(3.238.88.35) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/10 20:01
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:洪麗雪
研究生(外文):Li-shueh Hung
論文名稱:國小英語課室教師言談之框架分析
論文名稱(外文):A Frame Analysis of Teacher Talk in Three Elementary EFL Classrooms
指導教授:劉德烜
指導教授(外文):Teh-suan Liou
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:外國文學所
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2006
畢業學年度:94
語文別:英文
論文頁數:225
中文關鍵詞:框架分析國小EFL英語框架立足點教師言談
外文關鍵詞:Teacher talkFrame analysisElementary EFL classroomFrameFooting
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:6
  • 點閱點閱:838
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:144
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:6
摘要
本研究的主要目的,在探索國小EFL課室中,教師發言的立足點,及立足點的轉變狀況。三位國小英語教師及其任教的三個班級學生,參與本研究,並接受課室觀察。蒐集的資料共有研究者的觀察記錄及每節四十分鐘,總共三十節的課室觀察。所有課室觀察皆經錄音及錄影。錄音資料皆轉成逐字稿。資料分析包括將教師的課室言談分類成二十二種類型,再將二十二種類型的課室言談合併成教師的立足點,並找出各立足點的關係。 研究者發現在二十二種類型的課室言談中,三位教師最常出現的共同課室言談類型有評量,指派工作和提供相關訊息等三種。
研究結果顯示有十種立足點出現在國小EFL課的課室言談中,這十種立足點分別為(1)學習任務指派者,(2)教材媒介者,(3)教材解釋說明者,(4) 應變者,(5) 管理者, (6) 評量者,(7) 離題者,(8) 學習節奏掌控者,(9) 檢核者以及(10)學習氣氛營造者。 研究者發現三位教師最常出現教材媒介者、評量者、學習任務指派者、教材解釋說明者和檢核者等五個共同的立足點。但是由於各自比例的不同及組合方式的不同,三位教師也顯示出各自獨有的說話模式。此外,三位教師在課堂中大多的時間還是以權威的立足點出現。最後本研究歸納出教師在課堂中絕大多數的立足點,都是為了使學生「聚焦當下進行的課」而出現。
本研究認為探索國小EFL課室中的教師課室言談是很重要的,它可以作為日後教課言談研究的基礎,發展出更有教學效率的課室言談模式,並作為教學督導、教師自我監控及師資培訓教育重要的參考。
ABSTRACT
A Frame Analysis of Teacher Talk in
Three Elementary EFL Classrooms

This study explores the footings of teacher talk by analyzing the talk of three Taiwanese EFL teachers in classroom interaction. The study approaches analysis from a frame perspective, and identifies the different footing patterns adopted by the teachers and examines the shifts of footing occurred while conducting their classes.
Participants in this study are three primary school English teachers and their three classes. The data collected for this study are mainly based on classroom observations as well as the researcher’s field notes. Classroom observations were conducted over thirty 40-minute lessons, which were audio- and video-taped and transcribed verbatim. The primary focus is on the teacher talk types the teachers adopt as they manage the class, the function and characteristics of each teacher talk type, and evidence for the footing the teacher talk type is in. Analysis includes identifying the different types of teacher talk, categorizing the various types of teacher talk into ten footing patterns and generalizing the relationship among these footings. They are: (1) Learning task assignor, (2) Mediator, (3) Teaching material interpreter, (4) Unexpected events reactor, (5) Manager, (6) Evaluator, (7) Digressor, (8) Learning pace administrator, (9) Inspector, and (10) Classroom climate conductor. The findings reveal that the three teachers most frequently used five footings such as Mediator, Evaluator, Learning task assignor, Teaching material interpreter and Inspector. The analysis reveals that the teachers took several footings in the course of each class in the English teacher role. Due to the frequency and distribution of the footings and the various deployment of the ten footings, the three teachers seemed to have their own discourse structure and teaching styles. The researcher defines footings as the orientation or focus the teachers are displaying in relation to the instructional tasks or goals; in the context of the EFL class session, they display orientation to the teaching material matters and the interpersonal matters. This study closes with a coordinate figure with four quadrants of how the ten footings were integrated. The results indicate that the three teachers mostly adopted the authoritative footing while conducting their classes.
Furthermore, the findings indicate that the footings employed by the teachers primarily served as a spotlight to direct students’ attention to the instructional task at that moment. The model allows the analyst to see differences between footings and varied teaching modes or styles among the three teachers.
This study concludes that an understanding of the role of teacher talk in elementary EFL classroom interaction is essential and frame research on teacher talk in language classroom may contribute as follows: (1) it may serve as a basis of further research on classroom talk, (2) it may develop a more effective teaching mode in terms of teacher talk, and (3) it may be used as an important reference for teaching supervising, teacher self-monitoring and teacher education.
CONTENTS
CHINESE ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………....…. i
ABSTRACT …………….…………………………………………………..…... ii
ACKNOWLEDEMENTS …………………………………………………..….. iv
CONTENTS ……………………………………………………………...……... v
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………….....…….. viii
LIST OF CHARTS …………………………………………………………..…. ix
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………… x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………………….…….……… 1
1.1 Background and motivation of the study ………………………………….…………… 1
1.2 Purpose of the study ……………………………………………………….…………… 7
1.3 Research questions ………………………………………………………….………….. 9
1.4 Significance of the study …………………………………………………….…………. 9
1.5 Definition of terms ……………………………………………………………………. 11
1.6 Overview of the study ………………………………………………………………… 13

