Tutor talk in face-to-face tutor-whole group interactions: Revelations from a lesson segment...

7/27/2019 Tutor talk in face-to-face tutor-whole group interactions: Revelations from a lesson segment transcript

1/30

1

Tutor talk in face-to-face tutor-whole group interactions:

Revelations from a lesson segment transcript,

using the Exchange Structure Analysis (Kneser et al2001) and

Self-Evaluation of Teacher Talk Frameworks (Walsh 2006)

By:Jamel Abdenacer ALIMI

e-mail:[email protected]

teachers need to pay attention to the

amount and type of talking they do, and to

evaluate its effectiveness in the light of their

pedagogical objectives.

(Nunan 1991: 198)

INTRODUCTION

Over the last two decades or so, the field of English Language Teaching has

witnessed a revived interest in the very familiar and yet curiously undefined issue of

teacher/tutor talk (e.g., Evison 2008; Wihsart and Guy 2009; Allwright 1988; Benwell

1999; Wortham 1996, 2001; Cullen 1998, 2002 ; Parrish 2004: 175; Bolitho 2006;

Manke 1997). This trend, which stemmed from the central, serious educational

enterprise of systematically observing, analyzing and understanding classroom aims

and events (Kumaravadivelu1999: 454), has generated scores of new theoretical and

methodological frameworks that attempt to accurately capture this problematic

constituent of the teaching-learning process (e.g., Johnson 1995; McCarthy 1991;

Walshs 2006; Kneseret al.s 2001). While the efforts in this venue of investigationhave made significant advances in the gathering and interpretation of teachers use

and deployment of language, no-one of them, unfortunately, appears to have offered

by itself a sufficiently general conceptualization for considering it in its due totality

hence, the recent calls on researchers and practitioners alike to use more than one

research method at a time in this respect (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003: 712; quoted

in Kupferberg et al 2009: 82).

The present paper is, in many ways, a response to the calls mentioned just earlier. It

specifically aimed to provide a quite detailed analytical description of a tutors talk as

it is discursively displayed across a transcript of an actual English language lesson

fragment, by using the Kneseret al.s 2001 ESA (Exchange Structure Analysis) and

Walshs 2006 SETT (Self-Evaluation of Teacher Talk) as independent frameworks of

analysis. It addressed the following questions:

a- How did the tutor under investigation use language to interact with her1

student interlocutors?

b- To what extent did the ESA and SETT frameworks succeed in determining the

various facets of the tutor talk here concerned?

This mini-scale study is organized into three sections. Section One presents a brief

literature review of the issue of teacher/tutor talk in classroom communication .Section Two provides an analysis of the Lesson segment based on the ESA and, then,

SETT frameworks. Section Three discusses the analyses findings in light of the research
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/30

2

question posed above, and includes a brief evaluation of the usefulness of each of the

two analytical frameworks here selected.

1- TEACHER/TUTOR TALK: A BRIEF OUTLINESince the 1970s, the fabric of research on discourse in educational settings has been

woven of the type of talk that teachers (and tutors) display during verbal classroom

interaction (Allwright and Bailey 1991; Johnson 1995 ; Lynch 1996). The growth of

interest in this variety of language was triggered, in a nutshell, by

a- the paradigm shift towards the rejection of language teaching method as the

principal determinant of successful learning (Ellis 1985:143),

b- the realisation that the type of interaction taking place in the classroom plays a

fundamental role in successful language learning (Garton 2008:68), and

c- the emergence of classroom-oriented studies that draw on a number of cognate

disciplinesnotably in interactional linguistics, discourse analysis, ethnography

of speaking, critical discourse analysis, and conversation analysis2.

Seminal investigations such as the one conducted by Griffin and Shuy (1978; cited in

Adger 2001: 504), started to bring into attention that teacher initiation and feedback

moves could not be accounted for exclusively in terms of formal linguistic

characteristics, as had been advanced by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975)3.

In the above pioneering as well as subsequent studies, teacher talk began to be

henceforth seen within its social and situational contexts and against the language

users intentions and perceptions (Hymes 1997). The increasing use of metaphors

such as facilitator, partner, peer orprocess manageras opposed to those of a

conveyor of information when referring to instructor talk was a powerful indicator

of such a paradigm shift. It was also indicative of the growing impact of not only thehumanistic, constructivist, and Communicative Language Teaching tenets (Richards

and Rogers 2001) but also the recognition of the socio-institutional dimension of

teacher talk (Drew and Heritage 1992) and of its position as one of the underlying

factors which shape interaction in the classroom (Tsui 2001: 120).

The current generation of inquiries still show considerable interest in re-exploring

such observable aspects as teacher talking time, questions, error treatment, input and

interactional modifications for their potential effects on students learning (Tsui

1998: 25-6; Allwright and Bailey 1991 ; Ellis 1991). They also attach great

importance to this form of talk for the rich resource it unwittingly offers for

unraveling the ever-present unobservable relational, ethical, gender, ideological,raceor otherwise positioning (Van Dijk 2001; Wortham 1996; Pilkington 1997) of the

teacher towards himself/herself and vis--vis his/her learners within the overallframework of participation4 (Goffman 1981).

The presently wide concensus over the recharacterization of teacher/tutor talk as

critically dynamic, context-bound, and politically-biased (Pennycook 1994: 173-8 ;

Van Dijk 2008 ; Fairclough 1989 ; see collection of papers edited by Wittrock 1986)

owes much to researches on verbal language in both academic and non-academic

settings5. It is equally indebted to a continuum of coding tools and observation

schedules as those devised in Flanders (1970), Moskowitz (1971), Fanslow (1977),

Allwright, Frhlich and Spada (1984), Spada and Frhlich (1995), Sinclair andCoulthard (1975), Willis (1992), Kneseret al. (2001) and Walsh (2006).


3/30

3

For our purposes, the exploration of the Lesson segment (Appendices One and Two)

will be based on the last two analysis models mentioned just earlier. The former has

been chosen on grounds of its considerably widespread use and system-based6 coding

techniques in addition to its self-claimed capability of identify[ing] roles in

interaction (Pilkington 1999: 2); the second for its ad hoc-based approach7 to

discourse analysis and its potential ability to look beyond the ESA categories and,

subsequently, help enhance our understanding of the complex relationship between

teacher talk, classroom interaction and learning opportunity (Walshs 2006:1) (see

Appendices Four and Five for major aspects of the ESA and SETT frameworks).

The definition of teacher/tutor adopted in this paper follows Ellis (1985: 145). It refers

to the language that teachers address to L2 learner and treats it as a register, with

its own specific formal and linguistics properties (ibid).

2- LESSON SEGMENT ANALYSESThe sub-Sections here below deal with the analysis of an Extract that was recorded

fifteen minutes into a face-to-face, tutor-fronted lesson delivered in an out-of-schoollearning centre. The session was part of a training course for taking the IELTS

examination (International English Language Testing System). The aim of the lesson

(stated by the tutor) was to give exam practice in letter-writing in a formal register,

based on a model letter.The students in the group were six in total, aged between 19

and 27, and came from a range of ethnic and linguistic backgroundsJapanese,

Arabic, Russian, and Chinese. In this segment of the lesson, they were discussing

each others composition answers.

