{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/95587"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/95587","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Teacher-student interaction in one-on-one ESL writing conferences","abstract":"With a conversation analytic approach, this study analyzes how teachers and students interact in one-on-one ESL writing conferences, focusing on the preference structure of advice-giving, epistemic displays, and teachers’ management of students’ no knowledge claims. This study analyzes the preference structure of advice-giving activities, and shows that advice-giving is performed as dispreferred. Characteristics of dispreferred actions, such as being delayed and mitigated, are observed in advice-giving turns in writing conferences. Advice-giving turns are delayed, often prefaced by compliments. Advice-giving is also accompanied by justifications and often mitigated. It is further shown how conditionals can be used to characterize dispreferred responses in this context. In addition, the problem-solving sequences, in which the advice-giving turns are included, are also produced as dispreferred, as they are delayed by compliments or other comments at the beginning of the conference. The next chapter analyzes the epistemics displayed by teachers and students in one-on-one ESL writing conferences. Recently, a lot of attention has been focused on the role of knowledge in conversations. This chapter aims to contribute to this line of discussion by investigating how teachers and students in one-on-one writing conferences display epistemic access, primacy and responsibility (Stivers, Mondada, & Steensig, 2011). Analysis shows that participants’ display of epistemic access is closely related to the participants’ orientation to their epistemic responsibility. I describe how participants display epistemic access and lack of epistemic access in two different sequential contexts, as an initiation and as a response. How teachers and students display their epistemic primacy is also explored in this study. I show that there can be a conflict over who has epistemic primacy in the interaction, even between a teacher and a student. This study also analyzes how teachers manage students’ no-knowledge-claims. In a one-on-one writing conference, the teacher cannot allocate the turn to another student when a student claims no knowledge. Rather, the teacher has to interact with the student to help him/her reach a knowing ([K+]) status. This study analyzes different contexts in which the teachers use follow-up questions and provide explanations to deal with students’ no-knowledge claims. It seems to be important for the teachers to use the appropriate tool, depending on the topic of the question and the teacher’s expectation for the student to be able to provide the answer after being given additional hints. This study first contributes to our understanding of preference structure, showing how advice-giving is dispreferred in one-on-one writing conferences. This study also provides additional evidence for the claim that preference structure is context-sensitive. The findings of this study also contribute to our understanding of how epistemic displays affect the interaction in an academic setting, suggesting that there is a close relation between participants’ display of epistemic access and epistemic responsibility. Lastly, this study has implications for writing pedagogy. This study provides examples of how teachers deal with students’ no-knowledge-claims, showing two tools used by teachers in this situation. This study also sheds light on how using compliments when giving advice can help the teachers to effectively point out the students’ writing problems. This study also has implications for the training of international teaching assistants or lecturers, as this study provides a microanalysis of the interaction between American teachers and international students in writing conferences.","abstract_html":"With a conversation analytic approach, this study analyzes how teachers and students interact in one-on-one ESL writing conferences, focusing on the preference structure of advice-giving, epistemic displays, and teachers’ management of students’ no knowledge claims. This study analyzes the preference structure of advice-giving activities, and shows that advice-giving is performed as dispreferred. Characteristics of dispreferred actions, such as being delayed and mitigated, are observed in advice-giving turns in writing conferences. Advice-giving turns are delayed, often prefaced by compliments. Advice-giving is also accompanied by justifications and often mitigated. It is further shown how conditionals can be used to characterize dispreferred responses in this context. In addition, the problem-solving sequences, in which the advice-giving turns are included, are also produced as dispreferred, as they are delayed by compliments or other comments at the beginning of the conference. The next chapter analyzes the epistemics displayed by teachers and students in one-on-one ESL writing conferences. Recently, a lot of attention has been focused on the role of knowledge in conversations. This chapter aims to contribute to this line of discussion by investigating how teachers and students in one-on-one writing conferences display epistemic access, primacy and responsibility (Stivers, Mondada, & Steensig, 2011). Analysis shows that participants’ display of epistemic access is closely related to the participants’ orientation to their epistemic responsibility. I describe how participants display epistemic access and lack of epistemic access in two different sequential contexts, as an initiation and as a response. How teachers and students display their epistemic primacy is also explored in this study. I show that there can be a conflict over who has epistemic primacy in the interaction, even between a teacher and a student. This study also analyzes how teachers manage students’ no-knowledge-claims. In a one-on-one writing conference, the teacher cannot allocate the turn to another student when a student claims no knowledge. Rather, the teacher has to interact with the student to help him/her reach a knowing ([K+]) status. This study analyzes different contexts in which the teachers use follow-up questions and provide explanations to deal with students’ no-knowledge claims. It seems to be important for the teachers to use the appropriate tool, depending on the topic of the question and the teacher’s expectation for the student to be able to provide the answer after being given additional hints. This study first contributes to our understanding of preference structure, showing how advice-giving is dispreferred in one-on-one writing conferences. This study also provides additional evidence for the claim that preference structure is context-sensitive. The findings of this study also contribute to our understanding of how epistemic displays affect the interaction in an academic setting, suggesting that there is a close relation between participants’ display of epistemic access and epistemic responsibility. Lastly, this study has implications for writing pedagogy. This study provides examples of how teachers deal with students’ no-knowledge-claims, showing two tools used by teachers in this situation. This study also sheds light on how using compliments when giving advice can help the teachers to effectively point out the students’ writing problems. This study also has implications for the training of international teaching assistants or lecturers, as this study provides a microanalysis of the interaction between American teachers and international students in writing conferences.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Yoon, Jihye"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Linguistics","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Koshik, Irene","Golato, Andrea","Golato, Peter","Hayashi, Makoto"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2017,"date_issued":"2017-03-01T17:01:34Z","date_published":"2017-03-01T17:01:34Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:37Z","subjects":["conversation analysis","writing conference","teacher-student interaction","advice","preference","epistemic access","epistemic responsibility","epistemic primacy","claim of insufficient knowledge"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright 2016 Jihye Yoon"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/95587","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Koshik, Irene","Golato, Andrea","Golato, Peter","Hayashi, Makoto"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Yoon, Jihye"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2017-03-01T17:01:34Z","2019-03-02T10:15:27Z","2016-12-01","2016-12"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Linguistics"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["conversation analysis","writing conference","teacher-student interaction","advice","preference","epistemic access","epistemic responsibility","epistemic primacy","claim of insufficient knowledge"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 2016 Jihye Yoon"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/95587"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["With a conversation analytic approach, this study analyzes how teachers and students interact in one-on-one ESL writing conferences, focusing on the preference structure of advice-giving, epistemic displays, and teachers’ management of students’ no knowledge claims. This study analyzes the preference structure of advice-giving activities, and shows that advice-giving is performed as dispreferred. Characteristics of dispreferred actions, such as being delayed and mitigated, are observed in advice-giving turns in writing conferences. Advice-giving turns are delayed, often prefaced by compliments. Advice-giving is also accompanied by justifications and often mitigated. It is further shown how conditionals can be used to characterize dispreferred responses in this context. In addition, the problem-solving sequences, in which the advice-giving turns are included, are also produced as dispreferred, as they are delayed by compliments or other comments at the beginning of the conference. The next chapter analyzes the epistemics displayed by teachers and students in one-on-one ESL writing conferences. Recently, a lot of attention has been focused on the role of knowledge in conversations. This chapter aims to contribute to this line of discussion by investigating how teachers and students in one-on-one writing conferences display epistemic access, primacy and responsibility (Stivers, Mondada, & Steensig, 2011). Analysis shows that participants’ display of epistemic access is closely related to the participants’ orientation to their epistemic responsibility. I describe how participants display epistemic access and lack of epistemic access in two different sequential contexts, as an initiation and as a response. How teachers and students display their epistemic primacy is also explored in this study. I show that there can be a conflict over who has epistemic primacy in the interaction, even between a teacher and a student. This study also analyzes how teachers manage students’ no-knowledge-claims. In a one-on-one writing conference, the teacher cannot allocate the turn to another student when a student claims no knowledge. Rather, the teacher has to interact with the student to help him/her reach a knowing ([K+]) status. This study analyzes different contexts in which the teachers use follow-up questions and provide explanations to deal with students’ no-knowledge claims. It seems to be important for the teachers to use the appropriate tool, depending on the topic of the question and the teacher’s expectation for the student to be able to provide the answer after being given additional hints. This study first contributes to our understanding of preference structure, showing how advice-giving is dispreferred in one-on-one writing conferences. This study also provides additional evidence for the claim that preference structure is context-sensitive. The findings of this study also contribute to our understanding of how epistemic displays affect the interaction in an academic setting, suggesting that there is a close relation between participants’ display of epistemic access and epistemic responsibility. Lastly, this study has implications for writing pedagogy. This study provides examples of how teachers deal with students’ no-knowledge-claims, showing two tools used by teachers in this situation. This study also sheds light on how using compliments when giving advice can help the teachers to effectively point out the students’ writing problems. This study also has implications for the training of international teaching assistants or lecturers, as this study provides a microanalysis of the interaction between American teachers and international students in writing conferences.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'Closed Access', the embargo will last until 2018-12-01","The student, Jihye Yoon, accepted the attached license on 2016-11-24 at 20:44.","The student, Jihye Yoon, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2016-11-27 at 01:04.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2016-12-01 at 09:35.