This document is an historical remnant. It belongs to the collection Skeptron Web Archive (included in Donald Broady's archive) that mirrors parts of the public Skeptron web site as it appeared on 31 December 2019, containing material from the research group Sociology of Education and Culture (SEC) and the research programme Digital Literature (DL). The contents and file names are unchanged while character and layout encoding of older pages has been updated for technical reasons. Most links are dead. A number of documents of negligible historical interest as well as the collaborators’ personal pages are omitted.
The site's internet address was since Summer 1993 www.nada.kth.se/~broady/ and since 2006 www.skeptron.uu.se/.

URL of this page is www.skeptron.uu.se/broady/sec/p-greendixon.htm

Two texts on Classroom Discourse

by
Judith Green & Carol Dixon, University of California, Santa Barbara

 

This page presents HTML versions of two papers:

 Judith L. Green & Carol N. Dixon, "The Social Construction of Classroom Life", International encyclopedia of English and the Language Arts, Vol. 2. Pp. 1075-1078. A. Purves in collaboration with Scholastic Press, New York 1994.

 Judith Green, Maria Franquiz & Carol Dixon, "The Myth of the Objective Transcript", TESOL Quarterly, 31 (1), Pp. 172-176.

The papers are to be used in connection with the seminar "Classroom Discourse", given by Judith Green and Carol Dixon at Pedagogiska institutionen, Uppsala University, Stureg. 4, 14 Sept 1999, 15.15-17.00. For more information see http://www.skeptron.uu.se/broady/edu-research/hsem.htm

 /Donald Broady

Green, J.L. & Dixon, C., 1994, The social construction of classroom life. International encyclopedia of English and the Language Arts, Vol. 2. Pp. 1075-1078. A. Purves (Editor), New York.

The Social Construction of Classroom Life

Judith L. Green & Carol N. Dixon

 

Viewing classroom life as socially constructed acknowledges the primacy of social interactions in all that occurs in classrooms.  As members of the class interact with each other and with materials, they are constructing the everyday patterns of life that define what learning and teaching, reading and writing, teacher and student, interacting and interpreting are in a particular classroom or group within a classroom.  Learning in classrooms is not merely an individual or psychological process, it is also a group and a social process that influences what students have an opportunity to learn and how they participate in the everyday events of classroom life. (See also Reading As A Social Process)

The socially constructed nature of life in classrooms becomes visible in the patterns of life member construct as they interact with each other over time.  These patterns influence the expectations for participating in and across the events of everyday life, the roles and relationships possible, the types of activities available, and the opportunities for learning that are constructed.  Across years of schooling, these patterns have consequences for what students have an opportunity to learn how to do, what they will count as knowing, and how they will act in future situations (Green, J. Kantor, R. & Rogers, T.,1990,  Exploring the complexity of language and learning in theclassroom.  In B. Jones and L. Idol (Eds.),  Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform(pp.333-364).  Vol. II.  Hillsdale, NJ:  Erlbaum).

  Constructing Patterns of Classroom Life

From the first moments of interaction, members of the classroom group initiate a social process that establishes who can interact with whom; what is to be accomplished through the interactions among members; when, where, and how members will engage with each other and curriculum materials; the conditions and purposes for the interactions; and a set of expected outcomes.  As a teacher and her or his students interact, they also establish an identity as a class in a particular room in a particular year, as members of that class, as members of sub-groups within that class, and as individuals within that class or a particular sub-group.  Simultaneously, they establish what it means to be a community, and learners, students, teachers, readers, writers, peers, friends, artists, scientists, historians, musicians within that community.

These patterns of interaction establish a particular way of living together, a classroom order, that is constituted by the social roles and relationships among members; expectations members construct for how life will be conducted; and understandings of what members count as knowledge, participation, social interactions, text, and individual within this classroom.  What it means to live in one classroom, and to be a student and a teacher in that classroom, differs from what it means to assume these roles and relationships and live in another classroom, even if the intended curriculum remains the same. (See also Hidden Curriculum)

Through the processes of interacting and interpreting, members construct a social history that inscribes a particular world.  This world appears ordinary to members who contributed to the construction of the patterns of life (insiders) but may not be perceived or interpreted by outsiders (e.g., new students, student teachers, or visitors) as members would.  New students and student teachers are faced with the problem of becoming members of the class, of subgroups, and of a peer culture (teacher or student).  Visitors are faced with the problem of seeing the world and its requirements from an insider's point of view.  To solve this problem, outsiders need to develop local knowledge of social and academic processes including:  meanings for terms and phrases (the referential system);  expectations for what can and may occur that members have constructed to guide their everyday life in this classroom (routines and conventions), understandings of common or patterned ways of interacting with others (the discourse system), and knowledge of ways of constructing, using and responding to oral and written classroom texts and other artifacts (the interpretive system) (Edwards & Mercer, 1987, Common Knowledge.  New York: Falmer). 

