Portraits of Interaction in a Foreign Language Classroom

Articulo publicado en:

ENLETAWA JOURNAL. No. 1. 2008
Revista de la Maestria en Docencia de Idiomas
Programa de la Facultad de Ciencias de la Educacion, Escuela de Idiomas
Universidad Pedagogica y Tecnologica de Colombia

Abstract
This study applies the methodology of Conversation Analysis (CA) as a way to categorise and analyse the talk produced in a foreign Language Classroom. The transcripts of six fragments of a lesson, which were video-recorded, will be used to identify some of the characteristics and organisation of the interactive exchange circulating when teaching English.

Although the machinery that underpins the act of communication in the institutional setting of the classroom could be extensively examined, the current study focuses its attention on just two particular features of organization: repair in the form of clarification request and confirmation check, and turn-taking. The pedagogical agenda of the teacher appears to provide opportunities for learning and negotiation of meaning and displays some traces of interaction promoted to engage foreign language learners in conversation, although the lesson is still highly controlled by the teacher. The analysis might be used to raise teacher awareness about how to create more opportunities for foreign language learning.

Key Words: Conversation Analysis (CA), Classroom Interaction, Foreign Language Teaching.

1.Introduction

This study emerged as an intention to analyse teacher talk in a foreign language classroom and in an attempt to reveal the language mediating the process of interaction between teacher & learners in a foreign language setting. It is also a criterion to understand some of the main issues resulting from the pedagogical agenda and the communicative exchange as participants become involved in conversation.

What happens in a foreign language context in terms of classroom talk has been a matter of analysis and research in apparently recent studies (van Lier, 1988, 1996; Seedhouse, 2004; Walsh, 2006) and the insights which have emerged undoubtedly construct foundations to understanding the complexity of the dynamics resulting from the language used as a perspective to portray an amazing micro-world of meaningful dialogue.

The study builds up from some of the approaches used by CA to interpret the data gathered to analyse some of the main issues arising when a teacher and a group of adult foreign language learners commit themselves through a course of action and engagement, in an attempt to learn the target language. Two main constructs will be analysed: repair in the form of clarification request and confirmation check and turn taking.

The transcripts of over -5- minutes talks in a monolingual Spanish setting are used to understand that language is produced under complex dynamics ranging between pedagogical goals, interaction patterns or traces of communicative exchange and authenticity, because ‘the classroom is in principle and in potential just as communicative or uncommunicative as any other speech setting, no more, no less’ (van Lier, 1988: 267).

2. Views of classroom talk

The foreign language classroom can be defined as an extraordinary micro-world where plenty of situations, experiences and linguistic interventions take place. The complex reality and structure, relationship and language that underline most of its functions attract the attention of linguists and researchers for the purpose of generating understanding and interpretation of some of the features revealing and portraying some of its most common actions.

Such a unique picture of a daily contextual live scene where potential communicators, constructors and de-constructors of meaning, and eventually producers of knowledge get together under the label of teachers and learners becomes in itself worthy of attention a place to look at when attempting to approach some of its dynamics. The variety of contexts that emerge in the classroom, the opportunities created for the negotiation of meaning, the way input-output is provided or simply the dimension of its participants’ talk, create a potential scenario for understanding some of the characteristics for second language acquisition.

Johnson (1995) highlights the importance of communication in the foreign language classroom and anticipates that understanding it is not a simple task. Any opportunity planned with the intention of engaging learners through the use of the target language is attempting to generate and propitiate second language learning. The results in terms of competence achievement or success should be understood under a variety of circumstances including the learners’ background, motivation or commitment.

In second language classrooms, the language, whether it is English or another language, is the medium through which teachers teach, and students demonstrate what they have learned. Acquiring that language is the ultimate instructional goal of second language education. (p. 3). The point of discussion here has to deal with the function of conversation in the process of second language learning. Wells (1985) claims that ‘children develop language in and through meaningful interaction with their caretakers’. For second language acquisition the process seems to be rather similar. Hatch (1978) claims that ‘conversational or discourse structure forms the basis for development of syntax. In this view conversation is a sine qua non for language acquisition’.

If communication is a key matter for second language acquisition, the interaction that feeds the whole process is then crucial. Everything a teacher does in order to engage learners talk and learning goes in the direction of creating opportunities for communicative competence to be strengthened. The patterns of communication are continuously deconstructed and reconstructed by the variables determining the direction of the classroom talk. The participants create and agree on conditions for communication to be fostered, and the classroom itself establishes certain rules of authentic dialogues emerging and maintained within its own borders.

