Tutor talk in face-to-face tutor-whole group interactions: Revelations from a lesson segment transcript, using the Exchange Structure

Analysis (Kneser et al 2001) and Self-Evaluation of Teacher Talk Frameworks (Walsh 2006)
By:Jamel Abdenacer ALIMI e-mail: jamel_alimi@yahoo.com

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; Kneser et al.s 2001). While the efforts in this venue of investigation have 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 Kneser et 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
1

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 OUTLINE Since 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 or process 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 the humanistic, 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, race or otherwise positioning (Van Dijk 2001; Wortham 1996; Pilkington 1997) of the teacher towards himself/herself and vis--vis his/her learners within the overall framework 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 and Coulthard (1975), Willis (1992), Kneser et al. (2001) and Walsh (2006).
2

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 ANALYSES The 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-school learning 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-Complements amounting 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 53 Count percent 16 30.18 18 33.96 06 11.32 13 24.52 13 24.52 00 00.00 00 00.00 LEARNERS 32 Count percent 12 37.50 08 25.00 01 03.12 07 21.87 07 21.87 04 12.50 00 00.00

Turns: 85 Initiate (I) Respond (R) Response-Complement (RC) Reinitiating (RI) Initiative Swaps (IS) Initiate-Initiate (I-I) Stand-Alone (SA)

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
3

Moves: 99 Inquire Inform Clarify Feedback Prompt/Encourage Disagree Agree/Accept/Confirm Reason

Table 2: Tutor and Learner Moves TUTOR LEARNERS 68 31 Count percent Count percent 10 14.70 20 64.51 08 11.76 04 12.90 07 10.29 00 00.00 14 20.58 00 00.00 06 08.82 00 00.00 03 04.41 01 03.21 07 10.29 05 16.12 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 of Inquirer and 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 59 30 Count percent Count percent 13 22.03 01 03.33 02 03.38 01 03.33 09 15.25 10 33.33 09 15.25 16 53.33 02 03.38 01 03.33 07 11.86 00 00.00 17 28.81 01 03.33

Argument Roles: 89 Explainer Elaborator Responder Inquirer Critic Clarifier Evaluator

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 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

02 03

L T

04 05

L T

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 proofreading 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 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 L T L T 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 the following fragment, the use of language and pedagogic purpose are at one: the
27 28 29 30 L T L 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

31 32 33 34

L T L T

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
5

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 is essentially 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 features
Interactional feature A- Scaffolding Description 1. Reformulation (rephrasing a learners contribution). 2. Extension (extending a learners contribution). 3. Modelling (correcting a learners contribution) Correcting an error quickly and directly. Tally 1 Examples from lesson excerpt Turn: 36 you can say my passport details follow Turn: 36 you can say my passport details follow Turn: 24 been stolen means I! have been stolen you know somebody has taken me kidnapped me you know Turns:15-16 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

B- Direct repair

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 text transcript with exclusive regard to the first research question stated in the Introduction. The second assesses the general ease and/or difficulty of 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 tutors contributions
6

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 nonsophisticated 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 you know English fillers Showing hesitation and/or erm let me think ((3))= yes I see what you mean uncertainty [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 Offering oneself (in lieu of someone in the group) as an example to illustrate a point Responding quite favourably to student playfulness/humour Agreeing before disagreeing with the previous position The ubiquitous use of I and you I think you did it too [Turn 20] I have been stolen you know somebody has taken me kidnapped me you know [Turn 24] its possible = not really [Turn 26] yes yes well I would accept that but Im not sure [Turn 71] [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 lesson transcript, 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
7

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 SETT framework, 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 what in the microcosms of teacher-student interaction literally excluded other not less important dimensions those of the how (as accounted for in Conversation Analysis) and why (as strongly called on in Critical Discourse Analysis). The last criticism in the previous paragraph amply applies to the ESA.

6- CONCLUSION

This paper has concerned itself with an analytical description of a tutor talk in an out-ofschool, face-to-face communication, based on the ESA (Kneser et 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 lesson segment. 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
8

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 NOTES 1. 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 tape recordings have been available, is the initiation, response and follow-up (IRF) or IRE exchange. In two independent works, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), and Mehan (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 interaction adopt, 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 in real- time or following a recording; comparisons between one system and another are possible (Walsh 1996: 40).
9

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 Kneser et 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 least one can claim that the paralinguistic markers of language will figure (Goffman 1981: 128; quoted in Ensink and Sauer 2003: 8).

8- REFERENCES Adger, 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.pdf>
10

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, 41636. 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.