If outsiders fail to see life from a member's perspective a clash occurs that may have consequences for both members and the outsider.  For example, if an administrator, who values a quiet classroom with students in their seats, enters and sees students walking about the room and talking to others, this outsider may interpret the students' actions as indicating off-task behavior or lack of control by the teacher.  This interpretation may lead to a negative evaluation of the teacher and of students.  If the administrator talks with members and asks them to explain what is happening, a different understanding may be constructed.  If the students are able to show that the activity is purposeful and is tied to a particular academic task (e.g., forming discussion groups; locating reference material), the administrator has evidence that the class is in control and that what appeared on the surface to be inappropriate activity is patterned and purposeful within the particular situation.  Learning to see the patterns of activity from a member's perspective is essential to construct situationally appropriate interpretations and perceptions.

As students acquire new knowledge, expand their repertoires for learning and participating, move to a new subgroup, or engage in new areas of the curriculum, the patterns of life often change to support the ways of interacting required by these shifts.  Patterns of interaction and organization constructed by members are not static.  Classroom life is dynamic and open to change.  Members must continually monitor interactions within and across the events of everyday life since patterns of interaction may be revised, refined, discontinued, redefined and reestablished at any point in time. 

For outsiders or new people entering this ongoing system of life, the task is more complex for they do not share the common history of that classroom.  For students taken out of the class during the day (e.g., for special help), the task is also complex for they have missed a part of the pattern of life.  These students must continually reenter each time they leave this stream of classroom life.  Additionally, when students are absent, they are also faced with reentry at a new point time.  In each of these instances, the person seeking entry or reentry will be faced with the task of understanding life and its requirements for participating at that point in time as members do.

Constructing Ways of Interacting in Classrooms

One of the principal means through which patterns of interaction are constructed is language.  To interpret the patterns of life, members need to process linguistic and nonverbal aspects of the social interactions of others.  Language, in relationship to the social construction of life in classrooms, refers to the oral and written discourse norms, expectations, and strategies that members establish through their daily interactions.  Defined in this way, the language-of-the-classroom is a group constructed phenomena; a locally negotiated system of meanings; and a local set of conventions for interacting, participating and communicating information and knowledge within a particular classroom.  

Through the language members bring to the classroom from other settings, they construct a common classroom language or referential system comprised of terms (e.g., names for objects or processes in the particular classroom ) and discourse strategies (e.g., turn taking, topic initiation, essay writing).  Meanings of terms and the functions of strategies are situated in the patterns of life within a group (e.g., Call It Courage is the name of a reading group; use twelve inch voices is a way of defining volume when speaking with a partner or at a table activity; one stroke of the chimes means stop, look and listen) (Mishler, 1979, Meaning in Context is there any other kind,  Harvard Education Review). 

As these ways of interacting become locally defined, they become conventions and resources that members draw on to participate in socially and academically appropriate ways within the particular classroom.  Any pattern of interaction or term can become a convention if it is interactionally acknowledged and used by members as part of everyday life.  For example, circle-up is a signal to students to move to the discussion area rug for sharing time.  The terms circle-up, discussion area rug, and sharing all have locally constructed meanings that differ from their use or function in other settings (e.g., home, community, another classroom). 

Members construct social and academic conventions related to all aspects of classroom life including ways of distributing and using time, space, and materials; formatting papers; presenting information in oral and written form; assessing information and performances; interpreting actions and interactions of others; and engaging in particular events.  Conventions contribute to the construction of a common set of expectations for how members will interact, participate, and share information.