The talk mediating most of the classroom actions creates, to some extent, and for many learners, the only opportunity they have to use and learn the target language. The teacher becomes the main source of input and correction for any non-appropriate forms of communication which arise and she/he is responsible for promoting or inhibiting learning. The communicative behaviour of the participants is permanently shaped by the way interaction is fostered and maintained and the teacher plays a unique role in such endeavour.

There are still many constructs to be revealed when understanding some of the theoretical beliefs, experience or professional knowledge that underpin most of the actions undertaken by a foreign language teacher inside the classroom. The way she/he controls and keeps the flow of communication, creates opportunities for learning, corrects mistakes or establishes the conditions for the negotiation of meaning, among many others, are certainly a matters of interest and endless debate, research and involve former and current trends about second language acquisition.

3. Methodology

Transcripts of an over -5- minutes classroom video-recorded talk of a lesson in English as a Foreign language in a Spanish School, were used to collect data to provide the necessary foundations to approach, to some extent, the context of the lesson, its pedagogical goals and some of the features that underpin the task-based interaction with the aim of revealing the voices of that particular classroom. An experienced foreign language teacher, whose methodology and confident linguistic and pedagogic behaviour transmit a good sense of professional performance, was video-recorded.

Six extracts were chosen in order to carry out the current analysis. Each turn was carefully interpreted building up a connection with current trends in Second Language Acquisition, communication in the foreign language classroom and CA research and theoretical foundations.

The questions below are intended to be answered in this study:

1. To what extent does the model of repair submitted by the foreign language teacher engage learner-learner interaction?

2. What does turn-taking strategies reveal about classroom talk?

4. Leaning and teaching setting

The setting portrays a group of 20 adult-learners, studying English in a monolingual context -Spanish- 19 females and 1 male, showing a great level of motivation and learning engagement, willing to participate in the activities planned and responding with resolution to the tasks as the teacher involves them through the teaching agenda.

There is certain limited communicative ability (turns 12, 18, 35, 45, 60) which may presumably suggest that they belong to a pre-intermediate level, but additionally, because of the range of vocabulary used in the class and the linguistic structure scheduled as a pedagogical goal, used to. It seems that they have achieved certain previous command of the target language. Because of the particular L2 features revealed by most of the learners whose voices are heard in the video-recording of the lesson, they share a similar background and there is no sign of any learner with a dominant speaking skill over the rest of the class.

Some features regarding involvement and classroom context can be easily identified: Laughs, friendly and non-threatening atmosphere, cooperative communication are permanent and recognizable features of the learning situation. Both teacher and learners look highly engaged and the picture gained from the classroom creates a sense of an ideal context for target language achievement.

5. Data analysis: Traces of an interaction-oriented classroom

A good number of the actions regulating the conversational patterns between teacher and learners have to be explained from the way repair circulates and underpins most of the communication taking place in the foreign language classroom. ‘Conversational repair is viewed by SLA researchers as the sociopsychological engine that enables learners to get comprehended input’ (Markee, 2000 cited in Seedhouse, 2004: 141). Though repair is basically understood as the way teachers correct the arisen learners’ L2 mistakes, or in the words of Seedhouse (2004: 143) ‘as the treatment of trouble occurring in interactive language use’, those communicative forms of classroom interaction adopt a flexible organization and structure.

It is widely accepted that genuine communication under the model of repair is characterised through, for example, clarification requests and confirmation checks (Cullen 1998: 182) and for some extended practices where learners ‘should be encouraged to ask for information, seek clarification, express an opinion, agree or disagree with peers and teachers’ (Kumaravadivelu, 1993:12).

This study will then analyse some characteristics of repair in the form of clarification request and confirmation check as two of the main issues that emerged in the focussed foreign language classroom studied.

5.1. Clarification request

van Lier (1988b: 274) mentions that ‘one of the most common speech acts in the classroom is the question’. Questioning is then one of the most recurrent strategies used by teachers with the intention of creating atmospheres for target language use and interaction flow. Although the teacher, most of the time unfortunately, is the one in charge of establishing and controlling the conditions under either ‘a question-answer routine or sequence’ (ibid), it is through the display of questions that most of the pedagogical focus is addressed and achieved.

