Çevrim İçi D2 Türkçe Sınıfında Etkileşimsel Stratejilerin Öğretimi: Söz Sırası Alma ve Söz Hakkını Yönetmeye Yönelik KÇ-Temelli Beş Basamaklı Bir Model

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Konuşma Çözümlemesi (KÇ) temelli pedagojik bir çerçeve aracılığıyla, konuşma dili farkındalığının ve etkileşim stratejilerinin eş zamanlı çevrim içi ikinci dil olarak Türkçe (İDT) sınıfında nasıl tanıtılabileceğini, geliştirilebileceğini ve uygulamaya aktarılabileceğini incelemektedir. Eylem araştırması deseninin benimsendiği çalışmada, beş yetişkin İDT öğrencisiyle Zoom üzerinden gerçekleştirilen canlı derslerde döngüsel öğretim uygulamaları yürütülmüştür. Sınıf içi etkileşimlerden, öğrenci görüşlerinden ve görev temelli konuşma performanslarından elde edilen nitel verilere dayanarak beş aşamalı bir öğretim modeli önerilmekte ve değerlendirilmektedir: (1) dönüt, (2) hazırlık ve farkındalık artırma, (3) izleme ve konuşma çözümlemesi, (4) sınıf içi konuşma görevi ve (5) sınıf dışı konuşma görevi. Bulgular, bu modelin öğrencilerin gelişmekte olan etkileşimsel yetilerini destekleyebileceğini göstermektedir. Bu destek, daha sık derse katılım, söylem belirleyicilerin daha sık kullanımı ve söz sırası alma düzeni ile söz hakkını yönetmeye yönelik farkındalığın artması gibi göstergelere yansımıştır. Öğrenciler ayrıca konuşma dili ile yazı dili arasındaki farklılıklara ilişkin farkındalıklarının arttığını, konuşma kaygılarının azaldığını ve iletişim konusunda öz güvenlerinin güçlendiğini belirtmişlerdir. Genel olarak çalışma, pedagojik tasarımın süreklilik gösteren ve toplumsal bağlam içinde konumlanmış etkileşimi merkeze aldığı durumlarda, KÇ-temelli ve etkileşim odaklı çevrim içi öğretimin etkileşimsel yetinin geliştirilmesi için verimli bir yaklaşım olabileceğine işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• Eylem araştırması
• ikinci dil olarak Türkçe
• eş zamanlı çevrim içi öğretim
• etkileşim stratejileri
• söz sırası alma
• söylem belirleyiciler

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, araştırma ve yayın etiği ilkelerine uygun olarak yürütülmüş ve İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Etik Kurulu tarafından 19.10.2020 tarih ve 2020-40023-82 sayılı kararla onaylanmıştır. Tüm katılımcılar aydınlatılmış onam vermiş ve araştırmaya gönüllü olarak katılmıştır. Araştırma süreci boyunca katılımcıların anonimliği ve gizliliği korunmuştur. Yazar, çalışmanın intihal, veri uydurma, veri tahrifatı veya mükerrer yayımlama içermediğini beyan etmektedir. Bu makale, Ahmet Benzer danışmalığında tamamlanan "İkinci Dil Olarak Türkçe Öğretiminde Konuşma Dili Farkındalığını Artırma ve Etkileşim Stratejilerinin Öğretimi" başlıklı doktora tezinden üretilmiştir.

Thanks

Bu araştırmaya gönüllü olarak katılan tüm katılımcılara, ayrıca araştırma sürecine katkı sağlayan gözlemcilere ve ana dili Türkçe olan konuşma partnerlerine içtenlikle teşekkür ederim. Tez danışmanım Ahmet Benzer'e ve tez jürisi üyeleri Latif Beyreli, Dilek Uygun Gökmen, Nihan Ketrez ve Fatma Bölükbaş Kaya'ya tez sürecindeki değerli rehberlikleri ve değerlendirmeleri için özellikle teşekkür ederim. Mini veri oturumlarımız sırasında konuşma kesitlerine ilişkin sunduğu değerli görüş ve geri bildirimler için Sinem Köklü'ye ayrıca teşekkür ederim. Makalenin güçlenmesine ve nihai biçimini kazanmasına katkı sağlayan yapıcı yorumları ve değerli geri bildirimleri için anonim hakemlere de teşekkürlerimi sunarım.