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.0 Introduction …………………………………………………………………….…..…. 14
2.1 Teacher Talk ……………………………………………………………………....…... 14
2.1.1 Significance of teacher talk …………………….……………………...…... 14
2.1.2 Categorization of teacher talk ……………………………………….…..… 18
2.1.2.1 IRE …………………………….……………………………...….. 18
2.1.2.2 TRS (Topically Related Sets) …………………………….………. 19
2.1.2.3 FIAC (The Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories) ………….. 20
2.1.2.4 Flint (Foreign Language Interaction System) ……………………. 21
2.1.2.5 Other views on teacher talk categories ……………………………. 25
2.1.3 Function of teacher talk …………………………..……………………….. 26
2.1.4 Review of relevant research on teacher talk ……….……………………… 27
2.1.4.1 Empirical studies on teacher talk in Taiwan …..…………………. 27
2.1.5 The scarcity and significance of research in elementary
EFL classroom in Taiwan ……………………………………………….…. 31
2.2 Frame analysis ………………………………………………….…………………….. 32
2.2.1 Frame ………………………………..……………………………………… 32
2.2.1.1 Background of frame analysis ……………………………………. 32
2.2.1.2 Definition of frame ……………………………………………….. 33
2.2.2 Footing …………………………………….……………………………...… 37
2.2.2.1 Definition of footing ……………………………………………… 37
2.2.3 Footing, stance and role ……………………..…………………………….. ..40
2.2.4 The relationship among frame, footing, stance and role ..………………...… 43
2.2.5 The relationship between footing and linguistics …………..……………..... 46
2.3 Teacher talk and frame analysis ………………………………………………….…….. 48
2.4 Summary ……………………………………………………………………………….. 53

CHAPTER 3: Methodology
3.0 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….... 55
3.1 The classroom setting and the three teachers ……………………………….……….... 55
3.1.1 Participant recruitment ………………………………………………...…... 56
3.1.2 The three teachers ………………………………….…………………..….. 57
3.1.2.1 Teacher A ……………………………………..…………………..… 58
3.1.2.2 Teacher B ………………………………………..……………….…. 59
3.1.2.3 Teacher C ………………………………………..……………….…. 59
3.2 Classroom context and general classroom structure ……..……….………………..…. 60
3.1.3 Teacher A’s classroom ………………………………….………………..… 60
3.1.4 Teacher B’s classroom ………………………………….……………….… 61
3.1.5 Teacher C’s classroom ………………………………….……………….… 62
3.3 Data collection procedure ………………………………………………………….… 64
3.3.1 Classroom observation …………………………………………………..… 66
3.3.2 The researcher’s field notes ……………………………………………….. 67
3.4 Data analysis procedures ………..……………………………………………………. 69
3.4.1 The selection of the analytical approach …………………………………... 69
3.4.2 The formulation of coding categories ……………………………………... 71
3.4.3 Reliability testing ………………………………………………………..… 83
3.4.4 Coding …………………………………………………….…………….…. 85
3.4.5 The statistics of frequency and percentage ………………………….….…. 85
3.5 Summary ………………………………………………………………………… …….... 86

CHAPTER 4: Results and discussion
4.0 Introduction …………………………………..…..…….……………………………... 88
4.1 Types of teacher talk identified ………………..………..…………………..………… 89
4.2 The analysis of Teacher A ‘s teacher talk in her classroom interaction ……….…..….. 89
4.2.1 Types of teacher talk in Teacher A’s classroom …………………………… 89
4.2.2 Frequency distribution of Teacher A’s teacher talk type …………………... 93
4.2.3 Footing patterns embodied in teacher A’s Classroom ……………………... 94
4.2.4 Illustration of Teacher A’s footing pattern …………………………………. 97
4.3 The analysis of Teacher B ‘s teacher talk in her classroom interaction ……………. 100
4.3.1 Types of teacher talk in Teacher B’s classroom ……………………….…. 100
4.3.2 Frequency distribution of Teacher B’s teacher talk type ……………….… 105
4.3.3 Footing patterns embodied in teacher B’s Classroom ……………………. 106
4.3.4 Illustration of Teacher B’s footing pattern ……………………………..….109
4.4 The analysis of Teacher C ‘s teacher talk in her classroom interaction ……………. 112
4.4.1 Types of teacher talk in Teacher C’s classroom ………………..……...…. 112
4.4.2 Frequency distribution of Teacher C’s teacher talk type ……………….… 117
4.4.3 Footing patterns embodied in teacher C’s Classroom ………………...….. 119
4.4.4 Illustration of Teacher C’s footing pattern …………………………….…. 121
4.5 Similarities and differences among the three teacher’s talk …………………..…… 124
4.5.1 Comparison of teachers’ talk types ……………………………….....…… 124
4.5.2 Comparison of teachers’ footing patterns ………………………...……… 130
4.5.3 Comparison of teachers’ footing distribution …………………...……….. 134
4.6 Summary ………………………………………………………………...…………. 140

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
5.0 Introduction …………………………………………………………………….……. 142
5.1 Summary of the study ……………………….…………………………...………….. 142
5.2 Implication ……………………………………………………………...…………… 145
5.3 Limitations of the study ………………………..……………………...…………….. 148
5.4 Suggestion …………………………………………………………...………………. 149

REFERENCES …………………………………………………….……...…………….…. 152

APPENDIX 1 Sample Field Notes: Teacher A’s Classroom ……………………………….174
APPENDIX 2 Sample Field Notes: Teacher B’s Classroom ………………………………177
APPENDIX 3 Sample Field Notes: Teacher C’s Classroom …………………...………….180
APPENDIX 4 Transcription Conventions for Classroom Discourse ……………………...183
APPENDIX 5 Sample Transcription of Teacher A’s Class… ……………………………...184
APPENDIX 6 Sample Transcription of Teacher B’s Class… ……………………………..194
APPENDIX 7 Sample Transcription of Teacher A’s Class ………………………………...213
REFERENCES
English