2.1 ESA-BASED ANALYSIS8:

The investigated lesson excerpt consists of 85 turns. The tutor accounted for 53

contributions with Initiates,Responds, and Response-Complementsamounting to 16,

18, and 6, respectively. In contrast, the learners amongst themselves intervened on 32

occasions only, which correspond to almost half the number of the turns performed by

their tutor. This total would shrink down to slightly higher than five should it be

divided evenly amongst the six learner participants (see Table 1 below for complete

Turn items).

Table 1: Tutor and Learner turns

TUTOR LEARNERS

Turns: 85 53 32

Count percent Count percent

Initiate (I) 16 30.18 12 37.50

Respond (R) 18 33.96 08 25.00

Response-Complement (RC) 06 11.32 01 03.12

Reinitiating (RI) 13 24.52 07 21.87

Initiative Swaps (IS) 13 24.52 07 21.87

Initiate-Initiate (I-I) 00 00.00 04 12.50

Stand-Alone (SA) 00 00.00 00 00.00

The discrepancies noted above are even more conspicuous when considering the

counts and percentages of the Moves. The 20 Inquire moves made by the learners

stand in sharp contrast to the rest, where the Clarify, Feedback, and


4/30

4

Table 2: Tutor and Learner Moves

TUTOR LEARNERS

Moves: 99 68 31


Inquire 10 14.70 20 64.51

Inform 08 11.76 04 12.90

Clarify 07 10.29 00 00.00

Feedback 14 20.58 00 00.00

Prompt/Encourage 06 08.82 00 00.00

Disagree 03 04.41 01 03.21Agree/Accept/Confirm 07 10.29 05 16.12

Reason 13 19.11 01 03.21

Prompt/Encourage moves were nil. On the other hand, the tutor moves were varied

and observed in 68.68% (68/99) occasions all in all (see Table 2 above).

Insofar as Argument Roles are concerned, the six learners showed strong preferences

for the roles ofInquirerand Responder, which respectively accounted for 53.33% and

33.33% of the 30 instances marked-up. The tutor, on the contrary, exhibited a

Table 3: Tutor and Learner Argument Roles

TUTOR LEARNERS

Argument Roles:

89

59 30


Explainer 13 22.03 01 03.33

Elaborator 02 03.38 01 03.33

Responder 09 15.25 10 33.33

Inquirer 09 15.25 16 53.33

Critic 02 03.38 01 03.33

Clarifier 07 11.86 00 00.00

Evaluator 17 28.81 01 03.33

preference for the role of Explainer (13 out of 59) and Evaluator (17 out of 59) (see

Table 3 above for further contrasts). The significance and implications of these

tabulated results will be discussed in Section Three.

2.2 SETT-BASED ANALYSIS9:

2.2.1 Managerial Mode:

The Extract beginsas reproduced here belowin managerial mode (Turn1) with a

01

02

03

04

05

T

L

T

L

T

not

are you counting the words

dont count the words no no no dont count the words no no its not

dont count the words erm in the test you can guess the number of words by working out

dont count the words!

By how many words are in the line

you know?=

= oh yes=

= if you practice enough you can guess how many words are 150 words and if

you write more than 150 words thats ok around 150 words

erm if youve finished talking about if youve finished talking about why excuse me if

youve finished talking about how then could swap you

could you swap your essays and read the other[Justin what is leeds What is [Leeds?

[persons essay


5/30

5

series of piggy-backed instructions. It is characterized by an extended tutor turn of

multiple clauses and a quasi-complete absence of learner turns at Turns 3 and 5. The

goals of the tutor here are quite clear: to move from one type of learning (lock-step

practice) to another (open group-work checking) and to set up a whole-group proof-

reading task.

2.2.2 Materials Mode:

In this mode, both of the pedagogic goals and language use centre on the model-based

writing compositions. The pedagogic focus can be interpreted as providing answers

for specific lexical and syntactic queries about a well-defined piece of material.

Interactionally, the organization, as could easily be inferred from the fragment below,

is entirely mirrored by the students written materials: the learners ask questions and

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

L

T

LT

L

T

L

T

L

T

=somebody stole my passport

=yes?=

=can I say I had my passport stolen?==yes =yes thats correct thats grammatically correct this somebody stole! my passport no no

no no

=stole=

((3))=stole somebody stole so what youve got youve made a mistake ((2)) question so

change do [you

[yes I have been [stolen

[know what I mean? I think you did it

[yes yes=

too=yes yes so not you have been stolen my passport has been stolen

the tutor responds by evaluating, correcting and extending their contributions in (16),

(18) and (22). The patterning is characterized by the omnipresence of latched and

overlapping turns (indicated in the transcript by =, and [, respectively). The

interaction appears tightly tutor-controlled and tends to afford but very little space or

choice of topic since the interaction is bounded by the constraints imposed by the task

at hand. Ironically, as a scan through the transcript may clearly reveal, the learners

have substantial freedom to self-select, make initiations, and contribute in orienting

the discourse to the pedagogic goals that are provided by the material.

2.2.3 Skills and Systems Mode:

The interaction in Turns 8 to 71 is indicative of skills and systems mode, wherein the

tutor answers language questions specifically relating to the task being undertaken

(here the editing of, and discussion about, peer letter compositions). Throughout, as is

both evidenced by the preceding dialogue excerpts and further illustrated in thefollowing fragment, the use of language and pedagogic purpose are at one: the

27

28

29

30

31

3233

34

L

T

L

T

L

TL

T

can you say=

one or two minutes that you swap youre your=

=might you show me=

=yes ((2))

(teacher goes to student- indistinguishable)(reading) =might you show me=

Justin=

=no no could you could you((5))

could you show me might you show me is very very very polite

language used is appropriate to the pedagogic goal of the moment. The apparently

obvious pedagogic aims of the tutor at this articulation of the lesson are to supply


6/30

6

factual information (Turn 7), to enable the learners to produce grammatically correct

answers (Turn 22), to provide corrective feedback (Turn 32), and to drive home

pragmatic meanings of some language structures and lexical items (Turns 24, 34, and

36)to name just a few.

The interaction in skills and systems mode is advanced and managed collaboratively.

Although interspersed with some instances of teacher follow-up or feedback moves,

the conversation isessentially learner-directed. In many respects, it tends to mirror a

type of discourse that is normally observed in naturally-occurring, casual encounters:

turn-taking is rapid; roles are symmetrical; and participants have complete freedom as

to when they speak and when they remain silent.

2.2.4 Tutor Interactional Features:

The tutor interactional features are of various types and occurrences, as could easily

be seen in the following portion taken from a more detailed Table (Appendix Six):

Table 4: Tutor Interactional featuresInteractional

feature

Description Tally Examples from lesson excerpt

A- Scaffolding 1. Reformulation(rephrasing a learners

contribution).

1 Turn: 36you can say my passport details follow

2. Extension

(extending a learners

contribution).

2 Turn: 36

you can say my passport details follow

3. Modelling

(correcting a learners

contribution)

2 Turn: 24

been stolen means I! have been stolen

you know somebody has taken me

kidnapped me you know

B- Direct repair Correcting an error

quickly and directly.

4 Turns:15-16

L: =can I say I had my passport stolen?=

T: =yes =yes thats correct thatsgrammatically correct this somebody

stole! my passport no no no no

The significance and implications of the above analysis will be discussed in Section

Three here below.

3- DISCUSSION

The present Section is divided into two sub-parts. The first one discusses the texttranscript with exclusive regard to the first research question stated in the

Introduction. The second assesses the general ease and/or difficultyof applying each

of the frameworks of analysis here adopted.