11

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 fiona.farr@ul.ie. 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 email 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 TESOL 83, 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.

12

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] <http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/research_reports/teachers_voices/TeachersVoic es_6.pdf> 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] <http://ihelp.usask.ca/iaied/ijaied/members01/archive/vol_12/kneser/full.html> 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 Epistemological Dimensions, 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.

13

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, 3rd Edn., Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Richards, J.C. and T.S. Rogers (2001), Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, 2nd Edn., 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 Language Teacher, 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.
14

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, 16282. Wishart, C. and R. Guy (2009), Analyzing Responses, Moves, and Roles in Online Discussion, [14 April, 2009] <ijklo.org/Volume5/IJELLOv5p129144Wishart658.pdf> 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] <http://www.wpel.net/v17/v17Wortham.pdf>

9- APPENDICES
APPENDIX ONE: TRANSCRIPTION SYSTEM USED FOR TEXT C & ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE LESSSON

A- Transcription system used 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 L L1: L2: etc LL /ok/ok/ok/ [do you understand?] [I see] =

teacher learner (not identified) identified learner several learners at once or the whole class overlapping or simultaneous utterances by more than one learner overlap between teacher and learner turn continues, or one turn follows another without any pause 15

... (4) ? ! ((4)) Paul, Peter, Mary T organises groups

pause of one second or less marked by three periods silence; length given in seconds rising intonation - question or other emphatic speech: falling intonation unintelligible 4 seconds - a stretch of unintelligible speech with the length given in seconds capitals are only used for proper nouns editor's comments (in bold type)

B- Original transcript of the lesson:

16

17

18

19

APPENDIX TWO: AUTHORS IMPROVED TRANSCRIPTION OF THE LESSON TURNS 01 SPEAKERS T UTTERANCES 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 (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 even simple 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 kidnapped me you know =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 20

02 03

L T

04 05 06 07

L T L T

08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

L T L L T L T L T L T L T L T

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

L T L T L T L T

31 32 33 34

L T L T

35 36

L T

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

L T L T L T L T L T L T L T L T L L T L T L T L T L T L T L T L T L T

(Class continues exercise) I enclose[ I enclose my passport [yes?... erm my passport details yes yes let me think you 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 here enclose 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 to to think Im not [sure]

APPENDIX THREE: LESSON TRANSCRIPTION BASED ON Kneser et al. (2001)S ESA FRAMEWORK 21

TURN

TUTOR

ESA CATEGORIES

TUTEES

MOVE CATEGORY Inquire & Disagree

ARGUMENT ROLE Inquirer & Critic

01

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

02

03 04

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?=

Reason

Explainer

I I

Disagree Inquire

Critic Inquirer

05 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 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 persons essay (Class continues discussion) RI

=oh yes

Agree Reason

Responder explainer

07

Inform & Direct

Elaborator & Instructor

I Justin what is leeds What is [Leeds?] Ahh ((2))[Leeds is a city in England Inquire

Inquirer

08

09

Respond

Explainer

10

11 12 13

[Leeds] is a city in Englandyes its a city in England eh could you swap? have you discussed what you how you=

RI

Inform & Feedback & Inquire Inquire R =yes Confirm Inquire

Responder & Evaluator & Inquirer Inquirer Responder Inquirer 22

14 15 16 17

R I-I =right ok= RC I

just eh discuss ((3))= =Justin= =somebody stole my passport =can I say I had my passport stolen?=

Inform Accept Inquire

Responder Responder Inquirer

18 19

=yes?=

R I

Encourage Inquire

Inquirer Inquirer

20

=yes =yes thats correct thats grammatically correct this somebody stole! my passport no no no no

RI

Feedback & reason

Evaluator & Explainer

21 22 23 ((3))= =stole somebody stole so what youve got youve made a mistake ((2)) question so change RI

=stole=

Accept Inform & Disagree

Responder Elaborator & Critic

24 25 26 do know what I mean? I R

RI

=yes I have been [stolen]

Inform Inquire

Responder Inquirer Responder

[yes yes]=

Confirm

27 28

29 30 31

I think you did it 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 my passport was stolen well I have

R RI

Feedback & Observe Feedback & Reason

Evaluator Evaluator & Explainer

I I I

Clarify Clarify Clarify

Clarifier Clarifier Clarifier

32 33 34 35 36

I I I R =I dont know ((2)