Clarification request is then understood as an interactive construct settled as part of the communicative tasks aimed at fostering interaction in the foreign language classroom. The teacher uses the clarification request as a strategy for skill empowerment and talk to be promoted. There is no point in reminding that any process of teaching and learning a foreign language relies on communication as a basic principle for second language acquisition.

Walsh (2006: 121) mentions that ‘facial expressions, single interjections, or direct questions all serve the same function: Seek clarification, compelling learners to reformulate what they have said’. He also mentions that ‘by accepting a response that is only partially understood, teachers may be doing their learners a great disservice, again passing over a learning opportunity, constructing a smooth-flowing discourse, but missing a valuable opportunity to clarify’ (p. 121).

The next extracts were selected to establish some crucial stages in the lesson where interaction was highly addressed.

Extract 1: (in turns 7-12)

07 S2: I used to play with my sisters at home
08 S1: I (0.1) didn’t.
09 T: you didn’t?
10 S1: no
11 T: did you like er, do you have any. I mean have you got sisters

or brothers to play with?
12 S1: yes, er. (.) I was ((L1 use)). I’m, er (0.1) one sister, but I was, er ten years,
he was (0.2) one year.

Extract 1 illustrates a potential seek clarification situation that fits into the model as previously mentioned by Walsh (2006). The pedagogical agenda of the teachers switches in favour of routes for communication and understanding and interaction copes with this part of the lesson; the teacher certainly opens a door for communication to be maintained. Another extra feature to be mentioned here is that in seeking clarification she builds it up from a question made by another student previously (turn 7) serving to engage the other learner through a dialogic intervention (turn 9) .

The teacher creates an opportunity for the student to learn and through it she involves her in an authentic communicative situations taking place in the classroom certainly, but not obeying the pre-established rules of the pedagogical agenda and thus generating room for real interaction to take place and learning to be strengthened as the learner is able to react communicatively to the request made (turn 12).

It is generally believed ‘that teachers who do not always accept the first contribution a student offers are more likely to maximise learning potential than those who do not’ (Walsh, 2002: 12). What is clearly illustrated is that the teacher establishes the conditions for creating opportunities for learning and the classroom appears as a context for authentic communication to be promoted. Those unpredictable questions, which emerge, place the act of interaction in a dimension where communication flows unplanned and at that particular moment the classroom resembles what happens in any informal or even formal social exchange (turn 11).

The teacher talk is characterised by the use of ‘referential’ questions ‘to which she/he does not know the answer and which therefore has a genuine communicative purpose’ (Cullen, 1998: 181). If the classroom does not entirely follow the patterns of communication taking place in outdoor settings, it should be understood from the perspective that the rules and conventions of the classroom are different and that it is conceived ‘for pedagogical rather social reasons’ (Cullen, 1998: 181). However, nobody can deny that such extracts of linguistic-social exchange takes place beyond the frontiers of the classroom as well, because any language user, native or non-native, permanently faces similar requests when using the language for any kind of purpose.

Extract 2: (in turns 24-31)

24 S4: I didn’t. I used to go with my friends
25 T: Did you? And what did you do with (0.2)

what did you use to do with your
friends? Or what did you use to go, or do?
26 S4: mm (0.5) we used to (0.6) to walk, er
27 T: [hmmm, along
28 S4 along (place name)
29 T: right. Did you use to go and (0.2)

for a picnic from time to time with your
Friends?
30 S4: yes, sometimes hmm (0.3) on Saturdays, for example.
31 T: hmmm, yes. Did you enjoy it? Yes?

The teacher appears to understand in extract 2 that the focus of the lesson can be mismatched (turn 25) and as the first part of question seems to go in an uncontrolled direction according to the teaching goal, she redirects the interactional objective to make sure the next couple of questions, in the same turn -25-, were clearly restated under the structure of ‘used to’, though at the end of the extract (turn 31) communication seems to take control by itself again.

Some relevant paralinguistic features are introduced here that clearly create a sense of cooperative construction and as a principle for language learning that ‘arises not through interaction but in interaction’ (Ellis, 2000: 209). The teacher intentionally signposts through body language (laughs or facial expressions) and clearly creates a sense of cooperation and communication flow or single interjections (Walsh, 2006: 121) such as ‘hummm’ (turns 27 & 31) or utterances of approval such as ‘yes’ (turn 31) that establish the conditions of this lesson as a setting where the teacher provides plenty of opportunities for learning through language use.