The existence of conventions does not insure their use or that they will remain unchanged.  Given the dynamic nature of classroom interactions, conventionalized patterns may need to be established, suspended, revised, and reestablished within and across events (e.g., when students fail to get quiet when the teacher sounds the chimes again, or when a new area of the curriculum is introduced).  In instances when conventions are broken, a frame clash (i.e., a clash in expectations) will occur.  For example, students may forget to write their name at the top of a paper or may not get quiet when the chime rings.  At such instances, the teacher or other group members make visible the expected actions and may take action to repair or to reestablish the convention (e.g., the action or the type of topic that is appropriate).  If the frame clash is not repaired it may lead to confusion resulting from inconsistent or unclear action, disruption or construction of a new convention.

The existence of conventionalized interaction patterns makes daily life more or less predictable or routine.  The construction of routines is part of the process of developing a social system for the classroom.  Differences in patterns of classroom life from one classroom to another and one year to another are partially reflected in the types and range of conventions and routines that are established by teachers with their students. 

Just which routines or conventions are necessary is part of the debate about approaches to education.  This debate reflects conceptual and philosophical differences in what educators view as teaching, learning, curriculum, and classroom organization and management.  Differences are reflected in who can do or say what to whom, when and where, for what purpose(s), under what condition(s), with what outcome(s).  Particular patterns of routines or conventions are more likely to occur in classrooms that reflect one orientation (e.g., student-centered approaches) than in another (e.g., content-centered, technology-driven, or recitation-formatted).  These patterns of conventions and routines help to shape opportunities for learning, ways of interacting, and what members of a particular classroom count as knowledge.

The construction of a common set of routines and conventions does not insure that individual members will automatically act in socially and academically appropriate ways.  Members do not enter a classroom as blank slates; rather, they bring with them histories as students in other classrooms; a range of social, linguistic, cognitive and perceptual abilities; and histories as conversational partners and participants in a range of non-school settings (e.g., home, community, church).  From participating in these other settings, they develop a repertoire of interactional patterns that they draw on to perceive, interpret and participate in the events of daily life within the new group or situation.  

These resources become part of a frame of reference for an individual or a group.  A frame of reference can be thought of as a lens through which an individual or a group sees and interprets what is being constructed.  As a person interacts with others and contributes to the world being constructed in the class, her or his personal frame of reference may be transformed or revised and a group frame constructed.  As individuals or group members gain new experiences, these experiences become part of their frames of reference and may, in some instances, lead to a reconceptualization of the way in which the world or a part of the world is understood.  A frame of reference is not a static entity but a constantly evolving repertoire of understandings, beliefs, values, ways of interacting, experiences, and processes (e.g., cognitive, social, linguistic, perceptual, motor) of individuals or groups.  How individual members interpret the event and processes in which they are participating is influenced by a range of factors including their position within the group, their relationship to their peer group(s), what they perceive as important or valued at that given point in time, how they are feeling at that moment, whether they have been attending to the full range of happenings, how they interpret the textbook, and/or how they prefer to present self. 

When an individual or a group does not interpret the event or process in the same way, a frame clash occurs.  This frame clash may be overt or tacit.  If overt, it makes visible the differences in interpretation among members.  For example, if a student has interpreted a story in a unique way, that student may challenge the interpretation that seems to be commonly held.  What members do when overt clashes occur makes visible what counts as appropriate or preferred participation or interpretation within the group or to individual members (e.g., teacher, other students). 

Tacit frame clashes may also occur and the reason for these clashes may not be overtly visible.  For example, if students do not make visible differences in interpretation or see that they hold different interpretations, they may act as if everyone agrees.  These actions may result in confusion for individuals, the group or both.  Factors that contribute to tacit frame clashes include:  differences in linguistic resources, cultural assumptions about what is appropriate or what counts, and background experiences with the types of activities or processes being constructed.  Tacit frame clashes often disrupt the flow of activity and lead to negative assessment of student ability or to perceptions that a student's actions are inappropriate.

The existence of a frame clash, overt or tacit, makes visible what members expect, what they are holding each other accountable to, and what they view as appropriate participation.  For example, if a teacher asks students for the name of a character and the students respond with a description (e.g., the little man), the teacher and students have arrived at a point of potential frame clash.  If the teacher does not receive the answer she expected, a name, she has a variety of options:  she can accept the response as semantically equivalent and move on, reject the response and ask the question again, or accept the response as one possible way of answering while still inviting the name.  How the teacher responds signals what the preferred response is and whether a frame clash has actually occurred.