3.1 TUTOR TALK:The ESA- and SETT-based analyses provided in the previous Section showed two

distinct developments in the course of the tutors talk under this investigation. The

first phase started with the tutor giving instructions and explanations to the whole

group of students (Turns 1, 3 and 7); the second with her attending to learner queries

on a one-on-one basis (Turns 8 onwards). From a pedagogic point of view, the tutorscontributions


7/30

7

a- served both as the means of the organization of the classroom task and the

medium to achieve the teaching objective of the activity at hand,

b- tended to prove of an immediate reference to the here and now of the

classroom situation (Long and Sato 1983),

c- demonstrated a tendency for input and interactional modifications via the

resort to frequent repetitions, prompting moves, pauses, and non-

sophisticated lexico-syntactical structures (Richards and Schmidt 2002:543),

d- showed a considerable sensitivity to the students proficiency, needs, and level

(Ellis, 1991; Johnson 1998: 321), and

e- exhibited a virtually total dominance of classroom speech in terms of turn

frequency and length (Tsui 1995: 81; Chaudron 1988).

By the same token, the said tutor exhibited a wide-ranging versatility in her

communications skills as an expert, initiator, evaluator, and interaction manager.

However, as observed in and through the analyses, such multiple roles were attuned

via two key pedagogical and discourse strategies: the adoption of a fairly loose IRF

sequence and the resort to a series of shifts in footing10 (Goffman 1981) that led up to

Table 5: Instances showing the tutors status-reducing strategies

Strategy Illustration/Turn reference

Making suggestions so lets say in eh one or two minutes [Turns 26 -28]

Frequent use of conversational

English fillers

you know

Showing hesitation and/or

uncertainty erm let me think ((3))= yes I see what you mean

[Turn 61]

yes yes well I would accept that but Im not sure

whether the I I Ill have to to think Im not [sure]

[Turn 71]

Hedging I think you did it too [Turn 20]

Offering oneself (in lieu of

someone in the group) as an

example to illustrate a point

I have been stolen you know somebody has taken me kidnapped

me you know [Turn 24]

Responding quite favourably to

student playfulness/humour

its possible = not really [Turn 26]

Agreeing before disagreeing

with the previous position

yes yes well I would accept that but Im not sure [Turn 71]

The ubiquitous use of I and

you

[various Turns]

a more and more reduction of status differences and self-positioning as a more or less

equal partner or peer (Benwell 1999; see Table 5 above).

In so doing, the tutorial at hand did not slip into a conversation typical of an ordinary,

mundane encounter, and, thus, lose sight of its pre-set agenda. Nor did it stagnate

within a rigid framework of participation that would not only fail to account for the

learners variables (Section Two) but also obstruct the way for co-constructing a type

of discourse that is prone to lead the set task to a successful completion (Walsh 2002:

3-23).

The ostensible success in maintaining such a balance is, in our view, not totally

unflawed. For a supposedly well-qualified, (near)native-speaker tutor with, at least, a

CELTA certificate, the style and quality of tutoring, as transpiring from the lessontranscript, leaves much to be envied. The really top priority for an adult, fee-paying

IELTS candidate would not be a tutors democracy-minded participant roles but his or

her power to answer queries with accuracy, to say the least. The instances of


8/30

8

hesitation, whether genuine or feigned, in addition to the overflow of irritation in the

opening Turns and, indeed, the utter failure in addressing students by their proper

names would not be highly regarded by the majority of students at the International

Maritime College Oman, where I am currently employed. If we accepted Johnson

(1995)s argument that

the ways in which teachers organize classroom communication tells us

something about who these teachers are, what they know, what they

believe, and how they think about teaching, teachers, students, and

second language classrooms (38),

it would not, then, be unsafe to claim that there was clearly a long way to go for

teaching quality of the tutor under investigation.

3.2 EVALUATION OF THE ESA AND SETT FRAMEWORKS:The ESA and SETT frameworks proved, to a great extent, suitable for categorizing,

describing, and analyzing the present tutor talk, where every information about pitch,

intonation, gestures, eye gaze behaviours, gender, age, or socio-cultural background is

omitted.

Compared to its counterpart scheme, the Kneser et al (2001)s model was, in our

view, helpful in providing a more detailed, clearer account of the spoken behaviour of

the tutor under scrutiny. Nonetheless, at many points in the text transcript, it presented

quite a few serious difficulties to determine precisely what function within the ESA

categories is actually being performed by the tutor (and student) turn. The task of

matching turns to categories, as we experienced it, was quite subjective. It would,

therefore, require the involvement of other types of dialogue analysis (both inter-rater

and intra-rater) so as to bring down the problematic issue of multi-functionality

(Levinson 1983) to its possibly lowest levels ever.

The SETTframework, conversely, presented little or no polemics. Its coding of tutor

discourse from the angles of modes and interactional features was comparatively

simpler and more user-friendly. This is said, its taxonomy of tutor moves was rather

limited in both number and area of focus. Its attention devoted solely the whatin the

microcosms of teacher-student interaction literally excluded other not less important

dimensions those of the how (as accounted for in Conversation Analysis) andwhy

(as strongly called on in Critical Discourse Analysis).

The last criticism in the previous paragraph amply applies to the ESA.

6- CONCLUSION

This paperhas concerned itself withan analytical description of a tutor talk in an out-of-

school, face-to-face communication, based on the ESA (Kneseret al 2001) and SETT

(Walsh 2006) frameworks of analysis.

Due to its obviously limited scope, the study did not provide information about how

the interactional contributions of the tutor under investigation affected either the

writing skills or language learning of her students over the course of the lessonsegment. It did, however, reveal much about the ways she made use of her talk to

rally her students around the task in hand, construct collaborative interactions, and


9/30

9

respond to individual learner needs thus, providing a window into her tacit

perspectives on language learning/teaching processes.

Given its focus on only one case of tutor talk, the results of this study are not intended

to be interpreted as predictive of how all English Language practitioners would

behave when leading post-writing discussions in IELTS settings. Instead, it is hoped

they will trigger further analyses of teacher discourse from other educational settings

and throw additional light on its impacts on learners English proficiency,

involvement in discourse co-construction, and instructor-student interpersonal

relationships.

Analytical descriptions of lesson transcripts based on the ESA and SETT models in

combination with such frameworks as Genre Analysis, Critical Discourse analysis,

and Framework Participation are highly recommended. Only then, it is strongly

believed, would it be possible for our treatment of tutor talk, in particular, and

classroom discourse, in general, to result in a clear understanding of the realities of

English conversation and make significant progress towards an improved ESL

pedagogy (Crystal and Davy 1975:4; quoted in Joyce, H. and D. Slade 2000).

7- END NOTES1. The option for a female personal pronoun to refer to the tutor under

investigation is made out of mere convenience as well as avoidance of

unnecessary repetitions; it is not based on any explicit clue or information in

the Lesson Transcript itself.

2. e.g.,Walsh (2002); Jarvis and Robinson (1997); Willis (1992: 162-82);

Pilkington (1997); Adger (2001); Spada and Frhlich (1995); Gumperz (1982,

1992); Sacks et al (1974)

3. One of the first discourse modalities observed in classrooms, since taperecordings have been available, is the initiation, response and follow-up (IRF)

or IRE exchange. In two independent works, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975),

andMehan (1979), observed that the teacher usually initiates (I) an exchange

through questioning the whole class or one single student, who responds (R) to

the question, which is evaluated (E) or followed-up (F) by the teacher

(Giordan 2003: 817).

