Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- General Group Process Systems
- Argument, Conflict, and Negotiations
- Coordination and Coherence
- Cognition and Metacognition
- 33 CASoRL
- 34 Coding Scheme for Group Creativity
- 35 Analyzing Critical Thinking in Group Constellations
- 36 Identifying Teacher and Student Contributions during Assessment Conversations
- 37 Hidden Profile Discussion Coding
- 38 TRAWIS
- Personality and Team Behavior
- Roles and Relationships
- Appendix
- Index
- References
36 - Identifying Teacher and Student Contributions during Assessment Conversations
The Elevate Coding Scheme
from Cognition and Metacognition
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2018
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- General Group Process Systems
- Argument, Conflict, and Negotiations
- Coordination and Coherence
- Cognition and Metacognition
- 33 CASoRL
- 34 Coding Scheme for Group Creativity
- 35 Analyzing Critical Thinking in Group Constellations
- 36 Identifying Teacher and Student Contributions during Assessment Conversations
- 37 Hidden Profile Discussion Coding
- 38 TRAWIS
- Personality and Team Behavior
- Roles and Relationships
- Appendix
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis , pp. 556 - 564Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity-theory, research, critique (2nd edn.). London, UK: Taylor & Francis Publishers, Ltd.Google Scholar
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109–1136. doi:10.1002/tea.20440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 37–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea0401_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furtak, E. M., Kiemer, K., Swanson, R., DeLeon, V., Circi, R., Morrison, D., & Heredia, S. (2016). Developing teachers’ attention and response to student thinking through long-term professional development: Results of a longitudinal study. Instructional Science. 44, 267–291. doi:10.1007/s11251-016-9371-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurik, V., Gröschner, A., & Seidel, T. (2013). How student characteristics affect girls’ and boys’ verbal engagement in physics instruction. Learning and Instruction, 23, 33–42. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. doi:0033-2909/96/S3.00CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobarg, M., & Seidel, T. (2007). Prozessorientierte Lernbegleitung-Videoanalysen im Physikunterricht der Sekundarstufe I. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 35(2), 148–168.Google Scholar
Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1–14. doi:10.1348/000709909X479853CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., & Hall, M. W. (2013). Accountable Talk sourcebook: For classroom conversation that works. Institute of Learning. University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved April 20, 2017 from ifl.pitt.edu/index.php/download/index/ats.Google Scholar
Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable Talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4) 283–297. doi:10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1993.24.4.04x0063kGoogle Scholar
Pehmer, A.-K., Kiemer, K., & Gröschner, A. (2014). Produktive Lehrer-Schüler-Kommunikation: ein Kategoriensystem zur Erfassung Produktiver Gesprächsführung im Klassengespräch und in Schülerarbeitsphasen. Friedl-Schöller Endowed Chair for Teaching and Learning Research. TUM School of Education, Technische Universität München.Google Scholar
Penuel, W. R., & Shepard, L. A. (2016). Assessment and teaching. In Gitomer, D. H. & Bell, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (5th edn., pp. 787–850). Washington, DC.: American Educational Research Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446–456. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: Exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(3 & 4), 237–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2006.9652991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57–84. doi:10.1002/tea.20163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2006). Stability of teaching patterns in physics instruction: Findings from a video study. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 228–240. doi:0.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., Wittwer, J., & Schwindt, K. (2007). Unterricht in den Naturwissenschaften. In Prenzel, M., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Hammann, M., Klieme, E., & Pekrun, R. (Eds.), PISA-Konsortium Deutschland. PISA 2006. Die Ergebnisse der dritten internationalen Vergleichsstudie (pp. 147–180). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track: Classroom assessment and the regulation of learning. In Lester, J. F. K. (Ed.), Second handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1053–1098). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar