Mixed‐methods analysis of videoed expert‐student dialogue supporting clinical competence assessments

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 398-406
Author(s):  
Michael Botelho ◽  
Xiaoli Gao ◽  
Sangeeta Y. Bhuyan
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Clinical Competence ◽  
Student Dialogue

New graduate nurses’ clinical competence: A mixed methods systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (11) ◽  
pp. 2810-2829 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Charette ◽  
Lisa G. McKenna ◽  
Marie‐France Deschênes ◽  
Laurence Ha ◽  
Sophia Merisier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Clinical Competence ◽  
Graduate Nurses ◽  
New Graduate Nurses ◽  
New Graduate

Negotiation of Form Among the Displaced

2020 ◽  
pp. 179-200
Author(s):  
Alexander H. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
International Language ◽  
Teacher Student ◽  
Student Dialogue ◽  
Effective Form ◽  
Metalinguistic Feedback ◽  
Clarification Request ◽  
Better Than

This chapter presents a mixed-methods study of error sequences in an English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom comprised of refugees from multiple countries to answer the question: What does the negotiation of feedback look like among displaced, preliterate learners? Teacher-student dialogue at an international language learning centre was recorded and coded, totalling 12.5 hours of data. A total of 146 error sequences consisted of a learner error, followed by the teacher's feedback and the student's uptake. Results show that when content errors occurred among this population, elicitation, feedback that many scholars suggest is the most effective form, is not as effective as metalinguistic feedback. The reasons for this difference are consequently explored. Findings also indicate that certain types of feedback (metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, clarification request) lead to self-repair better than others (recast, explicit correction).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document