To participate in socially and academically appropriate ways, members must engage in a complex set of processes.  They must monitor what is occurring and required at the local moment, interpret the action and requirements as others do, select from their repertoires for interacting ways that meet the demands of the local situation, and then, act in ways that fit the actions and expections of the local moment.  If they fail to do so intentionally or unintentionally, they may be defined by the teacher and other group members as not listening, knowing, or understanding and may be viewed by members as outsiders to the group or classroom. 

Consequences of Living in Particular Classrooms

To see life in classrooms as socially constructed leads to new understandings of factors that influence what students have an opportunity to learn from living in classrooms.  From this perspective, knowledge one gains from schooling is related to the range and types of opportunities people have to learn in their roles as students, .  Learning, therefore, is not an individually accomplished process, but a socially negotiated process that interacts with an individual's goals, presuppositions about learning, abilities, perceptions, values, peer group position, background knowledge and expectations. 

What counts as learning, knowing, participating and interpreting, therefore, is socially constructed moment-by-moment, day-by-day, month-by-month in a particular self-contained classroom or across classrooms.  Across years of schooling, the range of models that students have opportunities to experience and to construct limit or expand their frames of reference for what counts as knowing, interpreting new situations, displaying knowledge in new settings, and being students; and their repertoires for interacting.

The conceptualization of classroom life as socially constructed requires expansion of the definition of teacher and student.  Traditionally, the terms teacher and student refer to institutionally designated and societally defined roles that give particular rights to one of these actors (the teacher) and place particular obligations on the other (the students).  This view does not capture the dynamic nature of these roles or the ways in which they are defined within a particular classroom.  From a social construction of life perspective, what it means to be a student, teacher, group member, and peer is defined and redefined, constructed and reconstructed within a particular classroom.  There is no generic role of teacher, only teacher-in-this-class and students-in-this class, peers-in this-class, reading (speaking, interacting)-in-this-class. 

Further, the range of roles associated with teacher will depend on the philosophical approach of the person legally designated as teacher.  For example, a teacher with a student-centered approach, will hand-over to students certain opportunities to take-up a range of roles.  Students will have opportunities to take-up the role of teacher for other students.  In contrast, students in a computer intensive program may have other opportunities for taking-up the role of teacher.  In each of these classroom approaches, students have an opportunity to assume the role of teacher under certain conditions.  The roles and relationships associated with these opportunities differ and lead to different opportunities for learning.  Which opportunities society values or which are seen as most effective changes with time.  While society debates what types of schools it wants, students are living in classrooms and are constructing particular types of knowledge, learning particular processes, and engaging in particular forms of life.  From these patterns of life across classrooms and schools, students are constructing institutionalized definitions of teaching and learning, definitions that they carry to new situations and use to frame their interpretations and expectations for learning in these new settings.

 

References

Baker, Carolyn & Luke, Allan (Eds.), Towards A Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy.  Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Edwards, Derek & Mercer, Neil, 1987, Common Knowledge:  The Development of Understanding in the Classroom.  New York: Falmer Press.

Emihovich, Catherine, (Ed.), (1989), Locating Learning:  Ethnographic Perspectives on Classroom Research.  Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Green, Judith L. & Harker, Judith O. (Eds.), 1988, Multiple Perspective Analyses of Classroom Discourse.  Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lemke, Jay, 1990, Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values.  Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Marshall, Hermine, (Ed.), (1992), Redefining Student Learning:  Roots of Educational Change.  Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Solsken, Judith., 1992, Literacy, Gender and Work in Families and School.  Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

 

Citations in Paper

Bloome, David & Egan-Robertson, Ann, 1993, The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons, Reading Research Quarterly

Edwards, Derek & Mercer, Neil, 1987, Common Knowledge:  The Development of Understanding in the Classroom.  New York: Falmer Press.

Green, Judith,  Kantor, Rebecca, &  Rogers, Teresa (1990).  Exploring the complexity of language and learning in theclassroom.  In Beau Fly Jones and Lorna Idol (Eds.),  Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform, pp.333-364.  Vol. II.  Hillsdale, NJ:  Erlbaum

Heap, James, 1992,  A situated perspective on what counts as reading.  In Carolyn Baker & Allan Luke (Eds.), Toward a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy, Philadelphia:  John Benjamins

Mehan, Hugh, 1979, Learning Lesson.  Harvard University Press.