4. This phrase, coined by Goffman (1981), concerns the orientation of speakers

to hearers in the interaction (and vice versa) and of speakers to utterances.[..]

The orientation may be determined by institutional factors such that speaker

and hearer recognize a difference in social status or it may be determined by

functional discourse factors, specific roles which participants in the interactionadopt, e.g. shifting to the role of narrator or resource person (Watts 1991:

29).

5. These include language trainee-mentor discussions (Farr 2001), courtrooms

(Shuy 2001 : 437-52), hospitals (Ainsworth-Vaughn 2001 : 453-69), and

media institutions (OKeefffe 2002: 91-113; Colleen 2001 : 416-36).

6. System- based approaches:

By system is meant that the instrument has a number of fi xed categories

that have been predetermined by extensive trialling in different classroom

contexts. There are several advantages to using a fixed system: the system is

ready- made there is no need to design one from scratch; because the system

is well- known, there is no need for validation; any system may be used inreal- time or following a recording; comparisons between one system and

another are possible (Walsh 1996: 40).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDF-4F60WVR-1&_user=8093793&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=5981&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000009959&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=8093793&md5=efb71e723617e63166e7d2f3f7829d12#bib16http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDF-4F60WVR-1&_user=8093793&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=5981&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000009959&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=8093793&md5=efb71e723617e63166e7d2f3f7829d12#bib12http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDF-4F60WVR-1&_user=8093793&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=5981&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000009959&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=8093793&md5=efb71e723617e63166e7d2f3f7829d12#bib12http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDF-4F60WVR-1&_user=8093793&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=5981&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000009959&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=8093793&md5=efb71e723617e63166e7d2f3f7829d12#bib16


10/30

10

7. Ad hoc approaches:

In contrast to system-based interaction analysis, ad hoc approaches offer the

construction of a more flexible instrument, which may, for example, be based

on a specific classroom problem or area of interest. Ad hoc, as the name

suggests, involves designing a specific instrument in relation to a particular

context through a process of what Wallace calls guided discovery (1991: 78).

Participants in the process might include a group of practitioners and an

outside researcher or another colleague who collectively devise an instrument

designed to address a specific pedagogic issue (Walsh 2006: 44).

8. This sub-Section draws heavily on the analysis approach adopted in Kneseret

als 2001 paper.

9. This sub-Section draws heavily on the analysis approach adopted in Walsh

(Ibid: 62-110).

10.A change in footing implies a change in the alignment we take up to

ourselves and the others present as expressed in the way we manage the

production or reception of an utterance. A change in our footing is another

way of talking about a change in our frame for events. (...)

(C)hange in footing is very commonly language-linked; if not that, then a leastone can claim that the paralinguistic markers of language will figure

(Goffman 1981: 128; quoted in Ensink and Sauer 2003: 8).

8- REFERENCESAdger, C.T (2001), Discourse in Educational Settings. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen

and H.E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Malden, MA:

Blackwell, 503-17.

Ainsworth-Vaughn, N. (2001), The Discourse of Medical Encounters. In D.

Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H.E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis,

Malden, MA: Blackwell, 453-69.

Allwright, D. (1988), Observation in the Language Classroom, London: Longman.

Allwright, D. and K. Bailey (1991), Focus on the Language Classroom: An

Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Allwright, P., M. Frhlich and N. Spada (1984), The Communicative Orientation of

Language Teaching: An Observation Scheme. In J. Handscombe, R. Orem and

B.Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL 83, Washington, DC: TESOL.

Bailey, K. and D. Nunan (Eds.) (1996), Voices from the Language Classroom:

Qualitative Research in Second Language Education, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Benwell, B. (1999), The Collaborative Construction of Knowledge: Issues,

Rhetorical Relations and Pedagogic Discourse Strategies in Multidisciplinary Tutorial

Discourse, Pragmatics 9 (4): 535-65.

Bolitho, B. (2006), Teacher Talk and Learner Talk, [22 October, 2009]
http://www.ecml.at/mtp2/GroupLead/results/Lucru/4/Rod.pdfhttp://www.ecml.at/mtp2/GroupLead/results/Lucru/4/Rod.pdf


11/30

11

Carter, R. and D. Nunan (Eds.) (2001), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to

Speakers of Other Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chaudron, C. (1988), Second Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Colleen, C. (2001), Discourse and Media. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H.E.

Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 416-

36.

Coulthard, M. (1967), An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, London: Longman.

Coulthard, M. (Eds.) (1992),Advances in Written Text Analysis, London: Routledge.

Crystal, D. and D. Davy (1975), Advanced Conversational English. London:

Longman.

Cullen, R. (1998), Teacher Talk and the Classroom Context, ELT Journal 52 (3):

179-87.

Cullen, R. (2002), Supportive Teacher Talk: The Importance of the F-move, ELT

Journal 56 (2):117-29.

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1992), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional

Settings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Drew, P. and J. Heritage (1992), Analyzing Talk at Work. In P. Drew and J.

Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1-65.

Duranti, A. and C. Goodwin (Eds.) (1992), Rethinking Context: Language as an

Interactive Phenomenon, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (1985), Understanding Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Ellis, R. (1991),Instructed Second Language Acquisition: Learning in the Classroom,

Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Ensink, E. and S. Christoph (Eds.) (2003), Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Ensink, E. and S. Christoph (2003), Social-functional and cognitive approaches to

discourse interpretation: The role of frame and perspective. In E. Ensink and S.

Christoph (Eds.), Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1-22.

Evison, J. (2008), Turn-openers in Academic Talk: An Exploration of Discourse

Responsibility. Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy.

Fairclough, N. (1989),Language and Power, London: Longman.


12/30

12

Fanselow, J.F. (1977), Beyond RashomonConceptualizing and Describing the

Teaching Act, TESOL Quarterly 11:1739.

Farr, F. (2001), Conflict and Politeness: Uneasy Bedfellows?. Paper presented at

the Third North American Symposium on Corpus Linguistics and Language

Teaching, Boston, Mass. Copies available by e-mailling Fiona Farr at

[email protected].

Flanders, N.A. (1970),Analyzing Teaching Behavior, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Garton, G. (2008), Teacher Beliefs and Interaction in the Language Classroom. In

S. Garton and K. Richards (Eds.), Professional Encounters in TESOL: Discourses of

Teachers in Teaching, Houndmills, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan, 67-86.

Garton, S. and K. Richards (Eds.) (2008), Professional Encounters in TESOL:

Discourses of Teachers in Teaching, Houndmills, United Kingdom: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Gass, S. and C. Madden (Eds.) (1985), Input in Second Language Acquisition,Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Giordan, M. (2003), The Role of IRF Exchanges in the Discursive Dynamics of e-

mail Tutored Interactions, International Journal of Educational Research 39 (8)

:817-27.

Goffman, E. (1981), Forms of talk, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Griffin, P., and R. Shuy (1978), Children's Functional Language and Education in the

Early Years, Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Gumperz, J. (1982),Discourse Strategies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. (1992), Contextualization and Understanding. In A. Duranti and C.

Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229-52.

Handscombe, J., R. Orem and B. Taylor (Eds.) (1984), On TESOL83, Washington,

DC: TESOL.