Allwright, R. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5, 2, 156-171.
Antaki, C., Condor, S., & Levine, M. (1996). Social identities in talk: Speakers’ own orientations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 473-492.
Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd). New York: Routledge.
Baker, F. B. (1992). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Bamberg, M. (1999). Is there anything behind discourse? Narrative and the local accomplishment of identities. In W. Maiers, B. Bayer, B. Duarte Esgalhado, R. Jorna & E. Schraube (Eds.), Challenges to theoretical psychology. Selected/edited proceedings of the seventh Beannial Conference of The International Society for Theoretical Psychology Berlin, 1997. North York: Captus University Publications.
Barnes, D. (1976). From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penquin.
Barnes, D. (1992). From communicative to curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Ballentine Books, New York
Bejarano, Y. (1997). The Skilled Use of Interaction Strategies: Creating a Framework for Improved Small-Group Communicative Interaction in the Language Classroom.; System, 25, 2 ,203-14
Bellack, A., H. Kliebard, R. Hyman and F. Smith. (1966). The Language of the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Benedict, R. (1946). The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Benford, R. D.(1993). "Frame Disputes within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement." Social Forces 71, 677-701.
Bik-may, Amy Tsui (1987). An Analysis of Different Types of Interaction in ESL Classroom Discourse.; IRAL, 25, 4 , 336-53.
Bogdan , R.C. & Bilklen , S.K.(1982). Qualitative Research . N.Y. : Allyan &Bacon .
Bourne, J. ; Jewitt, C. (2003). Orchestrating Debate: A Multimodel Analysis of Classroom Interaction.; Reading: Literacy and Language, 37, 2, 64-72.
Boxer, D. & Cortes-Conde, F. (2000). Identity and ideology: Culture and pragmatics in content-based ESL. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 203-220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, G. & Wragg, E. C. (1993). Questioning. Longdon: Routledge.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentic Hall .
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Buechler, S. (2000). Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Callahan, K. & Schnell, F. (2001). Assessing the democratic debate: How the news media frame elite policy discourse. Political Communication, 18, 183-212.
Carol B. G. (1989). Analyzing Gender in Public Places : Rethinking Goffman’s Vision of Everyday Life. The American Sociologist/Spring 1989, 42-56.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: the language of teaching and learning. Portsman, NH: Heinemann
Chang, C. (2003). The role of corrective feedback in EFL classrooms: A descriptive study of two junior high school teachers. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Taiwan: National Chung Cheng University.
Chang, C. (2004). A study of teacher follow-ups to students response in the dialogic interaction in EFL classrooms. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Taiwan: National Chung Cheng University.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, Y. L. (1997) The structure of topic in senior high school EFL classrooms: A case study. Unpublished MA Thesis. Department of English, National Changhua University of Education.
Cho H. & Lacy S. (2000). “International Conflict Coverage in Japanese Local Daily Newspapers.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 830-845.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, eds., Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Chung, Wei-wen & Tsang, Kuo-Jen (1993). News frames reconsidered: What does frame do to reality. Paper presented at the AEJMC convention, Kansas City, MO.
Collins, J. (1996). 'Socialisation to text: structure and contradiction in schooled literacy'. In: M. Silverstein & G. Urban (eds.) Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 203-228.
Collins, J. (1998). 'Our ideologies and theirs.' In: B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard & P. Kroskrity (eds.), Language ideologies. Practice and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 256-270.
Collins, R. (1988) Theoretical continuities in Goffman’s work. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.) , Evring Goffman : Exploring the interaction order (pp. 39-63). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Consolo, D. (2000). Teachers’ action and student oral participation in classroom interaction. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.) , Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 91-108) . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Corsaro, W. A. (1985). Sociological Approaches to Discourse Analysis. Teaksessa: Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Volume 1: Disciplines of Discourse. Edited by Teun, A. , van Dijk, Academic Press, London.
Corsaro, W.A. (1981). Entering the child's world: Research strategies for field entry and data collection in a pre-school setting. In Green, J.L. & C. Wallat, (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings. Ablex: New Jersey.
Cortese, G. (1987) Interaction in the FL Classroom: From Reactive to Proactive Experience of Language.; System, 15, 1, 27-41.
Coulthard, M. (1975). An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Crozet, C. (1996). Teaching Verbal Interaction and Culture in the Language Classroom.; Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 2, 37-57.
Cullen, R. (1998) Teacher Talk and the Classroom Context.; ELT Journal, 52, 3, 179-87.
Dai, John Xiang-Ling. (1990). Some issues on a-not-a questions in Chinese. Linguistics, 18, 2, 285-317.
Deen, J. Y. (1991). Comparing Interaction in a Cooperative Learning and Teacher-Centered Foreign Language Classroom..; I.T.L. Review of Applied Linguistics, 93-94, 153-181.
Dickerson, P. (2000). ‘But I’m different to them’: Constructing contrasts between self and others in talk-in-interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(3), 381–398.
Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and teaching. New York: Teacher College Press.
Dobinson, T. (2001). Do Learners Learn from Classroom Interaction and Does the Teacher Have a Role To Play?; Language Teaching Research, 5, 3, 189-211.