Although the pedagogical goals remain established and the linguistic features resulting from the participants’ interventions are clearly approached, the use of the form ‘used to’, in the teacher’s questions (turns 25 & 29) and the response of the leaner accepts the structure as a rule to be followed (turn 26), the level of interaction forces the participants to follow less-established or agreed criteria and both accept to be ruled by communication imposing its own rules and portraying some features of authentic linguistic and social exchange (turns 30 & 31).

The teaching goal goes beyond the control of the language produced by the learners and there is no any attempt to obstruct the communicative effort the learner tries to use (turns 26-28 & 30). The teacher’s sense of cooperation, tolerance and negotiation potentially portrays a situation lived in the foreign language classroom where opportunities for learning appear to be clearly scheduled in the teacher’s pedagogical purpose.

Some other features revealed as a subject of interpretation have to deal with how to promote student–student interaction because the lesson is still entirely initiated, controlled and guided by the teacher (turns 25, 27, 29, 31) and students appear not to be ready to assume the guidance yet themselves. There is still a kind of teacher-centred responsibility in the way interaction is controlled and there are still many constructs left to reveal when re-placing the role of the teacher as promoter of student-student interaction because it ‘may actually be more important for educational success than teacher-student interaction’ (Johnson, 1995: 112).

In spite of the claims about the artificiality of the language produced in the classroom and the need to naturalise it, in the sense of mirroring ‘it less as a classroom and more as any other place’ (van Lier, 1996: 123)- the airport, a social meeting, a pub, a surgery appointment, etc.- such attempts are clearly paradoxes, because ‘it then becomes unauthentic as a classroom’ (van Lier, 1996: 123). There is no point ‘suggesting that classrooms only need to replicate communicative behaviour outside the classroom in order to become communicative’ (Cullen, 1998: 181).

The utterances produced in the interactive intervention of that particular momentum in the classroom (Extract 2) are not too far from any daily life context where two partners meet to exchange information as a mater of social interaction, even if we have to label them as potentially occurring among non-natives or native - non-native speakers’ communications.


5.2. Confirmation check

It has already been said that a way to elicit students’ participation in the foreign language classroom is through the use of questioning. Although most of the questions asked are display ones (whose answer is known by the teacher), it is still one of the accepted ways to foster communication. The teacher asks questions to make sure he ‘has correctly understood learner’s contribution’ (Walsh, 2006: 168). That particular way to test understanding of students turns is called confirmation check.

Some samples of confirmation check are identified through the interpretation of the data gathered. This feature of classroom interaction serves to expand a little more on the analysis of the lesson portrayed as a micro-world for communicative exchange.

Extract 3: (in turns 37, 38)

37 S6: French, and sometimes ((L1 use)) (0.4)

when I have er (0.5) a big time
I er (0.8) pass my (0.4) my holidays on er (0.4)

climb ((pronounced [klImb]))
38 T: yes, you spend your holidays emm (0.3) practicing exercise, you mean
climbing up and down the mountains?


One of the most interesting features of extract 3 is the way the teacher is able to get across the message and ensure that communication takes place . Acting as a partner willing to grasp the meaning and help the learner to keep the channels for communicative exchange open creates a potential model for interaction to flow (turn 38). There are no restrictions in terms of accuracy or appropriateness and the learner is fully aware that she counts on a partner –the teacher- ready to help her to be understood.

The communicative intervention that emerged as the result of task-involvement mirrors an engaged setting where learning takes place through models of interaction and language use. The teacher even takes advantage of the situation to the extent of enlarging the learner’s range of vocabulary (turn 38). Language input is provided as required beyond the lesson plan or the teaching agenda, as teacher talk is now generally recognised, ‘as a potentially valuable source of comprehensible input for the learner’ (Collen, 1998: 179 )as well as being the same as to be ‘essential for language acquisitio’ (Krashen, 1981).

The leaner contribution certainly lacks the features to be measured in terms of correctness or appropriate structure (turn 37) but in compensation she feels her attempt to get across the message has been successfully understood and that learning is occurring as the target language operates as a vehicle for the expression of meaning.

