OA

‘Ik wilde eigenlijk beginnen met vragen…’

References

1. Aben, J., de Jong, J., Coupé, G., Meijntz, M., & Bouwer, R. (in press). Who’s talking? Dialogic peer feedback shifts students’ focus from superficial to meaningful revisions. Reading and Writing.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Antaki, C., Biazzi, M., Nissen, A., & Wagner, J. (2008). Accounting for moral judgments in academic talk: The case of a conversation analysis data session. Text & Talk, 28(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.001
   [Google Scholar]
3. Back, M. (2016). Epistemics and expertise in peer tutoring interactions: Co-constructing knowledge of Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 100(2), 508-521.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Beun, R. J. (2000). Context and Form: Declarative or Interrogative that is the Question. In H.Blunt & W.Black (Eds.), Abduction, belief, and context in dialogue: Studies in computational pragmatics (pp. 311-326). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bogaerds-Hazenberg, S., Bouwer, R., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Van den Bergh, H. (2017). Daar maak ik geen punt van! Feedback en tekstrevisie op de basisschool. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 18(2), 21-30.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bouwer, R., & Dirkx, R. (2023). The eye-mind of processing written feedback: Unravelling how students read and use feedback for revision. Learning and Instruction, 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101745
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bouwer, R. (2024). Dialogisch schrijven: een pleidooi voor het ontwikkelen van professioneel schrijverschap door goede gesprekken over teksten. In R.Bouwer, M.Hamel, S.Van Norden, J.Steenbakkers, & E.Stronks (Eds.), Opdat wij schrijven: Herinrichting van het schrijfonderwijs nu (pp. 306-316). Uitgeverij Pica.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies, 8(1), 3-55.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Carless, D. (2016). Feedback as dialogue. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Carless, D. (2020). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 143-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787420945845
    [Google Scholar]
14. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006
    [Google Scholar]
15. Chowdhury, S. A., Stepanov, E. A., Danieli, M., & Riccardi, G. (2017). Functions of silences towards information flow in spoken conversation. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Speech-Centric Natural Language Processing, 1-9.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1), 73-111.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Clayman, S. E. (2024). Working with collections in Conversation Analysis. In: RobinsonJ. D., Clift, R., Kendrick, K. H., Raymond, C. W. (Eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Methods in Conversation Analysis (p. 191-216).
    [Google Scholar]
18. Cohrssen, C., Niklas, F., & Tayler, C. (2016). ‘Is that what we do?’ Using a conversationanalytic approach to highlight the contribution of dialogic reading strategies to educator–child interactions during storybook reading in two early childhood settings. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 16(3), 361–382.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Cornu, R. L. (2005). Peer mentoring: Engaging pre-service teachers in mentoring one another. Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(3), 355-366.
    [Google Scholar]
20. De Jong, J. (2006). Uitgesproken complex. Interactie tussen scriptieschrijvers en begeleiders [doctoral dissertation]. Universiteit Utrecht. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/20308
    [Google Scholar]
21. De Jong, J., & Van Kruiningen, J. (2023). Geef ze het nakijken. Over activerende feedback en schrijfbegeleiding in het hoger onderwijs. Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
22. De Kleijn, R. A. M. (2021). Supporting student and teacher feedback literacy: An instructional model for student feedback processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 186-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967283
    [Google Scholar]
23. De Leeuw, E. (2007). Hesitation Markers in English, German, and Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 19(2), 85-114.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A. & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2019). The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies. Educational Psychology Review, 33(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
    [Google Scholar]
25. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Duncan, S. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(2), 283-292.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Englert, C. (2010). Questions and responses in Dutch conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2666-2684.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Er, E., Dimitriadis, Y., & Gašević, D. (2021). A collaborative learning approach to dialogic peer feedback: a theoretical framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(4), 586-600.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Erkelens, D. C., Van Charldorp, T. C., Vinck, V. V., Wouters, L. T., Damoiseaux, R. A., Rutten, F. H., Zwart, D. L., & De Groot, E. (2021). Interactional implications of either/or-questions during telephone triage of callers with chest discomfort in out-of-hours primary care: a conversation analysis. Patient Education and Counseling, 104(2), 308-314.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition & Communication, 32(4), 400-414. https://doi.org/10.2307/356602
    [Google Scholar]