Drew, P. and Wootton, A. J. (1988). Erving Goffman :exploring the interaction order /Northeastern University Press.
Dunstan, A. (1989). Working in the Classroom: Teachers Talk about What They Do.; English Education, 21, 1, 39-52.
Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (1992). 'Rethinking context: an introduction'. In: A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds.), 1994, Rethinking Context. Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-42.
Edwards, A. D. & Westgate D.P.G. (1986). Investigating Classroom talk. Great Britain: Falmer Kraemer.
Edwards, A. D., and Furlong, V. J. (1978). The language of teaching. London: Heinemann.
Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1995). Common Knowledge: The development of understanding in classroom (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Edwards, D., and Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
Eggins, S. & Slade. D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (Ed.)(1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
Enright, D. (1984). The organisation of interaction in elementary classrooms. In J. Handscombe, R. A. Orem, & B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL:Tthe question of control (pp. 23–38). Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 4, 51-58.
Entman, R. M., & Rojecki, A. (1993). Freezing out the public: Elite and media framing of the U.S. anti-nuclear movement. Political Communication, 10, 2, 155-173.
Erickson, F. (1977). Some approaches to inquiry in school/community ethnography. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 8, 3, 58-69.
Farnell, B.(1999). Moving Bodies, Acting Selves. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 341-73.
Fisher, K. (1997). 'Locating Frames in the Discursive Universe'. Sociological Research Online, 2, 3, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/3/4.html
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Reading Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Forman, E. A., Minick, N., Stone, C. A. (1993). Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development . New York: Oxford University Press.
Francis, G. & Hunston, S. (1992). Analysing everyday conversation. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Spoken discourse analysis (pp. 123-161). London: Routledge.
Galton, M.; Hargreaves, L.; Comber, C.; Wall, D.; Pell, T. (1999). Changes in Patterns of Teacher Interaction in Primary Classrooms: 1976-96.; British Educational Research Journal, 25,1, 23-37.
Gamson, W, A. (1985). Goffman’s legacy to political sociology. Theory and Society, 14, 605-622
Gamson, W. (1989). News as framing. American Behavioraal Scientist, 33, 2, 151-161.
Gamson, W. A. & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. Research in Political Sociology, 3, 137-177.
Gamson, W. A. & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on unclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1, 1-37.
Gamson, W. A. (1975), The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press
Gamson, W. A. (1988). Political discourse and collective action. In B. Klandermans et al. (Eds.), International Social Movement Research, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
Gamson, W. A., & Lasch, K. E. (1983). The political culture of social welfare policy. In S. E. Spiro & E. Yuchtman-Yaar (Eds.), Evaluating the welfare state. New York: Academic Press.
Gamson, W.A. (1992). 'The Social Psychology of Collective Action,' Pp. 53-76 in: Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited by A.D. Morris and C.M. Mueller. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gamson, W.A., D. Croteau, W. Hoynes, and T. Sasson. (1992). 'Media Images and the Social Construction of Reality,' Annual Review of Sociology 18, 373-93.
Gardin, B. ; Lorant, G. & Cahour, B. (1998). Theories of communicative interaction (3) Goffman's conceptual framework , Publication en ligne
Gass, S, M., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 2, 299-305.
Gass, S. M. & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 37-58.

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Georgakopoulou, A. (2002). Narrative and identity management: Discourse and social identities in a tale of tomorrow. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35, 427-451.
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom.; TESOL Quarterly, 37, 2, 247-73.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
Goffman, E. (1969). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press..
Goffman, E. (1982). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.
Goffman, E. (l967). Interaction Ritual. New York: Anchor.
Goodwin, M. H. (1998). Games of stance: conflict and footing in hopscotch. In S. Hoyle and C. T. Adger (Eds.), Kids' talk: Strategic language use in later childhood (pp. 23-46). New York: Oxford University Press.
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137.
Griffin, E. (1997). A First Look at Communication Theory, Third Edition. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Griffin, P. and Mehan, H. (1981). Sense and Ritual in Classroom Discourse. In Coulmas, F. (ed.) Conversational Routine, Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech (pp.187-213). Mouton Publishers, the Hauge, Paris, New York.
Grundy, S. (1992). Beyond guaranteed outcomes: Creating a discourse for educational praxis. Australian Journal of Education, 36, 2, 157-169.

Grundy, S. (1994). ‘Being and becoming Australian: classroom discourse and the construction of identity’, Discourse, 15, 1, 16-31.
Grundy, S. (1997). Challenging and Changing: Communicative competence and the classroom. In B. Davies & D. Corson ( Eds. ). Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 3 : Oral discourse and education (pp. 31-41) .Netherbirds : Kluwer Academ Publishers.
Gumperz, J. (1977). Sociocultural Knowledge in Conversational Inference. In M. Saville-Troike (ed.) Linguistics and Anthropology, Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1977 . Washington , DC : Georgetown University Press.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. (1992a). 'Contextualisation revisited'. In: P. Auer & A. Di Luzio, The Contextualisation of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39-53.
Gumperz, J. (1992b). Contextualization and understanding. In: Duranti, A. / Goodwin C. (eds.).Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229-52.
Gumperz, J. (1999). 'On interactional sociolinguistic method'. In: C. Roberts & S. Sarangi (eds.) Talk, Work and Institutional Order. Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 453-471.
Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (eds.) (1972). Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hajer, M. (2000). Creating a language promoting classroom: Content-area teachers at work. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 265-285). Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hall, C. , Cleveland, C. and Kaufmann, R. (1986). Energy and Resource Quality: the ecology of the economic process, Colorado: University Press of Colorado.
Hall, J. K. & Verplaetse L. S. (2000). The development of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 1-20). Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hall, J. K. & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186-203.
Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: the sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for the learning of another language. Applied Linguistics, 14, 2, 145-166.
Hall, J. K. (1998). Differential teacher attention to student utterance: The construction of different opportunities for learning in the IRF. Linguistic and Education, 9, 287-311
Hall, P. (1986). Governing the Economy. The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and France, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Halliday, Michael A.K., (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, Michael A.K.,(1978). Language as a Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
Hammersley, M. (1990). Reading Ethnographic Research: A critical Guide. London: Longman.
Hanks, W. F. (1996). Exorcism and the description of participant roles. In M. Silverstein & G. Urban (Eds.), Natural histories of discourse (pp.160-200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Harris, T. A. (1969). I'm OK, you're OK: a practical guide to transactional analysis. New York : Harper & Row 1969
Hatch, E. & Long, M. (1980). Discourse analysis, what’s that? In Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E.Hatch. (Ed.), Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House..
Hayami, Y., (2004). “From the Washington Consensus to the post-Washington Consensus: Retrospect and Prospect”, Asian Development Review, 20, 2, 40-65.
Heap, J.L. (1985). Discourse in the production of knowledge: Reading lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 15, 3, 245-279.
Heath, S. B. (1978). Teacher talk: language in the classroom, prepared by Eric Cleaninghourse on Languages and Linguistics. Arlington, Va, Center for Applied Linguistics.
Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society, 32, 79-104.
Henriette C. (2002). Training Teachers’ Behaviour .Research in Drama Education, 7, 2, 195-206.
Hertog, P. den (2000) `Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation', International Journal of Innovation Management, 4, 4, 491-528.
Herzog, J. (1996). Implementing S/NVQs in the information and library sector: a guide for employers. Library Association Publishing.
Ho, W. (2001). A study on teacher vocabulary explanation in vocational high school EFL classrooms. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Taiwan: National Changhua University of Education.
Holland, R. and T. Shortall (1998). Classroom Research and Research Methods. Centre for English Language Studies, Birmingham University.
Huang, H. (1998). An Analysis of the Functions of Teacher Talk Based on EFL Classroom Interaction in Junior High School. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Taiwan: National Kaohsiung University.
Hunter, E. (1970). Some reasons for modifying existing category systems. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 6, 1, 17-23.
Irvine, J.T. (1996). Shadows convesations: The indeterminacy of participant roles. In M. Silverstein and G. Urban (eds.), Natural histories of discourse, 131-159. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jarvis, J. & Robinson, M. (1997). Analysing educational discourse: an exploratory study of teacher response and support to pupils’ learning. Applied Linguistics. 18, 2, 212-228.
Johnson, D. (1992), Approaches to Research in second Language Learning, London : Longman
Johnston, H. (1995). "A Methodology for Frame Analysis: From Discourse to Cognitive Schemata." Pp. 217-246 In Social Movements and Culture, Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans, eds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Jones-Corley, J.A. (2002). “Just One of Those Dutch Days”—American Expatriate Spouses in the Netherlands: Toward an Expatriate Frame Management Theory of Acculturation. A Thesis in Speech Communication , The Pennsylvania State University, the Graduate School College of the Liberal Art.
Joseph P. F. (2002). Feeling and Doing : Affective Influences on Interpersonal Behavior. Psychological Inquire, 13, 1, 1-28
Judd, C. M., Smith, E. R., & Kidder, L. H. (1991). Research methods in social relations (6th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Kelly, G.A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.
Kim, S.T. (2000) .‘Making a Difference: US Press Coverage of the Kwangju and Tiananmen Pro-Democracy Movements’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77, 1, 22–36.
Kinder, D. & Sander, L. (1990).“Mimiking political debate with survey questions: The case of white opinion on affirmative action for blacks”, Social Cognition, 8, 73-103.
Kinney, C. J. (1998). Role, stance, and footing: A frame analysis of leaders’ talk in a small group discussion. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation of the Graduate School of Georgetown University.