Hymes, D. (1997), Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Towards an

Understanding of Voice,London: Taylor & Francis Routledge.

Jarvis, J. and M. Robinson (1997), Analysing Educational Discourse: an Exploratory

Study of Teacher Response and Support to Pupils Learning,Applied Linguistics 18

(2): 212-28.

Johnson, K.E. (1995), Understanding Communication in Second Language

Classrooms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, K. (1998), Teacher Talk. In K. Johnson and K.E. Johnson (Eds.),

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell

Publishers Ltd, 320-22.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/08830355http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/08830355http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235981%232003%23999609991%23566188%23FLA%23&_cdi=5981&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000009959&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=8093793&md5=c3b727523bf22eb0002dd2c1ed8de31ehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235981%232003%23999609991%23566188%23FLA%23&_cdi=5981&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000009959&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=8093793&md5=c3b727523bf22eb0002dd2c1ed8de31ehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/08830355mailto:[email protected]


13/30

13

Johnson, K. and K.E. Johnson (Eds.) (1998), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied

Linguistics, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Joyce, H. and D. Slade (2000), The Nature of Casual Conversation: Implications for

Teaching. [23 September, 2009]

Kneser, C., R. Pilkington and T. Treasure-Jones (2001), The Tutor's Role: An

Investigation into the Power of Exchange Structure Analysis to Identify Different

Roles in CMC Seminars, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education

12 : 63-84 [4 May, 2009]

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999), Critical Classroom Discourse Analysis, TESOL

Quarterly, 33: 45384.

Kupferberg, I., S. Shimoni and E.Vardi-Rath (2009), Making Sense of Classroom

Interaction via a Multiple-method Design: Social, Experiential and EpistemologicalDimensions,Linguagem em (Dis)curso LemD, 9 (1): 81-106.

Levinson, S. (1983), Pragmatics, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. and C. Sato (1983), Classroom Foreigner Talk Discourse: Forms and

Functions of Teachers Questions. In H. Seliger and M. Long (Eds.), Classroom

Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Lynch, T. (1996), Communication in the Language Classroom, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Manke, M.P. (1997), Classroom Power Relations: Understanding Student-Teacher

Interaction , Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McCarthy, M. J. (1991), Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Mehan, H. (1979),Learning Lessons, Harvard Press, Cambridge, MA (1979).

Moskowitz, G. (1971), Interaction AnalysisA New Modern Language for

Supervisors , Foreign Language Annals 5: 21121.

Nunan, D. (1991), Language Teaching Methodology, London: Prentice Hall

International.

O'Keeffe, A. (2002), Exploring Indices of National Identity in a Corpus of Radio

Phone-in Data from Irish Radio. In A. Sanchez-Maccaro (ed), Windows on the

World : Media Discourse in English, Valencia : Universitat de Valencia, 91-113.

Parrish, B. (2004), Teaching Adult ESL : A Practical Introduction, New York, NY:

McGraw Hill.

Pennycook, A. (1994), The Politics of Pronouns, ELT Journal 48(2):173-8.
http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/research_reports/teachers_voices/TeachersVoices_6.pdfhttp://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/research_reports/teachers_voices/TeachersVoices_6.pdfhttp://ihelp.usask.ca/iaied/ijaied/members01/archive/vol_12/kneser/full.htmlhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDF-4F60WVR-1&_user=8093793&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=5981&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000009959&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=8093793&md5=efb71e723617e63166e7d2f3f7829d12#bbib12#bbib12http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDF-4F60WVR-1&_user=8093793&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=5981&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000009959&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=8093793&md5=efb71e723617e63166e7d2f3f7829d12#bbib12#bbib12http://ihelp.usask.ca/iaied/ijaied/members01/archive/vol_12/kneser/full.htmlhttp://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/research_reports/teachers_voices/TeachersVoices_6.pdfhttp://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/research_reports/teachers_voices/TeachersVoices_6.pdf


14/30

14

Pilkington, R. M. (1997), Analysing Educational Discourse: The DISCOUNT

Scheme (CBLU Technical Report 97/3) , Leeds, UK: The University of Leeds

Computer Based Learning Unit.

Pilkington, R. (1999), Analysing Educational Discourse: The DISCOUNT Scheme.

Leeds, UK: The University of Leeds Computer Based Learning Unit.

Richards, J.C. and R. Schmidt (2002), Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching

and Applied Linguistics, 3rdEdn., Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Richards, J.C. and T.S. Rogers (2001), Approaches and Methods in Language

Teaching, 2ndEdn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson (1974), A Simplest Systematics for the

Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation,Language, 50 (4): 696-734.

Sanchez-Maccaro, A. (Ed.) (2002), Windows on the World : Media Discourse in

English, Valencia : Universitat de Valencia.

Schiffrin, D., D. Tannen and H.E. Hamilton (Eds.) (2001), The Handbook of

Discourse Analysis, Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Seliger, H. and M. Long (Eds.) (1983), Classroom Oriented Research in Second

Language Acquisition, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Shuy, R.W. (2001), Discourse Analysis in the Legal Context . In D. Schiffrin, D.

Tannen and H.E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Malden,

MA: Blackwell, 437-52.

Sinclair, J. and M. Coulthard (1975), Towards an Analysis of Discourse, Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Spada, N. and M. Frhlich (1995), COLT Observation Scheme, Sydney, Australia:

Macquarie University, National Council for Educational Research and Training.

Tashakkori, A. and C. Teddlie (2003), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and

Behavioral Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tsui, A. B. M. (1995),Introducing Classroom Interaction, London: Longman.

Tsui, A.B.M. (1998), The Unobservable in Classroom Interaction, The LanguageTeacher, 22: 256.

Tsui, A.B.M. (2001), Classroom Interaction. In R. Carter and D. Nunan (Eds.), The

Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 120-5.

Van Dijk, T.A. (2001), Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and

H.E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Malden, MA: Blackwell,

352-71.

Van Dijk, T.A. (2008),Language and Power, Houndmills: Palgrave.

Van Lier, L. (1988), The Classroom and the Language Learner, London: Longman.


15/30

15

Wallace, M. (1991), Training Foreign Language Teachers, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

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, Abingdon: Routledge.

Watts, R.J. (1991), Power in Family Discourse, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Willis, J. (1992), Inner and Outer: Spoken Discourse in the Language Classroom. In

M. Coulthard (Ed.)Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, London: Routledge, 162-

82.

Wishart, C. and R. Guy (2009), Analyzing Responses, Moves, and Roles in Online

Discussion, [14 April, 2009]

Wittrock, M.C (1986) (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, New York:

Macmillan.

Wortham, S. (1996), Mapping Participant Deictics: A Technique for Discovering

Speakers' Footing,Journal of Pragmatics 25: 331-48.

Wortham, S. (2001), Ventriloquating Shakespeare: Ethical Positioning in Classroom

Literature Discussions , [11 April, 2009]

9- APPENDICESAPPENDIX ONE: TRANSCRIPTION SYSTEM USED FOR TEXT C & ORIGINAL

TRANSCRIPT OF THE LESSSON

A- Transcription systemused for Text C :The transcription system is adapted from

Van Lier (1988) and Johnson (1995). Language has not been corrected and standard

conventions of punctuation are not used, the aim being to represent 'warts and all' the

exchanges as they occurred in the classroom. Many parts of the transcript are marked

unintelligible; it should be noted that the lesson was recorded under normal classroom

conditions with no specialist equipment. Consequently, background noise,simultaneous speech and other types of interference have, at times, rendered the

recording unintelligible.

T teacher

L learner (not identified)

L1: L2: etc identified learner

LL several learners at once or the whole class

/ok/ok/ok/ overlapping or simultaneous utterances by more than one learner[do you understand?]

[I see]overlap between teacher and learner

= turn continues, or one turn follows another without any pause
http://ijklo.org/Volume5/IJELLOv5p129-144Wishart658.pdfhttp://ijklo.org/Volume5/IJELLOv5p129-144Wishart658.pdfhttp://www.wpel.net/v17/v17Wortham.pdfhttp://www.wpel.net/v17/v17Wortham.pdfhttp://ijklo.org/Volume5/IJELLOv5p129-144Wishart658.pdfhttp://ijklo.org/Volume5/IJELLOv5p129-144Wishart658.pdf


16/30

16

... pause of one second or less marked by three periods

(4) silence; length given in seconds

? rising intonation - question or other

! emphatic speech: falling intonation

((4))unintelligible 4 seconds - a stretch of unintelligible speech with the length

given in seconds

Paul, Peter, Mary capitals are only used for proper nouns

T organises groups editor's comments (in bold type)

B- Original transcript of the lesson:


17/30

17


18/30

18


19/30

19


20/30

20

APPENDIX TWO: AUTHORS IMPROVED TRANSCRIPTION OF THE LESSON

TURNS

01

02

03

04

05

0607

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

3132

3334

SPEAKERS

T

L

T

L

T

LT

L

T

L

L

T

L

T

L

T

L

T

L

T

L

T

L

T

L

T

L

T

L

T

LT

LT

UTTERANCES

not


dont count the words no no no dont count the words no no its not

dont count the words erm in the test you can guess the number of words by

working out

dont count the words!By how many words are in the line you know?=

= oh yes=

= if you practice enough you

can guess how many words are 150 words and if you write more than 150

words thats ok around 150 wordserm if youve finished talking about if youve finished talking about why

excuse me if youve finished talking about how then could swap you

could you swap your essays and read the other

[Justin what is leeds What is

[Leeds?

[persons essay(Class continues discussion)

Ahh ((2)) [Leeds is a city in England[Leeds is a city in Englandyes its a city in England

eh could you swap?

have you discussed what

=yes

you how you=

just eh discuss ((3))=

=Justin=

=right ok=

=somebody stole my passport

=yes?=

=can I say I had my passport stolen?=

=yes =yes thats correct thats grammatically correct this somebody stole!

my passport no no no no=stole=

((3))=stole somebody stole so what youve got youve made a mistake ((2))question so change do [you

[yes I have been [stolen

[know what I mean? I think you did it too

[yes yes=

=yes yes so not you have been stolen my passport has been stolen or evensimple past

my passport was

or not simple past my passport ehm past eh passive my passport was

stolen by well

my passport was stolen

well I have=I dont know ((2))

been stolen means I have been stolen you know somebody has taken me


=Justin?=

its possible = not really

so lets say in eh

can you say=

one or two minutes that you swap youre your=

=might you show me=

=yes ((2))

(teacher goes to student- indistinguishable)(reading) =might you show me=

Justin==no no could you could you

((5))could you show me might you show me is very very very polite


21/30

21

35

36

37

38

39

40

4142

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

5253

5455

56

57

5859

60

61

62

63

64

6566

67

68

69

70

71

L

T

L

T

L

T

LT

L

T

L

T

L

T

L

T

L

TL

LT

L

T

LT

L

T

L

T

L

TL

T

L

T

L

T

(Class continues exercise)

I enclose[ I enclose my passport

[yes?... erm my passport details

yes yes let me thinkyou can say my passport details follow

=I know but if=

or [I enclose] my passport but that usually means ((3)) another

=for the people who ((5))=

piece of paper if you enclose something in a letter so if you say I

=Its just eh numbers hereenclose and you put another piece of paper=

=((4))=

=yeah=

[((3)) so I take permission for something for example I I=

=I know what you mean= yes=

=I am living in Leeds=

=I see what you mean

=and eh my passport was ((2)) the bus station in [Leeds

[ so you dont ((2))

and I should give permission to the police and eh=

=yeah=yes=

=for example ((4)) is that ok?=

=Its not a mistake?[sure sure

=((5))=

=yes=

=yes thats all=

=I think thats fine=

erm because I want to ((3)) first

erm let me think ((3))= yes I see what you mean

you say ((3))=

really? Because I think I write a good a ((2)) [ report

=why would you want to do

that?...

=and how information to appear?=

well ok I think that maybe they want you to write a letter[((4))

[well if youve done

that =

[but((3)) details

which eh

to I understand well yes [I mean yes

[include no which eh contain?...

yes yes well I would accept that but Im not sure whether the I I Ill have toto think Im not [sure]

APPENDIX THREE: LESSON TRANSCRIPTION BASED ON Kneser et al. (2001)S ESA

FRAMEWORK


22/30

22

TURN TUTOR ESA

CATEGORIES

TUTEES MOVE

CATEGORY

ARGUMENT

ROLE

01 not are you

counting the words

dont count the

words no no no

dont count the

words no no its not dont count thewords

I

Inquire

&

Disagree

Inquirer

&

Critic

02 erm in the test you

can guess the

number of words by

working out

I Reason Explainer

03 dont count the

words!I Disagree Critic

04 By how many

words are in the

line you know?=

I Inquire Inquirer

05 R =oh yes Agree Responder

06 =if you practice

enough you can

guess how many

words are 150

words and if you

write more than 150

words thats ok

around 150 words

RI Reason explainer

07 erm if youvefinished talking

about if youve

finished talkingabout why excuse

me if youve

finished talking

about how then

could swap you

could you swapyour essays and

read the other

persons essay

I Inform& Direct Elaborator& Instructor

(Class continuesdiscussion)

- -

08 I Justin what is

leeds What is

[Leeds?]

Inquire Inquirer

09 R Ahh((2))[Leeds

is a city in

England

Respond Explainer

10 [Leeds] is a city in

Englandyes its a

city in England eh

could you swap?

RI Inform

& Feedback

& Inquire

Responder

& Evaluator

& Inquirer

11 have you discussedwhat

I Inquire Inquirer

12 R =yes Confirm Responder

13 you how you= I Inquire Inquirer


23/30

23

14 R just eh discuss

((3))=

Inform Responder

15 I-I =Justin= - -

16 =right ok= RC Accept Responder

17 I =somebody

stole my

passport

Inquire Inquirer

18 =yes?= R Encourage Inquirer

19 I =can I say Ihad my

passport

stolen?=

Inquire Inquirer

20 =yes =yes thats

correct thats

grammaticallycorrect this

somebody stole! my

passport no no no

no

RI Feedback

& reason

Evaluator

& Explainer

21 R =stole= Accept Responder

22 ((3))= - -

23

=stole somebody

stole so what

youve got youve

made a mistake((2)) question so

change

RI Inform

& Disagree

Elaborator &

Critic

24 RI =yes I have

been [stolen]

