Multimodality as an Interactional Resource for Classroom Interactional Competence (CIC)

Yıl 2017, , 121 - 138, 25.09.2017

Jaeuk Park

https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.460977

Cited By: 3

Öz

This paper of action research discusses the emergent progress of multimodality in the classroom
interaction. Despite the pivotal role of multimodality in interaction in the foreign language classroom,
little attention has been paid to how embodied behaviours are used as a resource by students in relation
to Classroom Interactional Competence (CIC). The study, therefore, aims to assess how multimodality
influences learning from learner’s perspectives. The data for this study is based on the video-recording of
an English grammar lesson for adult learners. Drawing on a Conversation Analysis (CA) approach to
look into the interactional unfolding of multimodal behaviours, this study uncovered the potential impact
of multimodality on interaction in a foreign language classroom. The findings have significant
implications for research on CIC and language teacher education. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Classroom Interactional Competence (CIC), learning, multimodality, CA, teacher education

Kaynakça

• Applebaum, E., Egel, A.L., Koegel, R.L., & Imhoff, B. (1979). Measuring musical abilities of autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9, pp. 279-285.
• Breen, M.P. (1998). Navigating the discourse: on what is learned in the language classroom. In W.A. Renandya, & G.M. Jacobs, (Eds.) Learners and Language Learning. Singapore: SEAMO Regional Language Centre.
• Briegel-Jones, L. (2013). An investigation into nonverbal behaviour in the oral proficiency interview. Newcastle University.
• Can Daşkın, N. (2015) Shaping learner contributions in an EFL classroom: Implications for L2 classroom interactional competence. Classroom Discourse, 6(1), pp. 33-56.
• Davis, B.G. (2009) Tools for teaching (2nd ed.). Sanfrancisco, CA: Jossy-Bass.
• Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2013). Learning to become a CLIL teacher: teaching, reflection and professional development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), pp. 334-353.
• Escobar Urmeneta, C., & Evnitskaya, N. (2014) 'Do you know Actimel?’ The adaptive nature of dialogic teacher-led discussions in the CLIL science classroom: a case study. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), pp. 165-180.
• Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2013). Recurring and shared gestures in the L2 classroom: resources for teaching and learning. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), pp. 139- 161.
• Goodwin, C. (1979) The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 97-121). New York: Irvington.
• Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization. New York: Academic.
• Gullberg, M. (1998). Gesture as a communication strategy in second language discourse. A study of learners’ French and Swedish. Lund: Lund University Press.
• Hennessy, S. (2011). The role of digital artefacts on the interactive whiteboard in supporting classroom dialogue. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(6), pp. 463-489.
• Houser, M.L., & Frymier, A.B. (2009). The role of student characteristics and teachers behaviors in students' learner empowerment. Communication in Education, 58(1), pp. 35- 53.
• Iwasaki, S. (2015). Collaboratively organized stancetaking in Japanese: Sharing and negotiating stance within the turn constructional unit. Journal of Pragmatics, 83, pp. 104- 119.
• Keevallik, L. (2014). Turn organization and bodily-vocal demonstrations. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, pp. 103-120.
• Knight, D. (2011). The future of multimodal corpora. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 11, pp. 391-415.
• Koole, T., & Elbers, E. (2014). Responsiveness in teacher explanations: A conversation analytical perspective on scaffolding. Linguistics and Education, 26(0), pp. 57-69.
• Kupetz, M. (2011). Multimodal resources in students' explanations in CLIL interaction. Novitas ROYAL, 5(1), pp. 121-142.
• Liszkowski, U. (2010). Before L1: A differentiated perspective on infant gestures. In M. Gullberg, & K. De Bot (Eds.), Gestures in Language Development. Amsterdam/Philadelphia John Benjamins.
• Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004) Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), pp. 491-500.
• Matsumoto, Y., & Dobs, A.M. (2017). Pedagogical gestures as interactional resources for teaching and learning tense and aspect in the ESL grammar classroom. Language Learning, 67(1), pp. 7-42.
• Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies, 8(1), pp. 117-129.
• Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), pp. 194-225.
• Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), pp. 1977-1997.
• Mondada, L. (2011). The interactional production of multiple spatialities within a participatory democracy meeting. Social Semiotics, 21(2), pp. 289-316.
• Mortensen, K. (2008) ‘Selecting next-speaker in the second language classroom: How to find a willing next-speaker in planned activities. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), pp. 55-79.
• Mortensen, K. (2009) Establishing recipiency in pre-beginning position in the second language cassroom. Discourse Processes, 46(5), pp. 491-515.
• Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Radford, K.W. (1990). Observing the class. Education Canada, 30, pp. 36-39.
• Sert, O. (2011). A micro-analytic investigation of claims of insufficient knowledge in EAL classrooms. Newcastle University.
• Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sime, D. (2006). What do learners make of teachers' gestures in the language classroom?', International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 44(2), pp. 211-230.
• Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2005). Introduction: Multimodal interaction, Semiotica, 156(1), pp. 1-20.
• Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
• Vygotsky, L.S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. London: Routledge.
• Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse : language in action. London: Routledge.
• Walsh, S. (2013). Classroom Discourse and Teacher Development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University press.
• Webb, J.M., Diana, E.M., Luft, P., Brooks, E.W., & Brennan, E.L. (1997). Influence of pedagogical expertise and feedback on assessing student comprehension from nonverbal behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), pp. 89-97.