Knox, L. (1994). Repetition and relevance: Self-repetition as a strategy for initiating cooperation in nonnative/native speaker conversations. In B. Johnstone (Ed.), Repetition in discourse: Interdisciplinary perspectives. (pp. 195-206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kobayashi, Y. (2003). On the effects of different types of questioning and follow-up moves to the student’s response in language classroom: A pilot study. Unpublished term paper. University of California Santa Cruz.
Kraemer, D.(1997). Don’t Lecture Me: A Case Study of Performance Pedagogy. English Education, 29, 3, 173-82.
Kramsch, C. J. (1987). Interactive discourse in small and large groups. In W. M. Rivers (Ed.), Interactive language teaching (pp. 17-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (1980). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1989). Language acquisition and language education. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Kreshen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.
Krusch, B. (1994). The role of frame analysis in enhancing the transfer of knowledge. Available: www.krusch.com.
Lang, E. & Lang, H. (1972). Spezifische Farbreaktion zum direkten Nachweis der Ameisensäure. Z Anal Chem 260, 8–10.
Lantolf, J. P. & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lantolf, J. P. & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108-124.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). NY: Oxford.
LaPolla, R. (1998). The language habit: The conventionalization of constraints on inference. In N. Enfield (Ed.), Ethnosyntax (pp. 138-158). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. NY: Longman.
Legarreta, D. (1977). Language choice in bilingual classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 11, 1, 9-16.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science : language, learning, and values. Norwood, N.J. : Ablex Pub. Corp.
Levinson S.(1983)Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. (1988). Putting Linguistics on a Proper Footing: Explorations in Goffman’s Concepts of Participation. In: Paul Drew & Anthony Wootton (eds.) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, pp. 161-227. Oxford: Polity Press.
Li, X. and St. Cyr, Charles. (1998). Human rights in China, a pawn of a political agenda? A content analysis of The New York Times (1987-1996). Gazette, 60, 6, 531-547.
Lier, Leo van (1992). Classroom Interaction Patterns of Foreign Language Teachers.; Journal of Southeast Asian Language Teaching, 1, 1-2, 44-52
Lin, A. (1999). Doing-English-Lessons in the reproduction or transformation of social world? TESOL quarterly, 33, 393-412.
Lin, H. Y. (1996). Questioning Strategies Used by Experienced and Less Experienced EFL Teachers, Unpublished MA Thesis. Department of English, National Changhua University of Education
Lindgren , H. C. (1976). Educational Psychology in the Classroom. New York John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Liou, T. S. (1995). Mitigating Disagreements in Second-language Computer-mediated Discourse: Applying and Revisiting Brown and Levinson's Theories of Face. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University.
Long, M. (1983). ‘Training the second language teacher as a classroom researcher’ paper presented at the 34th Annual Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, Washington, DC. Georgetown University.
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-41.
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-193.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In M. Gass & C. Madden. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia. (Eds.) Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press.
Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers' questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second languages 268-285. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long. M. (1983). Inside the "Black Box". In Seliger, H. & Long, M. (Eds.) (1983). Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House.
Luke, (1997). Critical discourse analysis . In M. Apple (ed.) Review of research in education. Washington: American Educational Research Association.
Lyster R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 20, 51-81.
Mackey, M. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in second language acquisition. 21, 557-587.
Maher, T. M. (2001). Framing: An Emerging Paradigm or a Phase of Agenda Setting. In Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and our Understanding of the Social World, Ed. Stephen D Reese, Oscar H Gandy, and August E Grant. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly. 37, 1, 94-112.
Malone, M. J. (1997). Worlds of Talk: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Conversation. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Manning, P. (1992). Erving Goffman and modern sociology /Polity Press.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDonald, R. B. (1991). An Analysis of Verbal Interaction in College Tutorials. Journal of Developmental Education; 15, 1, 1991
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons : social organization in the classroom .Cambridge, Mass. :Harvard University Press
Mehan, H. (1982). The structure of classroom events and their consequences for student performance. In P. Gilmore and A. A. Glatthorn (Eds.), Children in and out of school (pp. 59-87). Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Mehan, H. (1984). Language and schooling. Sociology of Education, 57, 174-183.
Michael R.(2002).Teaching and researching listening. New York : Longman
Michael S. (1984) Embarrassment and Erving Goffman’s idea of Human Nature. Theory and Society, 13, 633-648
Mischler, E. (1975). Studies in dialogue and discourse: II. Types of discourse initiated by and sustained through questioning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 2, 99-121.
Mischler, E. (1978). Studies in dialogue and discourse: III. Utterance structure and utterance function in interogative sequences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 7, 4, 279-305.