31. Filius, R. M., De Kleijn, R. A. M., Uijl, S. G., Prins, F. J., Van Reijn, H. V. M., & Grobbee, D. E. (2018). Strengthening dialogic peer feedback aiming for deep learning in SPOCs. Computers & Education125, 86-100.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Geitz, G., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., & Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Goal orientation, deep learning, and sustainable feedback in higher business education. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 26(4), 273-292.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304-315.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Goldman-Eisler, F. (1958). The predictability of words in context and the length of pauses in speech. Language and Speech, 1(3), 226-231.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283-307.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Graham, S. (2018). Instructional feedback in writing. In A. A.Lipnevich, & J. K.Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 145–168). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Hayano, K. (2012). Question design in conversation. In J.Sidnell & T.Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 395-414). John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Heritage, J. (2012a). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 30-52.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Heritage, J. (2012b). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1-29.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Houtkoop, H., & Koole, T. (2000). Taal in actie: hoe mensen communiceren met taal. Coutinho.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H., Lerner, (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13-31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Jefferson, G., & Lee, J. R. (1981). The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of a ‘troubles-telling’ and a ‘service encounter’. Journal of Pragmatics, 5(5), 399-422.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Jiang, X., & Pell, M. D. (2017). The sound of confidence and doubt. Speech Communication, 88, 106-126.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Kim, M. (2009). The impact of an elaborated assessee’s role in peer assessment.”Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1): 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801955960
    [Google Scholar]
45. MacArthur, C. A. (2016). Instruction in evaluation and revision. In C. A.MacArthur, & S.Graham (Eds.), Writing research from a cognitive perspective (pp. 272-287). The Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Mazeland, H. (2006). Conversation analysis. In K.Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 153–162). Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’?: an investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376-406.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Naylor, R., Baik, C., Asmar, C., & Watty, K. (2014). Good feedback practices: Prompts and guidelines for reviewing and enhancing feedback for students. Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Norrick, N. R. (2012). Listening practices in English conversation: The responses responses elicit. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(5), 566-576.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M.Atkinson, & J.Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Rhoads, M. (2022). Observational Learning. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., & Van den Bergh, H. (1996). Current research on effective teaching and learning to write. In G.Rijlaarsdam, H.van den Bergh, & M.Couzijn (Eds.), Effective teaching and learning of writing. Current trends in research (pp. IX-XVIII). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Riou, M., Ball, S., O’Halloran, K. L., Whiteside, A., Williams, T. A., & Finn, J. (2018). Hijacking the dispatch protocol: When callers pre-empt their reason-for-the-call in emergency calls about cardiac arrest. Discourse Studies, 20(5), 666-687.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D.Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 75-119). New York, NY: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D.Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71-93). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (2012). The handbook of conversation analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Smith, V. L., & Clark, H. H. (1993). On the course of answering questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(1), 25-38.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Steen-Utheim, A. T., & Wittek, A. L. (2017). Dialogic feedback and potentialities for student learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 15: 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.06.002
    [Google Scholar]
61. Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing Response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3-31.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., De Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K.-E., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Sybing, R. (2019). Making connections: Student-teacher rapport in higher education classrooms. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(5), 8-35.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Taylor, E. (2021). Use of non-situational identities in teacher-student interaction. Linguistics and Education, 66.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2e editie). Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Van Heuven, V. J., & Haan, J. (2000). Phonetic correlates of statement versus question intonation in Dutch. In A.Botinis (Ed.), Intonation: Analysis, modelling and technology (pp. 119-143). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
67. Walker, M. (2009). An investigation into written comments on assignments: do students find them usable?Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 67–78.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Walker, M. (2014). The quality of written peer feedback on undergraduates’ draft answers to an assignment, and the use made of the feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(2), 232-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.898737
    [Google Scholar]
69. Walsh, J. A., & Sattes, B. D. (2016). Quality questioning: Research-based practice to engage every learner. Corwin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
70. Wingate, U. (2019). ‘Can you talk me through your argument’? Features of dialogic interaction in academic writing tutorials. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 25-35.
    [Google Scholar]
71. Winstone, N., Pitt, E., & Nash, R. (2021). Educators’ perceptions of responsibility-sharing in feedback processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 118-131.
    [Google Scholar]
72. Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538
    [Google Scholar]
73. Yu, S. (2021). Giving genre-based peer feedback in academic writing: sources of knowledge and skills, difficulties and challenges. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1742872
    [Google Scholar]
74. Zhu, Q. (2018). Chinese undergraduates’ engagement with peer feedback: perceptions and practices (Proefschrift, University of Hong Kong). HKU Scholars Hub. https://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/265309
    [Google Scholar]
75. Zhu, Q., & To, J. (2022). Proactive receiver roles in peer feedback dialogue: Facilitating receivers’ self-regulation and co-regulating providers’ learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(8), 1200-1212.
    [Google Scholar]