Extract 4: (in turns 91-94)

91 S7: I used to err (0.6) working a nurse
92 T: as a nurse?
93 S7: as a nurse
94 T: oh good! she used to work as a nurse. and er (0.2) another one


Extract 4 provides another example of confirmation check. The teachers again uses her ability to decode the meaning (turn 92) in spite of the problems in structure as uttered by the leaner (turn 91) and becomes more interested in fostering communicative confidence instead. There is no attempt to claim these utterances to be unrealistic or authentic because of the context where they are produced.

The classroom itself ‘is in principle and in potential just as communicative or uncommunicative as any other speech setting, no more, no less’ (van Lier, 1988: 267) and that intervention (turn 94) was as naturally produced as if it were uttered by two partners who agreed with a social exchange and language use. The point is then that the ‘classroom work must be interaction that is authentic to the setting’ (van Lier, 1988: 267).

In making sure the teacher has understood (turn 92) what the learner wants to mean (turn 91) she maintains a channel for communication to flow. It is unfortunately not completely clear to what extent this teacher is fully aware of most of the principles that underpin her teaching behavior in the classroom, but what seems to be undeniable is that most of her actions are directed to creating opportunities for learning to emerge and interaction to take place. Most of her attitudes and friendly image as a cooperative partner create a sense of awareness of the foreign language classroom as a potential space for interaction to be promoted.

5.3. Turn-taking

One of the most important characteristics of the talk taking place in the classroom has to deal with the rules controlling interaction in the form of turn-taking. It is basically understood that any structure towards the dialogic intervention of a few or a large number of partners wanting to communicate in a classroom should be governed by certain criteria, either imposed or previously agreed by the members of the speech community: teacher and learners, but generally regulated by a pedagogical agenda wishing to cope with the constraints of the curriculum or the institutional plan.

Teaching talking time (TTT) has been a matter of discussion and research interest for decades. Although there is a claim that ‘any attempt to understand the nature of classroom discourse should focus on quality rather than quantity by recognizing the important relationship between language use and pedagogic purpose’ (Walsh 2002: 4) there is still a kind of obscure attraction not easy to avoid in terms of quantity when looking at turn-taking in a foreign language classroom, because ‘a particular pedagogical focus is reflexively related to a particular speech exchange system’ (Seedhouse, 2004: 101).

The features revealing the way interaction takes place during the lesson time analysed mirror 111 turns, 50 of them taken by the teacher and only 51 undertaken by her counterparts: 20 learners. 13 had the chance to talk, certainly, however 7 remained silent. We can not measure opportunities for learning in terms of quantity because, anyway, the time of the lesson analysed is very short indeed; however there is still a kind of tight teacher control of the turn taking system and she is undoubtedly assuming the direction of most of the communicative exchange mediating the language classroom.

Extract 5 will support some of the findings related to turn taking in the lesson described in this study:

Extract 5: (in turns 52-66)

52 S1: true and the second is false.
53 T: right, so. You have a perfectly right, so er
54 S1: two points
55 T: two points for group B, two points. Right er (0.1)

Sonia and er Paquita, come on.
56 S2: Sonia w (0.2) when Sonia was ten er (0.3) she used to live on a farm
57 T: on a farm? Good. Another one?
58 S2: er (0.3) when Sonia was (0.2) five she used to have bl (0.2)

very blonde hair.
59 T: ((laughing)) good. What about you?

oh I have forgotten about yours Margarita. All right?
60 S3: er (0.3) when Paquita was ten I used er (0.4) to speak five language.
61 T: she used to speak five languages, or you? Paquita or you?
62 S3: Paquita.
63: T: Paquita used to speak five languages, good. And another one?
64 S3: er (0.4) when she er (0.3) he was er four I used to help emm his mother.
65 T: you used to help her mother.
66 S3: in cooking.

What extract 5 reveals is not precisely the best picture of a balanced turn taking scenario. There are 4 people involved in the communicative exchange and nearly half of the turns are controlled and taken by the teacher (7), while 3 learners share the remaining turns (8) in a sort of pre-defined pattern of interaction: S1 (twice), S2 (twice), and S3 (4 times). The teacher is the one who initiates, maintains and ends communication and the learners only tend to respond to what the pedagogical focus is asking them to follow.