Mori, J. (2002) Task Design, Plan, and Development of Talk-in-Interaction: An Analysis of a Small Group Activity in a Japanese Language Classroom.; Applied Linguistics, 23, 3, 323-47
Moskoswitz, G. (1971). Interaction analysis—A new modern language for supervisors. Foreign Language Annels, 5, 211-221.
Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21, 3, 376-406.
Neuman, E. (1992). Birds and the bees and more. Insight, 8, 41, 6-9,11-13, 34-36.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding language classroom: A guide for teacher initiated action. Prentice Hall
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1992). “Indexing Gender.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon ed. Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oliver, P. E. & Johnston, H. (2000). What a Good Idea! Ideologies and Frames in Social Movement Research. Mobilization, 5, 37-54.
Oliver, R. ; Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional Context and Feedback in Child ESL Classrooms.; Modern Language Journal, 87, 4, 519-33.
Orsolini M., Pontecorvo C. (1992). Children’s talking in classroom discussion, Cognition and Instruction, 2, 113-136.
Orsolini, M. (1988). Information exchange in classroom conversation: Negotiation and extension of the focus. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 3, 341-355
Pan, A., & Kosicki, G. (1992). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Paper presented to the International Communication Association, Miami, Florida.
Pan, Z. & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: an approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10, 55-75.
Patil, P. B. (1994). Strategies of "Teacher Talk."; IRAL, 32, 2, 154-65.
Philips, S. (1972). Participation structures and communicative competence : Warm spring children in community and classroom. In C.B. Cazden, V. P. John & D. Hymes (eds.), Functions of language in classroom (p370-394). New York: Teacher College Press.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, process, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527.
Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal. 86, 1, 1-19.
Pierre, J. (2004). Black immigrants in the United States and the cultural narratives of ethnicity, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 11(2), 141-170.
Potter, J. & Margeret W. (1987): "Discourse and Social Psychology," London: Sage.
Ramirez, J. D. Yuen, S. D. Ramey, D. R. Merino, B. J. (1986). First Annual Report : Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language- Minority Children. (U.S. Department of Education). San Mateo, CA : Aguirre International.
Reese J, Das SK, Paria BC, Lim H, Song H, Matsumoto H, Knudtson KL, DuBois RN & Dey SK (2001). Global gene expression analysis to identify molecular markers of uterine receptivity and embryo implantation. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276 44137–44145.
Reta, M.C. (2000) .‘US Media Coverage of the 1994 Elections in South Africa’, Gazette 62, 6, 523–36.
Ribeiro, B.T. (1993). Framing in psychotic discourse. In D. Tannen, Framing in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 77-113.
Ribeiro, B.T. (1994). Coherence in psychotic discouse. NY: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejia Arauz, R., Morrea-Chavez, M., & Angellio, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 175-203.
Rong, M. (2000). An Examination of Teacher-Student and Student-Student Interaction in an EFL Classroom.; Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5, 2, 26-44 .
Ryan, C.. (1991). Prime time activism. Boston, MA: South End Press.
Saville-Torike, M. (1982). The ethnography of communication: An introduction, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schramm, W. (1979). Big Media, Little Media: Tools and Technologies Hills, California: Sage Publications. for Instruction.
Schramm, W. (1980). Circulation of news in the third world: A study of Asia, in G. Cleeveland Wilhoit & Harold de Mock, eds., Mass Communication Review Yearbook. Beverly Hills: Sage
Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston: Northwestern University Press
Seedhouse, P. (1995) L2 Classroom Transcripts: Data in Search of a Methodology? TESL-EJ, v1 n4 A-1 Jun 1995
Seedhouse, P. (1996). Classroom interaction: possibilities and impossibilities. ELT Journal, 50, 116-24.
Seedhouse, P. (2001). The ethical limits of rationality. Paper Presented at the AIHLE annual conference: Science, Technology, and Culture. Held at the University of Melbourne, Melbourne VIC, June 2001
Seliger, H. & Shohamy, E. (1990). Second Language Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
Seliger, Herbert W. and Michael H. Long (Eds.). (1983). Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Servaes, H., (1991). Tobin’s q, agency costs, and corporate control: An empirical analysis of firm specific parameters. Journal of Finance 46, 409-419.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 2, 4-12.
Shilling, C. (1993). The Body and Social Theory. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Sinclair, J. & Brazil, D. (1982). Teacher talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford university press.
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis. (pp. 1-34). London: Routledge.
Slembrouck, Stef (2004). Reflexivity and the Research Interview. Critical Discourse Studies, 1, 1, 91-112.
Smith, A. B. (1993). Social Interaction in Same and Cross Gender Pre-School Peer Groups: A Participant Observation Study. Educational Psychology, 13, 1, 29-42.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197-217.
Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464-481.
Snow, D. E., & Benford, R. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. A. Morris & C. M. Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, pp. 133-155. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sorace, A. (1985)."Metalinguistic knowledge and language use in acquisition-pooor environments" Applied Linguistics 6, 3, 239 - 254.
Spoelders, M. (1987). 'Verbal Communication in the Classroom', Equality in Language Learning: Proceedings of the Nordic Conference of Applied Linguistics, Jyvaskla, Finland.
Straehle, C. A. (1993).‘"Samuel?" "Yes dear?" Teasing and conversational rapport’, in D. Tannen, ed., Framing in Discourse. New York: Open University Press.
Stubbs, M. (1976). Language, Schools and Classrooms. London: Methuen.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sullivan, P. (2000). Spoken artistry: Performance in a foreign language classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp.73-90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Takahashi-Breines (2002). The Role of Teacher-Talk in a Dual Language Immersion Third Grade Classroom., Hinako; Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 2, 461-83.
Tankard, J. W. , Hendrickson, L. , Bliss, K. , & Ghanem, S. (1991). Media frames: approaches to and conceptualization measurement. Paper Persented at the Annual Conference of the Association For Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, MA.
Tankard, J. W., Jr. (2001). The Empirical Approach to the Study of Media Framing. In Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and our Understanding of the Social World, Ed. Stephen D Reese, Oscar H Gandy, and August E Grant. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tankard, J. W., Laura H. , Jackie S. , Kriss B. , and Salma G. . (1991). Media Frames: Approaches to Conceptualization and Measurement. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston.
Tannen, D. (1979). What's in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In R.O. Freedle (ed.) New directions in discourse processing. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing, 137 - 181.
Tannen, D. (1985). Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. In D.R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language and learning: The nature and consequence of reading and writing (pp. 124-147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (1986). That’s Not What I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Relationships. New York: Ballantine Books.
Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D., and Cynthia W. (1993)"Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction: Examples from a Medical Examination/In Interview." In Deborah Tannen (ed) Framing in Discourse. New York: Oxford UP, p55-76
Tardif, C. (1994). Classroom Teacher Talk in Early Immersion.; Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 3, 466-81
Tarrow, S. (1992). "Mentalities, Political Cultures, and Collective Action Frames: Constructing Meanings through Action." Pp. 174-202 in A. D. Morris and C. M. Mueller, Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Thornbury, S. (1996) Teachers Research Teacher Talk.; ELT Journal, 50, 4, 279-88
Trew, T. (1979). What the papers say: linguistic variation and ideological difference’. In R. Fowler et al., eds., Language and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Tsui, A. B. M. (1995). Introducing classroom interaction. London: Penguin.
Tuckman, G. (1978). Making News: A study in the Construction of Reality. New York: The Free Press. UNESCO.
van Dijk, T. A. (1983) Discourse Analysis : It’s Development and Application to the Structure of News. Journal of Communication 33, 2, 20-43.
van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News Analysis: Case Studies of International and National New in the Press. Hove and London: Hillsdale.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6, 1, 3-23.
Watanabe, S. (1993). Cultural differences in framing: American and Japanese group discussion. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 176-209). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wei, Y. B. (1996) A case study of the instructional strategies in EFL classrooms. Unpublished MA Thesis. Department of English, National Changhua University of Education
Weiss, H.J. (1992). Public issue and argumentation structures: An approach to the study of the contents of media agenda-setting. Communication Yearbook,15.
Wells, G. (1993). Working with a teacher in the zone of proximal development: Action research on the learning and teaching of science. Journal of the Society for Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 18, 127-222.
Wells, G. (1996). Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 2, 1-22.
Wilen, W. W. (1991). Questioning skills, for teachers. Washington, D. C.: Nea Professional Library, National Education Association.
Williams, G. (1988), Experimentation in reflective practice: a conceptual framework for managers in highly professionalised organisations, presented at the annual conference of the British Academy of Management, Cardiff, 19 September 1988
Wimmer, R. & Dominick, J. (1994). Mass Media Research: An Introduction. California: Wadsworth
Wimmer, R., & Dominick, J. (1983). Mass media research: An introduction (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Wragg, E.C. (1999). An introduction to classroom observation 2nd edition. London Routledge.
Wragg, E.C. (2001). Questioning in the primary school. London; Routledge.
Wu, B. (1998). Towards an understanding of the dynamic process of L2 classroom interaction, System, 26, 4, 525-40
Yang, M.-F. (1996) Teachers’ questioning and wait-time-classroom behavior of elementary school teachers and students 屏東師院學報, 9, 97-120
Zuengler, J. (1993). Encouraging learners’ conversational participation: The effect of content knowledge. Language Learning, 43, 403-432.