Mishler, Elliot, 1979, Meaning in Context:  Is there any other kind?  Harvard Education Review, 49, 1-19.

 

Green, J., Franquiz, M., & Dixon, C., The myth of the objective transcript. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (1), Pp. 172-176

The Myth Of The Objective Transcript:
Transcribing As A Situated Act

Judith Green, University of California, Santa Barbara
 Maria Franquiz, University of Colorado at Boulder
 Carol Dixon , University of California, Santa Barbara

 Transcribing is a tool commonly used by researchers, both those concerned with the study of language and those concerned with exploring other dimensions of everyday life through language.  Underlying much of this work is the belief that it is possible to write talk down in an objective way.  In this commentary, we argue that transcribing is a situated act within a study or program of research embedded in a conceptual ecology of a discipline (Green, Kelly, Castanheira, Esch, Frank, Hodel, Putney, & Rodarte, 1996; Toulmin, 1990; Van Dijk, 1985a).  Transcribing, therefore, is a political act that reflects a discipline's conventions as well as a researcher's conceptualization of a phenomena, purposes for the research, theories guiding the data collection and analysis, and programmatic goals (Edwards, 1993; Ochs, 1979). 

Our own political act in writing this article is to construct the arguments that follow by drawing on sociolinguistic perspectives informed by cultural anthropology (Green & Dixon, 1993; Green & Harker, 1988).  To illustrate the importance of this argument for the TESOL audience, we discuss two key issues:  transcribing as an interpretive process and as a representational process. Central to these conceptualizations is the understanding that a transcript is a text that re-presents an event; it is not the event itself.  Following this logic, what is re-presented is data constructed by a researcher for a particular purpose, not just talk written down.

 

Transcribing As An Interpretive Process

The situated nature of transcript construction is being discussed across disciplines (e.g., Duranti & Goodwin, 1992; Edwards & Lampert, 1993; Green & Harker, 1988; Van Dijk, 1985a,b).  Underlying these discussions is a concern for choices made in representing data.  While agreeing with Edwards (1993) that choice is a central part of the political process of constructing a transcript, we see choice as also involving a series of interpretive processes. 

The act of choosing a segment of life to transcribe implies decisions about the significance of the strip of talk or the speech event, which, in turn, implies that the talk or event has been interpreted from some point of view (e.g., sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, second language acquisition).  Thus, choosing a unit of talk to transcribe is a political act:  From whose point of view will the selection be made--the researcher's etic perspective and goals, and/or the emic perspective and goals of members of the group?

The act of choosing talk is also influenced by researchers' assumptions about language, both a priori and in situ.  What counts as language and what is perceived as a meaningful bit of language in situ depends on the researchers' cultural knowledge of that language's system and discourse practices.  Such knowledge shapes researchers' interpretations of what they hear, see, understand, and do.  For example, hearing a sound as stress involves understanding how stress is signaled and understood within a particular language group.  To see silence as meaningful, and not merely the absence of talk, or to see someone as taking the role of questioner involves cultural understanding of the discourse practices of a social group (Gumperz 1982; Phillips, 1983; Tannen, 1984). Thus, writing down what one hears is the result of a range of interpretive acts.

 

Transcribing As A Representational Process...

Representing "others" is a topic of concern across disciplines (Atkinson, 1990; Cortazzi, 1993; Patai, 1988, 1993).  The intersection of these discussions with the issue of transcripts as representations is captured in the following issues:  what is represented in the transcript (e.g., talk, time, nonverbal actions, speaker/hearer relationships, physical orientation, multiple languages, translations); who is representing whom, in what ways, for what purpose, and with what outcome; and how analysts position themselves and their participants in their representations of form, content and action.  From this perspective, a transcript represents both the researcher(s) and the participants in particular ways.  Transcripts, therefore, are partial representations, and the ways in which data are represented influence the range of meanings and interpretations possible. 