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #10320 on 2017-02-28 at 14:42:04","Made available in DSpace on 2017-03-01T17:01:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 YOON-DISSERTATION-2016.pdf: 1931476 bytes, checksum: 6fb70019fe56ea7bfefb5cd5b7a4fddd (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4207 bytes, checksum: e6fe29e7d640a6435026b62405200f37 (MD5) PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt: 4553 bytes, checksum: bce83dc61bb47e45b84de55a1882426f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-12-01","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 98703 Lift date: 2019-03-01T17:02:22Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 98703 Lift date: 2019-03-01T17:03:32Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 98703 Lift date: 2019-03-01T17:05:02Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 98703 Lift date: 2019-03-01T17:06:55Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Limited Restriction Lifted for Item 98703 on 2019-03-02T10:15:27Z."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Teacher-student interaction in one-on-one ESL writing conferences"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Koshik, Irene","Golato, Andrea","Golato, Peter","Hayashi, Makoto"],"dc:creator":["Yoon, Jihye"],"dc:date":["2017-03-01T17:01:34Z","2019-03-02T10:15:27Z","2016-12-01","2016-12"],"dc:description":["With a conversation analytic approach, this study analyzes how teachers and students interact in one-on-one ESL writing conferences, focusing on the preference structure of advice-giving, epistemic displays, and teachers’ management of students’ no knowledge claims. This study analyzes the preference structure of advice-giving activities, and shows that advice-giving is performed as dispreferred. Characteristics of dispreferred actions, such as being delayed and mitigated, are observed in advice-giving turns in writing conferences. Advice-giving turns are delayed, often prefaced by compliments. Advice-giving is also accompanied by justifications and often mitigated. It is further shown how conditionals can be used to characterize dispreferred responses in this context. In addition, the problem-solving sequences, in which the advice-giving turns are included, are also produced as dispreferred, as they are delayed by compliments or other comments at the beginning of the conference. The next chapter analyzes the epistemics displayed by teachers and students in one-on-one ESL writing conferences. Recently, a lot of attention has been focused on the role of knowledge in conversations. This chapter aims to contribute to this line of discussion by investigating how teachers and students in one-on-one writing conferences display epistemic access, primacy and responsibility (Stivers, Mondada, & Steensig, 2011). Analysis shows that participants’ display of epistemic access is closely related to the participants’ orientation to their epistemic responsibility. I describe how participants display epistemic access and lack of epistemic access in two different sequential contexts, as an initiation and as a response. How teachers and students display their epistemic primacy is also explored in this study. I show that there can be a conflict over who has epistemic primacy in the interaction, even between a teacher and a student. This study also analyzes how teachers manage students’ no-knowledge-claims. In a one-on-one writing conference, the teacher cannot allocate the turn to another student when a student claims no knowledge. Rather, the teacher has to interact with the student to help him/her reach a knowing ([K+]) status. This study analyzes different contexts in which the teachers use follow-up questions and provide explanations to deal with students’ no-knowledge claims. It seems to be important for the teachers to use the appropriate tool, depending on the topic of the question and the teacher’s expectation for the student to be able to provide the answer after being given additional hints. This study first contributes to our understanding of preference structure, showing how advice-giving is dispreferred in one-on-one writing conferences. This study also provides additional evidence for the claim that preference structure is context-sensitive. The findings of this study also contribute to our understanding of how epistemic displays affect the interaction in an academic setting, suggesting that there is a close relation between participants’ display of epistemic access and epistemic responsibility. Lastly, this study has implications for writing pedagogy. This study provides examples of how teachers deal with students’ no-knowledge-claims, showing two tools used by teachers in this situation. This study also sheds light on how using compliments when giving advice can help the teachers to effectively point out the students’ writing problems. This study also has implications for the training of international teaching assistants or lecturers, as this study provides a microanalysis of the interaction between American teachers and international students in writing conferences.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'Closed Access', the embargo will last until 2018-12-01","The student, Jihye Yoon, accepted the attached license on 2016-11-24 at 20:44.","The student, Jihye Yoon, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2016-11-27 at 01:04.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2016-12-01 at 09:35.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #10320 on 2017-02-28 at 14:42:04","Made available in DSpace on 2017-03-01T17:01:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 YOON-DISSERTATION-2016.pdf: 1931476 bytes, checksum: 6fb70019fe56ea7bfefb5cd5b7a4fddd (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4207 bytes, checksum: e6fe29e7d640a6435026b62405200f37 (MD5) PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt: 4553 bytes, checksum: bce83dc61bb47e45b84de55a1882426f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-12-01","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 98703 Lift date: 2019-03-01T17:02:22Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 98703 Lift date: 2019-03-01T17:03:32Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 98703 Lift date: 2019-03-01T17:05:02Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 98703 Lift date: 2019-03-01T17:06:55Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Limited Restriction Lifted for Item 98703 on 2019-03-02T10:15:27Z."],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/95587"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 2016 Jihye Yoon"],"dc:subject":["conversation analysis","writing conference","teacher-student interaction","advice","preference","epistemic access","epistemic responsibility","epistemic primacy","claim of insufficient knowledge"],"dc:title":["Teacher-student interaction in one-on-one ESL writing conferences"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Linguistics"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:37Z"}