Identification and Distribution of Interactional Contexts in EFL Classes: The Effect of Two Contextual Factors

Document Type: Research Paper


1 Ph.D.Candidate, University of Tehran (Corresponding author)

2 Associate Professor, University of Tehran


This study aims at empirically furthering awareness of the organization of interaction in EFL classes. Informed by the methodological framework of conversation analysis, it draws upon a corpus of 52 three-hour naturally-occurring classroom interaction to identify classroom interactional contexts based on the structuring of the pedagogic goals in turn-taking sequences. Conversation analytic procedures were then paired with quantitative procedures to explore the distribution of the identified contexts within the macro-context of classroom discourse and to investigate the effect of interaction-external factors, i.e., teachers’ training and learners’ levels of language proficiency, on the distribution of the identified contexts. Analyses of extracts from the transcribed data led to the emergence of four interactional contexts: form-oriented, meaning-oriented, skill-oriented, and management-oriented. As to their distribution, form-oriented and skill-oriented contexts were found to be constitutive of the bulk of interaction, with meaning-oriented context comprising the smallest proportion. A two-way multivariate analysis of variance revealed that the distribution of all identified contexts was significantly affected by learners’ levels of language proficiency. Teachers’ training had a significant main effect on just form-oriented and management-oriented contexts. The findings of this study draw teachers and teacher educators’ attention to the necessity of a change in the status quo of EFL classroom interaction.


Article Title [Persian]

شناسایی و توزیع بافت‌های تعاملی در کلاس‌های زبان بیگانه‌ی انگلیسی: بررسی تأثیر دو عامل محیطی

Authors [Persian]

  • مصطفی پورحاجی 1
  • سیدمحمد علوی 2
Abstract [Persian]

هدف مطالعه‌ی حاضر افزایش آگاهی در زمینه‌ی ساختار تعامل در کلاسهای زبان بیگانه‌ی انگلیسی است. با استفاده از چارچوب متدولوژیکی گفتمانکاوی، تعاملات کلاسی پنجاه و دو معلم به مدت سه ساعت ضبط و جمع‌آوری گردید تا بافت‌های تعاملیبر اساس اهداف آموزشی در توالی نوبت‌ها شناسایی شوند. سپس با تلفیق روش گفتمان‌کاوی با روش‌های کمی، توزیع بافت‌های تعاملی و تاثیر عوامل محیطی، شامل توانش زبانی شاگردان و تربیت (آموزش) معلمین، مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. با تحلیل گفتمان‌کاوانه‌ی اطلاعات تحریری، چهار بافت تعاملی، شامل بافت‌هایی با محوریت ساختار، معنا، مهارت، و مدیریت، مورد شناسایی قرار گرفت. بررسی توزیع بافت‌ها نشان داد که بخش عمده‌ای از تعاملات کلاسی با محوریت ساختار و مهارت‌های زبانی شکل می‌گیرند. در حالی که بافت معنامحور کمترین سهم را در تعاملات کلاسی دارد. تحلیل واریانس چند متغیره‌یدوسویه نشان داد که توزیع تمامیبافت‌های شناسایی شده تحت تأثیر سطح توانش زبانی شاگردان می‌باشد. اما آموزش معلمین تنها بر توزیع بافت‌ها با محوریت ساختار و مدیریت مؤثرند. یافته‌هایمطالعه‌ی حاضر توجه معلمین و مربیان تربیت معلم را به لزوم اصلاحات در وضعیت کنونی تعاملات کلاسی سوق می‌دهد.

Keywords [Persian]

  • تعاملات کلاسی
  • گفتمان‌کاوی
  • عوامل محیطی
  • بافت‌های تعاملی
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. K. (2010).Introduction to research in education (8th Ed.). Belmot, CA: Wadsworth.
Bellack, A., Kliebard, H., Hyman, R. & Smith, F. (1966).The language of the classroom.   New York: Teachers College Press.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse.  Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, A., &Westgate, D. (1994).Investigating classroom talk. London: Falmer.
Ellis, R. (1998). Discourse control and the acquisition- rich classroom. In W.A. Renandya &G.M. Jacobs (Eds.), Learners and language learning (pp. 148-62) (Anthology            Series 39).Singapore: SEAMO Regional Language Centre.
Flanders, N. (1970).  Analyzing teacher behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Freire, P. (1970).Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum. Fröhlich, M., Spada, N., & Allen, P. (1985).Differences in the communicative orientation of             L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 27-57.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Heritage, J. (1997).Conversational analysis and institutional talk: analyzing data. In D. Silverman (Ed.) Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 113-29).            London: Sage  Publications.
Hutchby, I., &Wooffitt, R. (1998).    Conversation analysis: principles, practices and        applications. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Jarvis, J., & Robinson, M. (1997). Analyzing educational discourse: An exploratory study of         teacher response and support to pupils’ learning. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 212-228.
Jefferson, G. (1983). Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. Tilburg, Netherlands:     Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature No. 28.  
Johnson, K.E. (1995).Understanding communication in second language classrooms, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.     In         W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (413-468).  San Diego: Academic Press.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social   organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:        Harvard University Press.
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher–learner negotiation in content-based instruction: communication at cross- purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17, 286–325.
Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL   Journal, 5(2), 1-8.
Rowe, M.B. (1974). Wait time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence in     language, logic, and fate control: Part 1. Wait time. Journal of Research in Science   Teaching, 11(2), 81-94.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization          of turn-taking        for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
Saslow, J., & Ascher, A. (2011).Top notch:   English for today’s world. NY: Pearson         Education Inc.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation     analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Seedhouse, P. (1996). Learning talk: a study of the interactional organisation of the L2     classroom from a CA institutional discourse perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of York.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sinclair, J.  M., &Coulthard, M. (1975).Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used           by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Slimani, A. (1989).The role of topicalization in classroom language learning. System, 17, 223-234.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and   comprehensible output in its           development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in         second language acquisition (pp. 235–53). Rowley: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook &    B.        Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–     44).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ten Have, P.  (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.
Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
Van Lier, L. (1991). Inside the classroom: learning processes and teaching procedures. Applied Language Learning, 2, 48–64.
Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching          Research, 6, 3-23.
Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. New York: Routledge.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in action. Oxon: Routledge.
Waring, H. Z. (2008).Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF,    feedback, and learning opportunities. Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 577–594.
Wyse, D. (2003). The national literacy strategy: a critical review of empirical evidence.      British Educational Research Journal, 29, 903-916.
Xie, X. (2011).Turn allocation patterns and   learning opportunities. ELT Journal, 65(3), 240-       250.

Yaqubi, B., & Karimpour, S. (2013). A conversation analytic study on the teachers’          management of understanding-check question sequences in EFL classrooms. Journal    of Language Teaching and Learning, 5(12), 109-134.

Yaqubi, B., & Pourhaji, R. M. (2012). Teachers’ limited wait-time practice and learners     participation opportunities in EFL classroom interaction. Journal of Language           Teaching and Learning, 4(10), 127-161.
Yousefi, M. & Biria, R. (2011).Interactional feedback, task-based interaction and learner uptake. Contemporary Online Language Education Journal, 1, 1-19.