The process of transcribing, however, is not an end in-and-of-itself.  Rather, a transcript is an analytic tool constructed for a particular purpose embedded in a program of research (Corsaro, 1985).  Analysis of data represented as a transcript often entails reading the transcript in the presence of audio or video data, field notes, or other forms of head notes (knowledge gained from being in the situation).  Thus, a transcript is shaped by and, in turn, shapes, what can be known (c.f. Fairclough, 1993 on text construction).  For example, a traditional linear transcript implies contiguity of talk in time.  Constructing a transcript with multiple columns to focus on roles and relationships is both a theoretical position and political act which breaks this convention (Ochs, 1979; Lin, 1993; Tuyay, Jennings & Dixon, 1995).  Yet, a linear transcript makes examining collaborative interactions among different language speakers, or exploring which language was used for what purpose, difficult since talk may overlap, events may co-occur and interactions may be non-linear or contiguous (e.g., Bloome & Theodorou, 1988; Floriani, 1993; Tuyay, Jennings & Dixon, 1995).  The use of a linear transcript, and not a transcript that displays the complexity of relationships, means that the reader must rely primarily on the narrative interpretation provided by the writer who had access to contextual information not represented in or with the transcript.

 

The Politics of Transcription:  Questions For A TESOL Audience

The issues that our sociocultural perspective raised about transcribing as a political act are critical to a TESOL audience.  The argument presented can be posed as a series of questions:  Who will be involved in constructing the transcript?  How will talk be selected, in what ways, and for what purpose?  What level of contextual information will be provided, so that readers may hear and/or see the researcher's interpretive processes?  How will persons and their talk and related actions be represented in the transcript?  What is invisible within the transcript that needs to be articulated in the narrative?  These issues are particularly important when the transcriber is of a different language group than the speaker(s), or when more than one language is involved.  For then the question is:  Whose language is being represented, and whose language counts, when language counts?

 

References

Atkinson, P. (1990). The ethnographic imagination: Textual construction of reality. New York: Routledge.

Bloome, D. & Theodorou, E. (1988). Analyzing teacher-student and student-student discourse. In J. Green & J. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse. (pp. 217-248). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Corsaro, W. A. (1985). Friendship and peer culture in the early years. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Cortazzi, M. (1993). Narrative analysis. London: The Falmer Press.

Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, J.A. (1993). Principles and contrasting systems of discourse transcription. in Edwards, J.A. & Lampert, M.D. (Eds.)). Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  

Edwards, J.A. & Lampert, M.D. (Eds.) (1993). Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  

Fairclough, N. (1993).  Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis.  Discourse and Society, 3(2), 193-218.

Floriani, A. (1993) Negotiating what counts: Roles and relationships, content and meaning, texts and context. Linguistics and Education. 5 (3&4), pp. 241-274.

Green, J. & Dixon, C. (1993). Introduction to "Talking knowledge into being: Discursive and social practices in classrooms. Linguistics and Education. 5 (3&4), 231-239.

Green, J.L. & Harker, J.O. (Eds.) (1988). Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Green, J.L., Kelly, G.J., Castanheira, M.L., Esch, J., Frank, C., Hodel, M., Putney, L., & Rodarte, M. (1996). Conceptualizing a basis for understanding: What differences do differences make? Educational Psychologist, 31(4), 227-234.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lin, L. (1993) Language of and in the classroom: Constructing the patterns of social life. Linguistics and Education.. 5 (3&4), pp. 367-409.

Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B.B. Schefflin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics. New York: Academic, pp. 43-72.

Patai, D. (1988, 1993). Brazilian women speak: Contemporary life stories. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Philips, S. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the warm springs Indian reservation. New York: Longman.

Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Toulmin, S. (1990).  Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. New York: The Free Press.

Tuyay, S., Jennings, L. & Dixon, C. (1995) Classroom discourse and opportunities to learn: An ethnographic study of knowledge construction in a bilingual third grade classroom.  Discourse Processes.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1985a). Handbook of discourse analysis, Vol. 1: Disciplines of discourse. New York: Academic Press.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1985b). Handbook of discourse analysis, Vol. 3: Discourse and dialogue. New York: Academic Press.

URL of this page is http://www.skeptron.uu.se/broady/sec/p-greendixon.htm
These HTML versions created by Donald Broady
Back to SEC home page
Back to  högre seminariet i pedagogik (Advance seminar in Education) <http://www.skeptron.uu.se/broady/edu-research/hsem.htm>

This page is an historical remnant, part of  Skeptron Web Archive