Teaching Interactional Strategies in an Online L2 Turkish Classroom: A CA-Informed Five-Step Model for Turn-Taking and Floor Management

Abstract

This study examines how interactional strategies and awareness of spoken language can be introduced, developed, and practiced in a synchronous online Turkish as a second language (TSL) setting through a conversation analysis (CA)-informed pedagogical framework. Employing an action research design, the study implemented iterative instructional cycles with five adult L2 Turkish learners in live Zoom-based classes. Drawing on qualitative data from classroom interaction, learner reflections, and task-based speaking performances, the study proposes and evaluates a five-step teaching model consisting of (1) feedback, (2) preparation and awareness-raising, (3) watching and conversation analysis, (4) in-class speaking tasks, and (5) out-of-class speaking tasks. The findings suggest that this model may support learners’ emerging interactional competence, as reflected in more frequent participation, greater use of discourse markers, and an increased orientation to turn-taking and floor management. Learners also reported heightened awareness of differences between spoken and written Turkish, along with reduced speaking anxiety and enhanced communicative self-confidence. Overall, the study indicates that CA-informed, interaction-focused online instruction may be a productive approach to fostering interactional competence within this cohort when pedagogical design emphasizes sustained, socially situated interaction.

Keywords

• Action research
• Turkish as a second language
• synchronous online instruction
• interactional strategies
• turn-taking
• discourse markers

Ethical Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with established research and publication ethics and was approved by the Istanbul Bilgi University Ethics Committee with its decision dated 19.10.2020 and numbered 2020-40023-82. All participants provided informed consent and participated voluntarily. Anonymity and confidentiality were maintained throughout the research process. The author declares that the study contains no plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or duplicate publication. This article is derived from the author’s doctoral dissertation titled “İkinci Dil Olarak Türkçe Öğretiminde Konuşma Dili Farkındalığını Artırma ve Etkileşim Stratejilerinin Öğretimi (Increasing Spoken Language Awareness and Teaching Interactional Strategies in Teaching Turkish as a Second Language),” completed under the supervision of Ahmet Benzer.

Thanks

I sincerely thank all participants who volunteered for the study, as well as the observers and L1 Turkish-speaking partners whose contributions supported the research process. I am particularly grateful to Ahmet Benzer, supervisor of the dissertation, and to the dissertation jury members, Latif Beyreli, Dilek Uygun Gökmen, Nihan Ketrez, and Fatma Bölükbaş Kaya, for their valuable guidance and assessment of the thesis. Special thanks go to Sinem Köklü for her insightful feedback on the conversation excerpts during our mini data sessions. I also thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and encouraging feedback, which helped strengthen the manuscript and shape its final version.

References

1. Akpen, C.N., Asaolu, S., Atobatele, S., Okagbue, H. & Sampson, S. (2024). Impact of online learning on student’s performance and engagement: a systematic review. Discover Education, 3, 205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00253-0
2. Balaman, U. (2016). A conversation analytic study on the development of interactional competence in English in an online task‐oriented environment. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University.
3. Balaman, U. (2018). Task-induced development of hinting behaviors in online task-oriented L2 interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 22(2), 95–115. https://doi.org/10125/44640
4. Balaman, U. & Can Daşkın, N. (2019). A series of conversation analysis based pedagogical activities for increasing interactional awareness. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities, 9(1), 1-13. Retrieved from https://www.ated.info.tr/index.php/ated/issue/view/4
5. Balaman, U., & Sert, O. (2017). Development of L2 interactional resources for online collaborative task accomplishment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(7), 601–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1334667
6. Barraja-Rohan, A. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 479-507.
7. Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (1997). Teaching conversation and sociocultural norms with conversation analysis. In A. J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching language, teaching culture: Australian review of applied linguistics (Series S Number 14, pp. 71-88). ALAA.
8. Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Leech G. (2002). Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education.

9. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education.
10. Bloomberg, L. D. & Volpe, F. M. (2019). Completing your qualitative dissertation: a road map from beginning to end. SAGE.
11. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101, https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
12. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597, https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
13. Brazil, D. (1995). A grammar of speech. Oxford University Press.
14. Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1988). Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1983)
15. Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
16. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
17. Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 141–158.
18. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide: Spoken and written English grammar and usage. Cambridge University Press.
19. Council of Europe (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. companion volume with new descriptors. Strasbourg: CoE. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volumewith-new-descriptors-2018/168078798
20. Coulthard, M. (1992). Advances in spoken discourse analysis. Routledge.
21. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. (Fourth Edition). SAGE Publications.
22. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
24. Firth, A. & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication and some fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300.
25. Flowerdew, J. (2013). Discourse in English language education. Routledge: New York.
26. Gee, J.P. (2018). Introducing discourse analysis from grammar to society. Routledge.
27. Goh, C.C.M. & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. Cambridge University Press. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.145
28. Hall, J. K. (1995). ‘Aw man, where you goin’?: Classroom interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 37–62.
29. Halliday, M.A.K. (1990). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. Hasırcı, S. (2019). Yabancılara Türkçe öğretimine yönelik ders kitaplarının konuşma becerisi açısından karşılaştırılması. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim Dergisi, 8(2), 1068-1098.
31. Hauber, M. B. (2021). “We must not stop now”: Advocacy ethnography with Syrian refugees in Turkish higher education. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). George Mason Üniversitesi: Fairfax, VA.
32. He, A. W., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In R. Young, & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
33. Hellermann, J. (2007). The Development of Practices for Action in Classroom Dyadic Interaction: Focus on Task Openings. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00503.x
34. Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning, Multilingual Matters.
35. Hellerman, J., Eskildsen, S. W., Pekarek Doehler, S. & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2019). Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action: The complex ecology of second language interaction ‘in the wild’. Springer.
36. Heritage, J., & Watson, R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 123-162). Irvington Press.
37. Hughes, R. (2002). Teaching and researching speaking. Longman.
38. Hughes, R. (2008). Spoken English, TESOL and applied linguistics, challenges for theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillian.
39. Huth, T., & C. Taleghani-Nikazm. (2006). How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 53-79.
40. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). London: Penguin.
41. Kasper, G. & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 114-142). London/New York: Routledge.
42. Kocayanak, D. (2021). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe ders kitaplarında yer alan konuşma becerisi etkinliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 4 (2021 Yunus Emre ve Türkçe Yılı Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçe Öğretimi Özel Sayısı), 123-139. https://doi.org/10.47948/efad.911870
43. Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372. https://doi.org/10.2307/326815
44. Kuluşaklı, E. (2025). Student engagement and flexibility in distance learning in higher education. SAGE Open, 15(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251329979
45. Johnson, M. (2004). A philosophy of second language acquisition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
46. Levy, M., & Hubbard, P. (2005). Why call CALL “CALL”? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220500208884
47. Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). An introduction to conversation analysis. Continuum.
48. Liddicoat, A. J. & Crozet, C. (2001). Acquiring French interactional norms through instruction. In K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.) Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 125-144). Cambridge University Press.
49. Liu, M. (2006). Anxiety in Chinese EFL students at different proficiency levels. System 34(3), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.04.004
50. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51. Markee, N. (2009). Conversation analysis. Taylor & Francis.
52. Markee, N. & Kunitz, S. (2015). CA‐for‐SLA studies of classroom interaction: Quo vadis? In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 425-439). Wiley Blackwell.
53. McCarthy, M. (2000). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
54. McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (2002). Action research: principles and practice. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
55. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research a guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
56. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd Edition). SAGE
57. Miller, J. & Weinert, R. (1998). Spontaneous spoken language syntax and discourse. Clarendon Press.
58. Nimer, M. (2019). Türkiye’deki Suriyeli mültecilerin Türkçe dil eğitimi deneyimleri ve kurumsal yapılar. İstanbul Politikalar Merkezi.
59. Pekarek Doehler, S. (2019). On the nature and the development of L2 interactional competence: state of the art and implications for praxis, In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 25–59). New York, NY, Routledge.
60. Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: the development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 3-24.
61. Pekarek Doehler, S. & Berger, E. (2018). L2 interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 555-578.
62. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 152–163). Cambridge University Press.
63. Ravitch, S. M. & Carl, N. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Sage.
64. Rose, K. R. & Kwai-fun, C. N. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.) Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 145-170). Cambridge University Press.
65. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
66. Salaberry, M. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. The Modern Language Journal. 85. 39 - 56. 10.1111/0026-7902.00096
67. Sarıtaş, H., & Benzer, A. (2020). İkinci dil olarak türkçe öğretiminde söylem belirleyicilerin yeri ve kullanımı. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, 8(2), 81-111.
68. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
69. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.
70. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE
71. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
72. Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh University Press.
73. Sert, O., & Balaman, U. (2018). Orientations to negotiated language and task rules in online L2 interaction. ReCALL, 30(3), 355–374. doi:10.1017/S0958344017000325
74. Sidi, Y., Shamir-Inbal, T., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2023). From face-to-face to online: Teachers' perceived experiences in online distance teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic. Computers & education, 201, 104831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104831
75. Sidnell, J. (2012). Conversation analysis: an introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
76. Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.
77. Skogmyr Marian, K. & Balaman, U. (2018). Second language interactional competence and its development: An overview of conversation analytic research on interactional change over time. Language and Linguistics Compass, 12(8), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12285
78. Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research. SAGE Publications.
79. Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.) Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171-199). Cambridge University Press.
80. Tanju, B. (2019). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğretiminde A1 ve A2 düzeyleri için önerilen iletişimsel konuşma etkinlikleri. (Unpublished master dissertation). İstanbul University.
81. Tannen, D. (2005). Conversational style. Ablex. (Original work published 1984)
82. Tao, J., & Gao, X. (2022). Teaching and learning languages online: Challenges and responses. System, 107, 102819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102819
83. ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. Sage Publications.
84. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
85. Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Longman.
86. Thornbury, S. & Slade, D. (2007). Conversation: From description to pedagogy. Cambridge University Press.
87. Timmis, I. (2005). Towards a framework for teaching spoken grammar. ELT Journal, 59(2), 117–125.
88. Wagner, J. (2015). Designing for language learning in the wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Ed.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 75–101). De Gruyter.
89. Wagner, J. (2019). Towards an epistemology of second language learning in the wild. In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Ed.), Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action (pp. 251-271). Springer.
90. Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.
91. Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Discourse analysis. Oxford University Press.
92. Willis, D. (2015). Conversational English: Teaching spontaneity. In M. Pawlak & E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.), Issues in teaching, learning and testing speaking in a second language (pp. 3-18). Springer-Verlag.
93. Wong, J. & H. Z. Waring. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
94. Wu, R. (2023). The relationship between online learning self-efficacy, informal digital learning of English, and student engagement in online classes: The mediating role of social presence. Front. Psychol. 14:1266009. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1266009
95. Yavuz Kırık, M. (2015). Interaction level of speaking activities in a coursebook series of teaching Turkish as a foreign language. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12- 2(24), 133-145.
96. Young, R. (1999). Sociolinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, (19), 105-132.
97. Young, R. F. (2000, March 11–14). Interactional competence: Challenges for validity. American Association for Applied Linguistics and the Language Testing Research Colloquium (AAAL 2000), Vancouver, BC, Canada. https://dept.english.wisc.edu/rfyoung/IC_C4V.Paper.PDF