Clarify Clarify Inform Reason

Clarifier Clarifier Responder Explainer

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

RI

23

me kidnapped me you know

37 38 39 40 41 its possible= = not really so lets say in eh one or two minutes that you swap youre your= I RI

RI

=Justin?=

Inquire Reason Feedback

Inquirer Explainer Evaluator Inquirer Explainer

I I

can you say=

Inquire Reason

42 43 =yes ((2)) (teacher goes to studentindistinguishable) (reading) =might you show me= =no no could you could you could you show me might you show me is very very very polite ((5)) (Class continues exercise) R

=might you show me=

Inquire Accept -

Inquirer Responder -

44 45 46 47 48

R I-I RI ((5)) R Justin

Feedback Feedback & Prompt Prompt

Evaluator Evaluator Explainer

49

RC

Inform & reason I I enclose[ I enclose my passport] Inquire

Explainer

Inquirer

50

51 52 53 54

=yes?... erm my passport details yes yes let me think you can say my passport details follow

RI R R RC

Inquire Inform Reflect Clarify

Inquirer Explainer Responder Clarifier

55 56 or [I enclose] my passport but that usually means ((3)) another R

RI

=I know but if=

Inform & disagree Clarify& Reason

Responder & Critic Clarifier & Explainer

57

=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

=Its just eh numbers here

Inquire

Inquirer

60

enclose and you put another piece of paper=

Reason

Explainer 24

61 62 63

=((4))= =yeah= R RI [((3))] so I take permission for something for example I I=

Accept Inquire

Responder Inquirer

64 65 66 67

=I know what you mean= yes=

R R I =I am living in Leeds=

Inform Accept Inquire Reflect

Responder Evaluator Inquirer Responder

=I see what you mean [ so you dont ((2))]

68

I-I

69

I-I

=and eh my passport was ((2)) the bus station in [Leeds] and I should give permission to the police and eh=

Inquire

Inquirer

Inform

Elaborator

70 71 72

=yeah= =yes=

R R RI =for example ((4)) is that ok?= =Its not a mistake? =((5))=

Encourage Encourage Inquire

Responder Responder Inquirer

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 =I think thats fine= RC =yes= R [sure sure] R

Inquire Feedback Feedback

Inquirer Evaluator Evaluator Responder Evaluator Inquirer

=yes thats all=

Confirm Feedback & Confirm Inquire

erm because I want to ((3)) first

80

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

RI

Feedback

Evaluator

81

RI

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

Inquire & Reason

Inquirer & Evaluator

82 83

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

RI I =and how information to appear?=

Inquire Inquire

Inquirer Inquirer

84

well ok I think that maybe they want you to write a letter

RI

Accept & Reason

Evaluator

85

[((4))]

25

86 87

[well] if youve done that =

RC RI [but] ((3)) details which eh

Feedback Inquire

Evaluator Inquirer

88

to I understand well yes [I mean yes]

Feedback

Evaluator

89

include no which eh contain?...

Inquire

Inquirer

90

yes yes well I would accept that but Im not sure whether 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 Kneser et 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 (Kneser et 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:
ESA CATEGORIES & NOTATIONS Initiate (I) Table 1: ESA categories ( source: Kneser et al 2001: 63-84) DEFINITIONS COMMENTS

Initial in the exchange, it predicts a subsequent turn by another participant and it is not predicted by the participant turn. 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 a well-formed exchange. However Respond is not always the terminal category in an exchange The ResponseComplement (RC) replaces the notation F for feedback in the sequence of InitiateRespond-<Feedback> (IR <F>) (Sinclair and Coulthard: 1975) We do not code this 26

Respond (R)

Response-Complement (RC)

The RC marks the point at which a new exchange may be naturally initiated.

Reinitiating (RI)

RI stands for Respond followed by a new Initiate

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. I-I sequences are due to role-swapping occur[ring] with apparently ill-formed I-I turns. I-I sequences are sometimes genuinely ill-formed; in which case they form islands with no response to them.