Chinese
(Fang, D. L.)方德隆 (1996) 。 俗民方法學及其對教育研究的啟示。國立高雄師範大學學報,第七期:51-83。
王石番 (1992) 。傳播內容分析法—理論與實證。台北幼獅。
(Wang, R.S.)王瑞馨(1999)。國小一年級兒童之生活經驗在社會科課程中的角色。國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文。
朱友琪、余美惠、張莉玉等編寫(2004)。 國小英語第三冊。Coco & Momo Learn English 3. 台北:康軒文教事業。
余東霖 (2002) 。國小數學教師教學評量信念、教學評量行為與評量後設認知之相關研究。國立嘉義大學數學教育研究所碩士論文。
吳文忠譯 (1999) 。課堂研究。台北五南。
(Wu, F. R.) 吳芳如(2002) 。消息來源.新聞框架與媒介真實之建構:以政黨輪替後之核四爭議案為例。世新大學傳播研究所碩士論文。
吳芝儀, 李奉儒合譯 (1995)。質的評量與研究。台北桂冠。
(Wu, Y. L.) 吳雅玲 (2004) 。幼稚園英語課堂師生互動之個案研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文。
宋在欣 (1998) 。 國民小學啟智班語文課教室言談分析。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。
宋林飛 (2003) 社會學理論。台北五南。
(Lee, T. R.; Lan, S.) 李天任、藍莘譯(1995) 。「大眾媒體研究:導論」。台北:亞太圖書。
李蓉欣(2003) 。中學地球科學教師教學後設認知能力與個人知識認識信念之相關研究。國立臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文。
(Lin, F.Y., Duan, S. L., Sun, G. Y.) 林芬遠, 段曉林, 孫國燕 (1998) 。 國中生物課教室口語之研究, 載於國立高雄師範大學出版, 科學教育學術研討會, (頁477-485) 。
林清山 (1985) 。心理與教育統計學。台北東華書局。
林清山譯 (1992) 。教育心理學—認知取向。台北遠流。
林富美主編 (2002)。國民小學英語第三冊。You & Me.台北:階梯股份有限公司。
(Lin, C. F.) 林琴芳(2001)。師生口語溝通之分析。台北:台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
(Chin, S. R.) 金樹人 (1999) 。台灣師大教育心理與輔導研究所四十學分班 “輔導學專題研究”上課筆記。未出版。
(Yu, M. Y.) 咿?2003) 。新聞訪談之立足點研究。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
(Ke, H. W.) 柯華葳(1986) 。國語科教學過程觀察記, 台灣省國民學校教師研習會出版。
洪志美譯(1986) 。人際溝通分析。台北桂冠。