The structure of the conversation follows a fixed and controlled TST (teacher– student - teacher) scheme for interaction, where T maintains the flow of communication mainly through a question (turn 59) and S fulfils the demands imposed by her/his occasional partner (turn 60). There is only one attempt by S to initiate the exchange (turn 54) but as the T is the one in charge of the communicative load and focus, and interaction should move on according to the pedagogical purpose, although the response of the S is validated and recognised, it ends there without any chance to expand on meaning as the leaner attempted to do.

There is no point in raising the alarm and looking at the figures coldly. The classroom should follow its own dynamics and the teacher is the person in charge of such endeavour. However the picture reveals that half of the interaction time is assumed by the teacher and learners have only a very little chance to make themselves understood. Such an image of the communication taking place in the classroom ‘leads to a learner role which is reactive rather than proactive, and this means that opportunities for initiative or choice in participation are minimised’ (van Lier, 1988: 274).

The teacher makes use of a range of questions in attempting to engage the learners through the act of communication, but in such an effort she is the only one in charge of the course of interaction. Students rarely initiate any communicative exchange and the teacher nominates who should respond in the next turn. Each participants seems to have her/his own opportunity to answer the questions put by the teacher, generally stated under a tight control of the turn taking system that allocates each one’s intervention. It is eventually expanded a little more with an extra question but provides very few opportunities for learners to have on no more than two turns (56 & 58) in most of the cases and only a few of them cross over the fence to 4 turns as a maximum (60, 62, 64, 66).

The teacher’s interest is clearly concentrated on promoting fluency rather than accuracy, for that reason she ‘does not attempt at any point to correct minor linguistic errors, as these did not impede communication’ (Seedhouse, 2004: 117). The teachers works cooperatively as a partner and gets the message across easily (turn 65) creating the conditions for the learner to make certain decision in making the resolution to take her own turn (turn 66), even if the attempt ends there because the teacher allocates a new turn to somebody else.

Some other features characterising the turn taking system reveal that apart from the tight control of the communicative exchange mediating the features of interaction in the classroom, a kind of unbalanced meaning and linguistic load supports each utterance produced by the teacher and the learners. While the teacher’s utterances expand on the complex and full context addressed (turns 90, 94, 96, 99), the utterances of the students lie on ‘elliptical responses, often in the form of isolated words, rarely longer than a phrase’ (van Lier, 1988: 275) (turns 87, 89, 93, 95, 98) as illustrated in extract 6 below:

Extract 6: (turns 87 – 99)

87 S8: a snake
88 T: a snake?
89 S8: yes.
90 T: my goodness! She used to have a snake at home. Right remember them. What about you, Carmen? Tell me something incredible
about you.
91 S7: I used to err (0.6) working a nurse.
92 T: as a nurse?
93 S7: as a nurse.
94 T: oh good! She used to work as a nurse. And er (0.2) another one.
95 S7: er (0.3) Santa Marina er
96 T: no, another sentence. A new one. Another one, yes.
98 S7: only one now.
99 T: ((laughing)) just one sentence! And enough for you. a lot of work, all right. Could you tell me if emm (0.3) just to finish if er (0.2) it is false?

The foreign language classroom portrays a turn taking system highly manipulated and determined by the teacher who, though creating certain opportunities for skill empowerment and learning to occur, inhibits and determines most of the patterns of interaction promoted. The teacher’s talking time still remains very high and most of the communicative load is placed on the teacher’s action rather than on the learners. The effects of such a classroom atmosphere on learning and second language acquisition will still occupy the interest of research and further studies for some decades, surely. Final answers are nowhere near being reached.

Conclusion

Communication directs most of the actions of the lesson and learners count on a cooperative partner, the teacher, ready to help and able to establish principles for fluency rather than linguistic focus. Though there is still a very tight and controlled scheme based on questioning as a way to initiate communication, students are able to succeed under the parameters of the pedagogical agenda of the lesson planned and the communicative features reveal some good attempts to generate authentic communication in the foreign language classroom.
Most of the lesson time is devoted to fostering foreign language communication and the teachers manages to provide contexts for language use and the expression of meaning. Although there are some established linguistic targets, the teacher is fully aware that the goal to be achieved relies on empowering foreign language learning through principles of negotiation for meaning and communicative exchange.

Most of the communicative responsibility is placed on the teacher who decides, controls and makes decisions about the initiation, flow and end of interaction. Some more action and decision making should be placed on learners as the ones responsible for their own learning. The turn taking system is entirely controlled and dependant on the teacher and students are still not willing to assume some degree of control of communication emerging through interaction among themselves.

