Promoting extended student talk in an EFL classroom

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 205 - 228, 31.07.2020

Fatma Gümüşok , Gözde Balıkçı

https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.775799

Cited By: 2

Öz

This study aims to analyze the way one EFL teacher maintains and promotes extended student talk in an EFL Listening and Speaking Course at tertiary level via conversation analytic perspective. Promoting extended student turns is one of the main goals of meaning and fluency contexts in language classroom discourse (Seedhouse, 2004), thus, it is of quite importance to study extended student talk in a micro-analytic and detailed way. The data were collected from an EFL class at a private university in Turkey. Listening and Speaking course was audio-recorded for nine classroom hours over five weeks. The data were transcribed using Jefferson transcription system (Jefferson, 2004). The study revealed that the participants systematically follow an organized sequential path leading to extended learner turns. The sequential unfolding of eliciting extended student talk involves alternative questions as a sequence opener and elaboration questions as follow-ups. When students initiate word search sequence, the teacher addresses students’ emergent word searches and withholds evaluation turn via minimal response tokens. In addition, on-the-spot decision making such as providing planning time stimulates extended learner talk in subsequent turns. The findings offer some suggestions for the practitioners who would like to promote extended student talk and facilitate learning opportunities in their language classes and contribute to the EFL classroom interaction research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

classroom research, EFL classroom, extended student talk, conversation analysis, teacher questions

Kaynakça

• Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Amir, A. (2013). Self-policing in the language as a foreign language classroom. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 7(2), 84-105.
• Bozbıyık, M. (2017). The Implementation of VEO in an English Language Education Context: A Focus on Teacher Questioning Practices. [Unpublished Master's Thesis]. Gazi University, Ankara.
• British Council- TEPAV. (2015). The state of English in higher education in Turkey. British Council, Ankara.
• Can-Daşkın, N. (2015). Shaping learner contributions in an EFL classroom: Implications for L2 Classroom Interactional Competence. Classroom Discourse, 6(1), 33-56. https://doi: 10.1080/19463014.2014.911699
• Can-Daşkın, N., & Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2019). Reference to a past learning event in teacher turns in an L2 instructional setting. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 16-30.
• Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cook, V. (2013). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Routledge.
• Duran, D. (2017). Student-initiated questions in English as a medium of instruction classrooms in a Turkish higher education setting. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University, Ankara.
• Eskildsen, S. W. (2018). ‘We're learning a lot of new words’: Encountering new L2 vocabulary outside of class. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 46-63. https://doi: 10.1111/modl.12451
• Fagan, D.S. (2014). Beyond “excellent”: Uncovering the systematicity behind positive feedback turn construction in ESL classrooms. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 8(1), 45–63.
• Gardner, R. (2013). Conversation analysis in the classroom. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 593-611). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
• Garton, S. (2012). Speaking out of turn? Taking the initiative in teacher-fronted classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 3(1), 29-45. https://doi: 10.1080/19463014.2012.666022
• Girgin, U., & Brandt, A. (2019). Creating space for learning through ‘Mm hm’ in a L2 classroom: Implications for L2 classroom interactional competence, Classroom Discourse. https://doi: 10.1080/19463014.2019.1603115
• Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186-223.
• Hall, J. K. (2000). Classroom interaction and language learning. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 166-187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Hayano, K. (2013). Question design in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 395-414). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
• Hellerman, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society, 32(1), 79-104.
• Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Huth, T. (2011). Conversation analysis and language classroom discourse. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(5), 297–309. https://doi: 10.1111/j.1749- 818x.2011.00277.x
• Jacknick, C. (2011). “But this is writing”: Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. Novitas ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 5(1), 39-54.
• Jakonen, T., & Morton, T. (2013). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 73-94.
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Juzwik, M. M., Borsheim-Black, C., Caughlan, S., & Heintz, A. (2013). Inspiring dialogue: Talking to learn in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Koshik, I. (2002a). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(3), 277-309. https://doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2
• Koshik, I. (2002b). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(12), 1851-1877. https://doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00057-7
• Koshik, I. (2003). Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies, 5(1), 51–77.
• Koshik, I. (2005). Alternative questions used in conversational repair. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 193-211.
• Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
• Lee, Y. A. (2006). Respecifying display questions: Interactional resources for language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 691-713.
• Lee, Y. A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 180-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.003
• Lee, Y. A. (2008). Yes–no questions in the third-turn position. Discourse Processes, 45(3), 237-262. https://doi: 10.1080/01638530701739215
• Lee, Y. A. (2010). Learning in the contingency of talk‐in‐interaction. Text and Talk, 30(4), 403- 422.
• Margutti, P., & Drew, P. (2014). Positive evaluation of student answers in classroom instruction. Language and Education, 28(5), 436-458.
• Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 491-500.
• Mehan, H. (1979). ‘What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 18(4), 285-294. https://doi: 10.1080/00405847909542846
• Park, I. (2012). Asking different types of polar questions: the interplay between turn, sequence, and context in writing conferences. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 613-633.
• Park, J. (2014). The roles of third turn repeats in two L2 classroom interactional contexts. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 145-167.
• Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden: Blackwell.
• Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38, 165-187. https://doi: 10.1017/S0261444805003010
• Sert, O. (2011). A micro-analytic investigation of claims of insufficient knowledge in EAL classrooms. [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
• Sert, O. (2013). Epistemic status check’ as an interactional phenomenon in instructed learning settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 45, 13-28.
• Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Sert, O. (2017). Creating opportunities for L2 learning in a prediction activity. System, 70, 14- 25.
• Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B.Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Swain, M., & Carroll, S. (1987). The immersion observation study. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of bilingual proficiency final report (pp. 190-263). Toronto: Modern Language Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
• Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3–23.
• Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. New York: Routledge.
• Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
• Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualising classroom interactional competence. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 6(1), 1-14.
• Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 576- 594.
• Waring, H.Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59, 796–824.
• Waring, H. Z. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities in the language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 2(2), 201-218.
• Waring H. Z. (2012). Yes-no questions that convey a critical stance in the language classroom. Language and Education, 26(5), 451-469. https://doi: 10.1080/09500782.2012.656651
• Waring, H. Z. (2016). Theorizing pedagogical interaction: Insights from conversation analysis. New York: Routledge.
• Wong J., & Waring, H. Z. (2009). ‘Very good’ as a teacher response. ELT Journal, 63(3), 195-203.
• Young, R. (1999). Sociolinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 105-132.
• Yüksel, D. (2014). Teachers’ treatment of different types of student questions. Classroom Discourse, 5(2), 176-193. https://doi: 10.1080/19463014.2014.893894