Inform Responder

25 do know what I

mean?I Inquire Inquirer

26 R [yes yes]= Confirm Responder

27 I think you did it

too=

R Feedback

& Observe

Evaluator

28 =yes yes so not you

have been stolen

my passport has

been stolen or even

simple past

RI Feedback

& Reason

Evaluator &

Explainer

29 my passport was I Clarify Clarifier

30 or not simple past

my passport ehm

I Clarify Clarifier

31 past eh passive my

passport

wasstolen bywell

I Clarify Clarifier

32 my passport was

stolenI Clarify Clarifier

33 well my passport

was stolenI Clarify Clarifier

34 well I have I - -

35 R =I dont know

((2)

Inform Responder

36 been stolen meansI! have been stolen

you knowsomebody has taken

RI Reason Explainer


24/30

24

me kidnapped me

you know

37 RI =Justin?= Inquire Inquirer

38 its possible= I Reason Explainer

39 = not really so

lets say in eh

RI Feedback Evaluator

40 I can you say= Inquire Inquirer

41 one or two minutes

that you swapyoure your=

I Reason Explainer

42 I =might you

show me=

Inquire Inquirer

43 =yes ((2)) R Accept Responder

(teacher goes to

student-

indistinguishable)

- -

44 (reading) =might

you show me=R Feedback Evaluator

45 I-I Justin - -

46 =no no could you

could youRI Feedback

& Prompt

Evaluator

47 ((5)) - -

48 could you show

me

R Prompt Explainer

49 might you show

me is very very

very polite ((5))

RC Inform

& reason

Explainer

(Class continues

exercise)

- -

50 I I enclose[ Ienclose my

passport]

Inquire Inquirer

51 =yes?... RI Inquire Inquirer

52 erm my passport

detailsR Inform Explainer

53 yes yes let me

thinkR Reflect Responder

54 you can say my

passport detailsfollow

RC Clarify Clarifier

55 RI =I know but

if=

Inform

& disagree

Responder

& Critic56 or [I enclose] my

passport but that

usually means ((3))

another

R Clarify&

Reason

Clarifier &

Explainer

57 I =for the

people who((5))=

Inquire Inquirer

58 piece of paper if

you enclose

something in a

letter so if you say I

RI Reason

& Prompt

Explainer

59 I =Its just eh

numbershere

Inquire Inquirer

60 enclose and you put

another piece of

paper=

R Reason Explainer


25/30

25

61 =((4))= - -

62 =yeah= R Accept Responder

63 RI [((3))] so I

take

permission for

something for

example I I=

Inquire Inquirer

64 =I know what you

mean=

R Inform Responder

65 yes= R Accept Evaluator

66 I =I am living in

Leeds=

Inquire Inquirer

67 =I see what you

mean [ so you dont

((2))]

R Reflect Responder

68 I-I =and eh my

passport was

((2)) the bus

station in

[Leeds]

Inquire Inquirer

69 I-I and I should

givepermission to

the

police and eh=

Inform Elaborator

70 =yeah= R Encourage Responder

71 =yes= R Encourage Responder

72 RI =for example

((4)) isthat ok?=

Inquire Inquirer

73 I =Its not a

mistake?

Inquire Inquirer

74 [sure sure] R Feedback Evaluator

75 =((5))= - -76 =yes= R Feedback Evaluator

77 R =yes thats

all=

Confirm Responder

78 =I think thats fine= RC Feedback &

Confirm

Evaluator

79 R erm because I

want

to ((3)) first

Inquire Inquirer

80 erm let me think

((3))= yes I see

what you mean you

say ((3))=

RI Feedback Evaluator

81 RI really?

BecauseI think I write

a

good a ((2)) [

report]

Inquire

& Reason

Inquirer

& Evaluator

82 =why would you

want to do that?...RI Inquire Inquirer

83 I =and how

information

to appear?=

Inquire Inquirer

84 well ok I think that

maybe they wantyou to write a

letter

RI Accept &

Reason

Evaluator

85 [((4))] - -


26/30

26

86 [well] if youve

done that =

RC Feedback Evaluator

87 RI [but] ((3))

details which

eh

Inquire Inquirer

88 to I understand

well yes [I mean

yes]

R Feedback Evaluator

89 I include no

which ehcontain?...

Inquire Inquirer

90 yes yes well I

would accept that

but Im not surewhether the I I Ill

have to to think Im

not [sure]

RC Feedback &

Accept &

Reflect

Evaluator

APPENDIX FOUR: THE EXCHANGE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK (Kneser et

al.s 2001): MAJOR ASPECTS

The Kneseret al. (2001)s ESA is one of the most recently proposed frameworks for

exploring educational discoursein particular, patterns of CMC (Computer-Mediated

Communication) Chat in tertiary institutions. It grounds its very conception on

Transactional Analysis (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975) and within the wider context of

the DISCOUNT scheme (Pilkington 1997, 1999). It aims at capturing the grammar

of turns between dialogue participants and at gaining insights into their relative

contributions and roles (Kneseret al: ibid). To this two-fold end, it requires the data

analyst to operate more or less as follows:

Step One: to mark-up participants turns according to the ESA categories shown in

Table 1 below:

Table 1: ESA categories ( source: Kneser et al2001: 63-84)

ESA CATEGORIES

& NOTATIONS

DEFINITIONS COMMENTS

Initiate (I) Initial in the exchange, it predicts a subsequent

turn by another participant and it is not predicted

by the participant turn.

Respond (R) In contrast [to Initiate], Respond is not initial, it

does not predict a following turn by another

participant and usually completes the exchange

indeed an exchange

without a Responding

turn is not considered awell-formed exchange.

However Respond is

not always the terminalcategory in an

exchange

Response-Complement

(RC)

The RCmarks the point at which a new exchange

may be naturally initiated.

The Response-

Complement (RC)

replaces the notation F

for feedback in the

sequence of Initiate-

Respond-

(IR ) (Sinclair andCoulthard: 1975)

Reinitiating (RI) RIstands forRespond followed by a new Initiate We do not code this


27/30

27

uttered by the same participant within a turn. as a separate category

but instead say there is

an exchange boundary

located between the

R and the I in that

participants turn. That

participant thus closes

one exchange and

begins a new exchange

within the same turn.

Initiative Swaps (IS) Initiative Swaps record the number of instances

where a participant switches from responding to

initiating within their turn and hence regain the

initiative in the dialogue.

Initiate- Initiate (I-I)

sequences

I-I sequences are due to role-swapping

occur[ring] with apparently ill-formed I-I turns.

I-I sequences are

sometimes genuinelyill-formed; in which

case they form islands

with no response to

them.

Stand-Alone (SA)

sequences

A Stand-Alone (SA) sequence describes the case

where, in contrast to the expected exchange

between participants, one participant continues

Initiating turns by the same speaker follow each

other.

N.B: * Turn is defined as a contribution by a particular participant and is delimited by them starting

and stopping speaking.*Exchange, on the other hand, is defined as the smallest unit of dialogue that can stand alone

and still make sense. This minimal unit consists of [Initiate-Respond] ([I-R]), an Initiating move and a

Responding move. For example, an exchange might consist of statement and counter-statement or

question and answer.