Initiate- Initiate (I-I) sequences

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:
Challenge Justify Clarify Feedback Inform Inquire Reason Table 2: Types of Moves in ESA ( source: Wishart and Guy 2009: 135) Statements requesting reasoning or fresh thinking Reply with evidence or contraindication Questions of clarification Evaluative statements Description/differentiation Questions requesting information 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 al 2001: 63-84) Argument Role ESA category Locus of Control Exchange Move Category expected to be in Dialogue Structure Role expected to be more frequent more frequent than average than average Explainer I Active Initiator Reason Elaborator I Active Inform Inquirer I Active Initiator Inquire Critic RI Active Reinitiator Challenge or 27

Clarifier Evaluator Narrator Explainer Elaborator

RI RC SA R R

Active Dominate Dominate Passive Passive

Reinitiator Finisher Continuer Responder Responder

Disagree & Justify Clarify Feedback Inform & Reason Reason Inform

respective roles (Table 3). As Kneser et 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 teachers gain 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 termed modes (61). The SETT framework identifies four fundamental modes, together with their typical pedagogic goals and interactional features. These are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively:
Table 1: L2 classroom modes (Revised) ( source: Walsh 2006: 94 ) Pedagogic goals Interactional features To transmit information A single, extended teacher turn To organize the physical learning environment which uses explanations and/or To refer learners to materials instructions To introduce or conclude an activity The use of transitional markers To change from one mode of learning to another The use of confirmation checks An absence of learner contributions To provide input or practice around a piece of Predominance of IRF pattern material Extensive use of display questions To elicit responses in relation to the material Form- focused feedback To check and display answers Corrective repair To clarify when necessary The use of scaffolding To evaluate contributions To enable learners to produce correct answers The use of direct repair To enable learners to manipulate new concepts The use of scaffolding To provide corrective feedback Extended teacher turns To provide learners with practice in sub- skills Display questions To display correct answers Teacher echo Clarification requests Form- focused feedback To enable learners to express themselves clearly Extended learner turns. To establish a context Short teacher turns To promote dialogue and discussion Minimal repair 28

Mode Managerial

Materials

Skills and systems

Classroom context

Content feedback Referential questions Scaffolding Clarification requests Table 2 Interactional features ( source: Walsh 2006: 67 ) Interactional feature Description Scaffolding (1) Reformulation (rephrasing a learners contribution). (2) Extension (extending a learners contribution). (3) Modelling (correcting a learners contribution). Direct repair Content feedback Extended wait- time Correcting an error quickly and directly. Giving feedback to the message rather than the words used. Allowing sufficient time (several seconds) for students to respond or formulate a response. Genuine questions to which the teacher does not know the answer. (1) Teacher asks a student to clarify something the student has said. (2) Student asks teacher to clarify something the teacher has said. checks Making sure that the teacher has correctly understood the learners contribution. Learner turn of more than one clause. (1) Teacher repeats a previous utterance. (2) Teacher repeats a learners contribution. Interrupting a learners contribution. Teacher turn of more than one clause. Completing a learners contribution for the learner. Asking questions to which the teacher knows the answer. Giving feedback on the words used, not the message.

(A)

(B) (C) (D)

(E) (F)

Referential questions Seeking clarification

(G)

Confirmation

(H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N)

Extended learner turn Teacher echo Teacher interruptions Extended teacher turn Turn completion Display questions Form- focused feedback

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

Table: Tutor Interactional features

Interactional feature A- Scaffolding Description 1. Reformulation (rephrasing a learners contribution). 2. Extension (extending a learners contribution). 3. Modelling (correcting a learners contribution) Correcting an error Tally 1 Examples from lesson excerpt Turn: 36 you can say my passport details follow Turn: 36 you can say my passport details follow Turn: 24 been stolen means I! have been stolen you know somebody has taken me kidnapped me you know Turns:15-16 29

B- Direct repair

quickly and directly.

C- Content feedback

D- Extended waittime

E- Referential questions F- Seeking clarification G- Teacher echo

Giving feedback to the message rather than the words used. Allowing sufficient time (several seconds) for students to respond or formulate a response. Genuine questions to which the teacher does not know the answer. Teacher asks a student to clarify something the student has said. 1. Teacher repeats a previous utterance.

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 Turn: 34 could you show me might you show me is very very very polite Turn: 61 erm let me think ((3))= yes I see what you mean you say ((3))= Turn:7 have you discussed what Turn: 63 =why would you want to do that?... 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 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 Turn: 34 could you show me might you show me is very very very polite Turn: 35-36 L: I enclose[ I enclose my passport T: [yes?... erm my passport details Turn:1 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?= Turn:17-18 L: =stole= T: ((3))=stole somebody stole //

23

2. Teacher repeats a learners contribution. H- Teacher interruptions Interrupting a learners contribution.

11

I- Extended teacher turn

Teacher turn of more than one clause.

27

J- Turn completion

Completing a learners contribution for the learner. Asking questions to which the teacher knows the answer. Giving feedback on the words used, not the message.

K- Display questions

00

L- Form- focused feedback

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 was stolen by well my passport was stolen well I have

30