ascription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.101–130). Chichester, UK: Blackwell Publishing. doi:  10.1002/9781118325001.ch6
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch6 [Google Scholar]
16. Littleton, Karen , & Lucinda Kerawalla
    2012 Trajectories of inquiry learning. In Karen Littleton , Eileen Scanlon & Mike Sharples (Eds.), Orchestrating inquiry learning (pp.31–47). London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203136195
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203136195 [Google Scholar]
17. Maine, Fiona
    2013 How children talk together to make meaning from texts: A dialogic perspective on reading comprehension strategies. Literacy, 47(3), 150–156. doi:  10.1111/lit.12010
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12010 [Google Scholar]
18. Maine, Fiona
    2015 Dialogic readers. Children talking and thinking together about visual texts. London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315718217
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315718217 [Google Scholar]
19. Mazeland, Harry
    2008 Inleiding in de conversatieanalyse. [Introduction to Conversation Analysis] Bussum, The Netherlands: Coutinho.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Melander, Helen & Fritjof Sahlström
    2009 In tow of the blue whale. Learning as interactional changes in topical orientation. Journal of Pragmatics41, 1519–1537. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.013 [Google Scholar]
21. Mercer, Neil
    1995 Guided construction of knowledge. Talk amongst teachers and learner. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Mikkola, Piia & Esa Lehtinen
    2014 Initiating activity shifts through use of appraisal forms as material objects during performance appraisal interviews. In Maurice Nevile , Pentti Haddington , Trine Heinemann & Mirka Rauniomaa (Eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity (pp.57–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Murphy, P. Karen , Ian A. G. Wilkinson , Anna O. Soter , Maeghan N. Hennessey & John F. Alexander
    2009 Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3): 740–764. doi:  10.1037/a0015576
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015576 [Google Scholar]
24. Nevile, Maurice , Pentti Haddington , Trine Heinemann & Mirka Rauniomaa
    2014 Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.186
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.186 [Google Scholar]
25. Nystrand, Martin
    2006 Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4): 392–412.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Palincsar, Annemarie S. , Ann L. Brown & Suzanne M. Martin
    1987 Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction. Educational Psychologist22(3): 231–253. 10.1207/s15326985ep2203&4_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2203&4_3 [Google Scholar]
27. Rojas-Drummond, Sylvia , Nancy Mazón , Karen Littleton & Maricela Vélez
    2012 Developing reading comprehension through collaborative learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(2): 138–158. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9817.2011.01526.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01526.x [Google Scholar]
28. Rojas-Drummond, Sylvia , Fiona Maine , Mariana Alarcón , Ana L. Trigo , Maria J. Barrea , Nancy Mazón , Maricela Vélez & Riikka Hoffman
    2017 Dialogic literacy: Talking, reading and writing among primary school children. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction12:45–62, doi:  10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.09.005 [Google Scholar]
29. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2007 Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Volume1. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
30. Stevanovic, Melisa
    2012 Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies14(6): 779–803. 10.1177/1461445612456654
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612456654 [Google Scholar]
31. Stevanovic, Melisa & Anssi Peräkylä
    2012 Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3): 297–321. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
32. Stivers, Tanya & Jack Sidnell
    2016 Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction49(2): 148–166. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409 [Google Scholar]
33. Svennevig, Jan
    2012 The agenda as resource for topic introduction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies14(1): 53–66. 10.1177/1461445611427204
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427204 [Google Scholar]
34. Ten Have, Paul
    2007 Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). London: SAGE. 10.4135/9781849208895
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208895 [Google Scholar]
35. Van den Branden, Kris
    2000 Does negotiation of meaning promote reading comprehension? A study of multilingual primary school classes. Reading Research Quarterly35(3): 426–443. doi:  10.1598/RRQ.35.3.6
    https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.35.3.6 [Google Scholar]
36. Walsweer, Albert P.
    2015 Ruimte voor leren. [Space for Learning] Groningen/Leeuwarden: Ph.D diss.University of Groningen/NHL University of Applied Sciences.
37. Wegerif, Rupert
    2013 Dialogic: Education for the internet age. London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203111222
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203111222 [Google Scholar]
38. Weilenmann, Alexandra & Gustav Lymer
    2014 Incidental and essential objects in interaction. paper documents in journalistic work. In Maurice Nevile , Pentti Haddington , Trine Heinemann & Mirka Rauniomaa (Eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity (pp.319–335). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
39. West, Donna
    2012 Indexical reference to absent objects. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 6(1): 280–294. 10.1515/css‑2012‑0119
    https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2012-0119 [Google Scholar]