(Hung, H. J.) 洪惠娟 (2000) 。國民小學普通班語文課教室言談分析。 國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。
洪碧清、石麗明等編寫 (2002)。國民小學英語第三冊。English Now 3. 台北:吉的堡網路科技股份有限公司。
(Sun, C. S., Lee, B. J.) 孫仲山, 李碧娟 (1997) 。國民中學教學情境中師生言語行為的分析, 教育研究分析, 5 (4) , 89-100。
馬康莊, 陳信木譯(1992) 。社會學理論。台北巨流。
高宣揚 (1998) 。當代社會理論(上) 。台北五南。
張春興 (1991) 。張氏心理學辭典。台北東華。
張春興 (1994) 。教育心理學。台北東華。
張春興 (1991) 。現代心理學。台北東華。
張秋康(2003) 。分析美國菁英媒體對九一一恐怖攻擊事件)的新聞報導—以紐約時報與基督教科學箴言報為例。淡江大學大眾傳播學系傳播研究所碩士論文。
(Chang, M. Y.) 張美玉(1998)。建構取向的科學教室內師生互動實例。科學教育學刊,6(2),149-168。
郭生玉(1986) 心理與教育研究法。台北精華。
(Chen, M. J.) 陳敏健 (2001) 。以批判對話分析法探討國小自然科教學中師生的語文行為, 立場和知識。國立台中師範學院自然科學教育研究所碩士論文。
彭道明、羅清玉、楊毓琳主編 (2003)。康軒國中英語2上。台北:康軒文教事業。
(Huang, Y. J.) 黃意真(2003) 。國小教室言談之個案研究。 國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
(Huang, J. W.) 黃絹文(2000) 。啟智學校語文課教室言談分析。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。
黃道琳譯(1985) 。菊花與劍。台北桂冠。
黃慧新(2003) 。爭議性社會議題之新聞框架分析—以(濃漁會信用部分級管理)議題為例。國立台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所碩士論文。
(Huang, S. W.) 黃曉瑋(1999) 。師生教室互動之研究~以國小補校為例。台灣師大社會教育學系碩士論文。
(Yang, G. S. et al) 楊國樞等人編 (1986) 。社會及行為科學研究法。台北東華。
(Dong, S. C.) 董三期 (1996)。小學三年級學生語文學習策略之研究---以瓜瓜班為例。國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
臧國仁 (1998) 。新聞報導與真實建構: 新聞框架的理論觀點, 傳播研究集刊第三集, 政治大學傳播學院。
(Tsan, G. R.) 臧國仁 (1999) 新聞媒體與消息來源—媒介框架與真實建構之論述. 台北三民。
(Ge, Y. P.) 誘僱?(2003) 。 跨領域個案班級中師生互動的話語類型與過程技能教學的分析研究. 國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文
趙嵩仁(2002) 報紙對於(軍售)議題的新聞框架分析—以中國時報.聯合報.自由時報為例 政治作戰學校新聞研究所碩士論文
劉念夏 (2001) 。民意調查與民意產製。國政研究報告。財團法人國家政策研究基金會。
蔡美瑛 (1995) 。議題設定理論之發展:從領域遷徙、理論延展到理論整合. 新聞學研究, 50期, p97-124
(Tsai, M. L.) 蔡敏玲(1996)。教育質性研究者請在文本現身:兩項重要思慮。國民教育,37卷2期,21-30。
(Tsai, M. L.) 蔡敏玲(2001)。教育質性研究報告的書寫:我在紀實與虛構之間的認真與想像。國立台北師範學院學報,14,233-260。
蔡敏玲,彭海燕譯 (1998) 。教室言談。台北心理。
(Cheng, M. C.) 鄭明長 (1997) 。課程實施與教室討論歷程的詮釋分析,政治大學教育所博士論文。
(Cheng, M. C.) 鄭明長(1999) 。創新教學:從改變教學言談型態做起。課程改革與教學創新研討會論文集(頁263-269) 。高雄師範大學教育研究所主編。
(Cheng, M. C.) 鄭明長(2002)。當問題不再是問題:從教室言談看課程改革的實踐。教育研究, 93, 68-75。
(Chian, C. H.) 錢清泓(1996)。在熟悉與陌生之間的一堂課:國民小學本土語言教學課之分析研究。國立台北師院國教所碩士論文。
鍾蔚文 (1992) 。從媒介真實到主觀真實。台北中正。
韓享良(2002) 。國內報紙內容對失業議題之報導框架研究--以聯合報、中國時報、自由時報為例。世新大學傳播研究所碩士論文。
(Luo, Y. J.) 羅元君(1999) 。媒介建構(精省)議題之框架分析—以中央日報、中國時報、台灣新生報為例。 淡江大學大眾傳播學系傳播研究所碩士論文。
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