CA should be used to raise foreign language teachers awareness about the process of foreign language teaching and learning. If interaction is at the heart of it, what teachers plan, do, reflect and critically evaluate might create better and more successful context for foreign language achievement. Although the pedagogical agenda should be unavoidable and not easy to reject, foreign language teachers should analyse in more detail, through research and theoretical foundations ideally, that the opportunity to be in the classroom is unique and that learning is far more than the manipulation of pre-established linguistic patterns.

Appendices

Appendix 1:

Transcription system:

The transcription system is taken from Walsh (2006) and adapted from van Lier (1988b) and Johnson (1995).

T teacher
L learner (not identified)
L1: L2: etc. identified learner
/ok/ok/ok/ overlapping or simultaneous utterances by more than one learner
[do you understand?]} overlap between teacher and learner
[I see]
= turn continues, or one turn follows another without any pause
… pause of one second or less marked by three periods
(4) silence; length given in seconds
? rising intonation –question or other
CORrect emphatic speech: falling intonation
((4)) unintelligible 4 seconds: a stretch of unintelligible speech with the
length given in seconds
Rosa, Alisa, Paquita capitals are only used for proper nouns




Appendix 2:
Transcripts

1 S1: Er (0.4) when I was a child (0.3) I used to be very fat but now I don’t eat
too much, and I was thin.
2 T: yes, great. what about you? can you make=
3 S2: [no I didn’t. I was very thin, and (0.3) I used to have short blonde hair
4 T: really? ((laughs))
5 S1: and what did use to (0.5) to do in your spare time?
6 T : yes.
7 S2: I used to play with my sisters at home.
8 S1: I (0.1) didn’t.
9 T: you didn’t?
10 S1: no.
11 T: did you like er, do you have any. I mean have you got sisters or
brothers to play with?
12 S1: yes, er (.) I was (0.2) well ((L1 use)). I’m, er (0.1) one sister, but I was, er ten years, he was (0.2) one year.
13 T: oh, I see, so different ages, good. What about you two, Alisa and (0.2)
Rosa?
14 S3: er ( .) what did you use to look like as a child?
15 S4: I used to have short hair.
16 S3: er oh, I didn’t. I used to have long hair.
17 T: did you? Long hair? What about now? What have you done with
your long hair?
18 S3: is more (0.3) ((L1 use)=
19 T: =[comfortable.
20 S3: comfortable.
21 T: yes, good!
22 S4: er (0.4) what did you use to do in your spare time?
23 S3: er (0.3) I used to play tennis.
24 S4: I didn’t. I used to go with my friends.
25 T: did you? and what did you do with (0.2) what did you use to
do with your friends? What did you use to play with your friends?
or what did you use to go, or do?
26 S4 mm (0.5) we used to (0.6) to walk, er
27 T: [hmmm, along
28 S4: along ((place name))
29 T: right. Did you use to go and (0.2) for a
picnic from time to time with your friends?
30 S4: yes, sometimes hmm (0.3) on Saturdays, for example.
31 T: hmmm, yes. Did you enjoy it? Yes?
32 S4: yes
33 T: right, what about you two?
34 S5: er (0.1) what did you use er (0.3) to er (0.3) spend your holidays?
35 S6: I used to go (0.5) Europe=
36 T: = to Europe
37 S6: French and, and sometimes (( L1 use)) (0.4) when I have er (0.5)
a big time I er (0.8) pass my (0.4) my holidays on er (0.4) climb ((pronounced [klImb]))