Step Two: to determine the pragmatic function or intention of each utterance at the

speech act level (Pilkington, 1999), as illustrated in Table 2:

Table 2: Types of Moves in ESA ( source: Wishart and Guy 2009: 135)

Challenge Statements requesting reasoning or fresh thinking

Justify Reply with evidence or contraindication

Clarify Questions of clarification

Feedback Evaluative statements

Inform Description/differentiation

Inquire Questions requesting information

Reason State causal proposition

Step Three: to identify consistent exchange structure roles that the dialogue

interlocutors adopt and to clarifyby the same tokenany differences between their

Table 3:ESA roles & related features ( source: Kneser et al2001: 63-84)

Argument Role ESA category

expected to be

more frequent

than average

Locus of Control

in Dialogue

Exchange

Structure Role

Move Category

expected to be

more frequent

than average

Explainer I Active Initiator Reason

Elaborator I Active Inform

Inquirer I Active Initiator Inquire

Critic RI Active Reinitiator Challenge or


28/30

28

Disagree &

Justify

Clarifier RI Active Reinitiator Clarify

Evaluator RC Dominate Finisher Feedback

Narrator SA Dominate Continuer Inform & Reason

Explainer R Passive Responder Reason

Elaborator R Passive Responder Inform

respective roles (Table 3). As Kneseret al (Ibid) explain,

someone who tends to initiate much more than they respond may be

called an initiator, someone who has an unusually high number of

reinitiates might be called a reinitiator, and someone who tends to

respond much more often than they initiate might be called a

responder.

APPENDIX FIVE:SELF-EVALUATION OF TEACHER TALK (SETT) FRAMEWORK

(Walsh 2006): MAJOR ASPECTS

SETT is a quite recent classroom observation instrument that aims to help teachersgain a fuller understanding of the relationship between language use, interaction and

opportunities for learning. (Walsh 2006: 44). It has been specifically devised around

the following key strands:

(1) the argument that L2 classroom interaction is socially constituted;

(2) the proposal that an understanding of classroom interaction must

take account of both pedagogic goals and the language used to achieve

them; (3) the suggestion that any lesson is made up of a series of

locally negotiated microcontexts, here termedmodes (61).

The SETT framework identifies four fundamental modes, together with their typicalpedagogic goals and interactional features. These are summarized in Tables 1 and 2,

respectively:

Table 1: L2 classroom modes (Revised) ( source: Walsh 2006: 94 )

Mode Pedagogic goals Interactional features

Managerial To transmit information

To organize the physical learning environment

To refer learners to materials

To introduce or conclude an activityTo change from one mode of learning to another

A single, extended teacher turn

which uses explanations and/or

instructions

The use of transitional markersThe use of confirmation checks

An absence of learner contributionsMaterials To provide inputor practice around a piece of

material

To elicit responses in relation to the material

To check and display answers

To clarify when necessaryTo evaluate contributions

Predominance of IRF pattern

Extensive use of display questions

Form- focused feedback

Corrective repair

The use of scaffolding

Skills and

systems

To enable learners to produce correct answers

To enable learners to manipulate new concepts

To provide corrective feedback

To provide learners with practice in sub- skills

To display correct answers

The use of direct repair

The use of scaffolding

Extended teacher turns

Display questions

Teacher echo

Clarification requests

Form- focused feedback

Classroom

context

To enable learners to express themselves clearly

To establish a context

To promote dialogue and discussion

Extended learner turns.

Short teacher turns

Minimal repair


29/30

29

Content feedback

Referential questions

Scaffolding

Clarification requests

Table 2 Interactional features ( source: Walsh 2006: 67 )

Interactional feature Description

(A) Scaffolding (1) Reformulation (rephrasing a learners contribution).(2) Extension (extending a learners contribution).

(3) Modelling (correcting a learners contribution).

(B) Direct repair Correcting an error quickly and directly.

(C) Content feedback Giving feedback to the message rather than the words used.

(D) Extended wait- time Allowing sufficient time (several seconds) for students to respond

or formulate a response.

(E) Referential questions Genuine questions to which the teacher does not know the answer.

(F) Seeking clarification (1) Teacher asks a student to clarify something the student has

said.

(2) Student asks teacher to clarify something the teacher has said.

(G) Confirmation checks Making sure that the teacher has correctly understood the

learners contribution.

(H) Extended learner turn Learner turn of more than one clause.

(I) Teacher echo (1) Teacher repeats a previous utterance.

(2) Teacher repeats a learners contribution.

(J) Teacher interruptions Interrupting a learners contribution.

(K) Extended teacher turn Teacher turn of more than one clause.

(L) Turn completion Completing a learners contribution for the learner.

(M) Display questions Asking questions to which the teacher knows the answer.

(N) Form- focused feedback Giving feedback on the words used, not the message.

APPENDIX SIX : TUTOR INTERACTIONAL FEATURES, BASED ON Walsh (2006)s SETT

FRAMEWORK

Table: Tutor Interactional featuresInteractional

feature

Description Tally Examples from lesson excerpt

A- Scaffolding 1. Reformulation

(rephrasing a learners

contribution).

1 Turn: 36

you can say my passport details follow

2. Extension(extending a learners

contribution).

2 Turn: 36you can say my passport details follow

3. Modelling

(correcting a learnerscontribution)

2 Turn: 24

been stolen means I! have been stolenyou know somebody has taken me


B- Direct repair Correcting an error 4 Turns:15-16


30/30

quickly and directly. L: =can I say I had my passport stolen?=

T: =yes =yes thats correct thats

grammatically correct this somebody

stole! my passport no no no no

C- Content feedback Giving feedback to the

message rather than the

words used.

8 Turn: 34

could you show me might you show

me is very very very polite

D- Extended wait-

time

Allowing sufficient time

(several seconds) for

students to respond orformulate a response.

4 Turn: 61

erm let me think ((3))= yes I see what you

mean you say ((3))=

E- Referential

questions

Genuine questions to

which the teacher doesnot know the answer.

3 Turn:7

have you discussed what

F- Seeking

clarification

Teacher asks a student to

clarify something the

student has said.

1 Turn: 63

=why would you want to do that?...

G- Teacher echo 1. Teacher repeats a

previous utterance.

23 Turn: 3

= if you practice enough you can guess

how many words are 150 words and if

you write more than 150 words thats ok

around 150 wordserm if youve finished talking about if

youve finished talking about why excuse

me if youve finished talking about how

then could swap you

could you swap your essays and read the

other

2. Teacher repeats a

learners contribution.

4 Turn: 34

could you show me might you showme is very very very polite

H- Teacher

interruptions

Interrupting a learners

contribution.

11 Turn: 35-36

L: I enclose[ I enclose my passport

T: [yes?... erm my passport

detailsI- Extended teacher

turn

Teacher turn of more than

one clause.

27 Turn:1

not


dont count the words no no no dont

count the words no no its not

dont count the words erm in the test you

can guess the number of words by

working outdont count the words!

By how many words are in the line you

know?=

J- Turn completion Completing a learners

contribution for thelearner.

1 Turn:17-18

L: =stole=T: ((3))=stole somebody stole

K- Display questions Asking questions to

which the teacher knows

the answer.

00 //

L- Form- focused

feedback

Giving feedback on the

words used, not the

message.

2 Turn: 22

too=yes yes so not you have been stolen

my passport has been stolen or even

simple past

my passport was

or not simple past my passport ehm past

eh passive my passport wasstolen by well

my passport was stolen

well I have

Tutor talk in face-to-face tutor-whole group interactions: Revelations from a lesson segment...

Documents

Transcript of Tutor talk in face-to-face tutor-whole group interactions: Revelations from a lesson segment...