38 T: yes, you spend your holidays emm (0.3) practising exercise, you
mean climbing up and down the mountains?
39 S6: yeah.
40 T: with your friends?
41 S6: yeah.
42 T: and you, and you?
43 S5: no I didn’t=
44 T: = you didn’t. You don’t look like a (0.2) a climber.
45 S5: no, I spend (0.4) I used to spend my holidays in Palencia.
Or, er (0.5) I used to emm (0.3) go to know er the outs the
outskirts, the (0.4) Mad (0.3) of Madrid.
46 T: good.
47 S5: er the bor (0.4) bordering province.
48 T: yes, good. So you …
49 S5: such as Madrid, Segovia, Toledo
50 T: right. It’s a very good thing at least you know places, and er
anybody can tell me …
(A new scene)
51 T: right, so (0.2) um you are going to (.1) for example, every pair of students every pair of you er (0.3) to think or to say aloud three (0.4) Well, three would be too much, two, two each eh? Two each four altogether. Two sentences talking about er (0.2) past habits eh? Past routines, but the more incredible the better. Do you know why? Because then the other group hmmm (0.1) has to tell if the sentences they said were true or false, right?
(A new scene)
52 S1: true and the second is false.
53 T: right, so. You have a perfectly right, so er
54 S1: two points
55 T: two points for group B, two points. Right er (0.1) Sonia
and er Paquita, come on.
56 S2: Sonia w (0.2) when Sonia was ten er (0.3) she used to live on a farm
57 T: on a farm? Good. Another one?
58 S2: er (0.3) when Sonia was (0.2) five she used to have bl (0.2) very
blonde hair.
59 T: ((laughing)) good. What about you? oh I have forgotten about yours Margarita. All right?
60 S3: er (0.3) when Paquita was ten I used er (0.4) to speak five language.
61 T: she used to speak five languages, or you? Paquita or you?
62 S3: Paquita.
63: T: Paquita used to speak five languages, good. And another one?
64 S3: er (0.4) when she er (0.3) he was er four I used to help emm his mother.
65 T: you used to help her mother.
66 S3: in cooking.
67 T: cooking, doing the cooking and so on? What’s your opinion er on
Paquita’s sentences, true or false?
68 S4: I think er (0.2) the last sentence in (0.3) is true and er (0.3) first is false.
69 T: what’s your opinion? Were you bluffing or were you telling the truth?
70 S2: I er (0.2) was bluffing.
71 T: you were bluffing? Number one, so?
72 S2: no.
73 S5: yes!
74 S2: no, the two. The two sentences are er (0.1) bluffing.
75 T: so, how many points?
76 S6: one.
77 T: only one? Ok, but I forgot about Margarita, so I have to for (0.2)
forget about it. So only one person in each group, all right?
What about you two? come on.
78 S7: when did you (0.4)?
79 T: ((laughing)) don’t be so impatient, Carmen.
80 S8 er (0.3) no, er (0.2) Carmen, the last year er (0.2) met er handsome man
er and she is going to get married with.
81 S7: yes, I am going to marry! This year.
82 T: we are not using used to, but it’s ok. And the second one? Try to use
used to.
83 S8: ok er (0.3) er she used to (0.4) to have emm (0.1) emm emm (10.3) I don’t (0.2) know.
84 T: a small (0.4)? cat at home?
85 S8: no (0.5) in the
86 T: [a what?
87 S8: a snake
88 T: a snake?
89 S8: yes.
90 T: my goodness! She used to have a snake at home. Right remember them. What about you, Carmen? Tell me something incredible about you.
91 S7: I used to err (0.6) working a nurse.
92 T: as a nurse?
93 S7: as a nurse.
94 T: oh good! She used to work as a nurse. And er (0.2) another one.
95 S7: er (0.3) Santa Marina er
96 T: no, another sentence. A new one. Another one, yes.
98 S7: only one now.
99 T: ((laughing)) just one sentence! And enough for you. a lot of work, all right. Could you tell me if emm (0.3) just to finish if er (0.2) it is false?
100 S2: I think, er (0.4) your name?
101 S1: Antratxa.
102 S2: Antratxa is bluffing.
103 T: yes?
104 S2: in both.
105 T: in both?
106 S9: in both.
107 T: were you bluffing?
108 S9: yes, I was.
109 T: So you are completely right, so=
110 S9: =two points
111 T: poi (0.2) no two points. Team B. ok. So we cannot go on. So we can say that the winner is (0.4) group B.

Bibliography

Cullen, R (1998). Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal. Volume 52/3 July 1998. Oxford university Press.

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 49: 193-220

Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse Analysis and Second Language Acquisition. In E. Hatch (ed.), Second Language Acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Johnson, K.E (1995). Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and second Language Learning. Oxford. Pergamon

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). Maximising learning potential in the communicative classroom. ELT Journal 47/1: 12-21

Seedhouse, P (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. London, Blackwell

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

Van Lier, L. (1988b) ‘What’s wrong with classroom talk?’ Prospect, 3:267-83

Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity. New York. Longman

Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6,1. pp. 3-23

Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. London: Routledge

Wells, G. (1985). Language Development in the Pre-School Years. Cambridge University Press.