Classroom Discourse

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rcdi20

Supporting student–teacher development of elicitations

pre-service teachers; improving practices

over time: a conversation analytic intervention

Lauren B. Carpenter

To cite this article: Lauren B. Carpenter (2023) Supporting student–teacher development of

elicitations over time: a conversation analytic intervention, Classroom Discourse, 14:2, 109-127,
DOI: 10.1080/19463014.2021.1946112

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.1946112

Published online: 13 Dec 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 809

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcdi20
CLASSROOM DISCOURSE
2023, VOL. 14, NO. 2, 109–127
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.1946112

Supporting student–teacher development of elicitations over

time: a conversation analytic intervention
Lauren B. Carpenter
Applied Linguistics and Tesol Program, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Conversation analysis (CA) has been used for interventionist pur­ CA-intervention; teacher-
poses in different fields, such as medicine, mediation services, and education; classroom
speech and language therapy, but it has yet to be fully utilised in discourse; ENL; conversation
analysis
teacher education. In this report, I describe how CA is used in
teacher supervision to intervene with the development of a stu­
dent-teacher (ST) in a 7th grade English as a Second Language
so long - longitudinal
classroom over the course of an academic year. In particular, with
a focus on three issues of elicitations (unpreparedness, lack of focus
and unresponsiveness), I present interactional evidence in a before-
and-after manner to highlight ST’s growth in the three areas
through repeated cycles of CA-based reflective analysis. Findings
contribute to interventionist CA research as well as a growing body
of work that uses CA in the classroom to examine the nuances of
teaching.

1. Introduction
Teacher observation, an essential component of teacher education, has been found to be
more evaluative than developmental (Mercado and Baecher 2014), yet based on my
experience as a public school teacher in the United States, there is a commonly held
understanding among practitioners that the profession of teaching has a 3- to 5-year
learning curve. This is problematic.
Teaching is intricate work. Teachers interact with students in varying environments
with a range of constraints; thus, their preparation should be practice-based, develop­
mental and should delve deeply into the range of tasks new teachers will be faced with
(Ball and Forzani 2009). Furthermore, reflection is a key component of learning how to
teach (Bailey, 2006; Farrell 2019). Farrell (2019) notes that ‘reflective practice means more
than fleeting thoughts before, during, or after a lesson; it means examining what you do
in the classroom and why you do it’ (p. 4). Reflective practice must be evidenced-based,
with classroom data being collected and later analysed (Farrell 2019).
I believe that innovative, supportive implementation of research-based tools can
bolster the reflective work involved in teacher preparation. Therefore, when I first
began using conversation analysis (CA), I immediately saw its potential impact on this
area. CA is an analytic tool that uncovers and describes the tacit member practices of

CONTACT Lauren B. Carpenter [email protected] Applied Linguistics and TESOL Program, Teachers
College, Columbia University, Box 66, 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY, USA
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
110 L. B. CARPENTER

social interaction (Sidnell and Stivers 2012). To this end, conversation analysts examine
functions
and detail the inner-workings of interlocutors’ actions (e.g. encourage, complain, give
advice) by obtaining, transcribing and analysing video-recordings of talk and embodi­
ment in interaction. Transcription is done using a system of conventions that portray
features of interlocutors’ verbal and nonverbal conduct, such as prosody, elongations,
pitch, pauses, overlap, inbreaths and gestures (Antaki 2011; Waring 2019). Following
transcription, analysis is driven by close examination of participants’ conduct as shown
through each turn at talk, keeping in mind the question why that now? (i.e. why a
particular turn is produced in that manner at that moment). As such, CA allows for an
inherently emic rather than etic perspective of interaction and language use.
A growing number of conversation analysts are utilising an interventionist approach,
applying CA to a ‘practical problem as it plays out in interaction, with the intention of
bringing about some sort of change’ (Antaki 2011, 1). Robinson and Heritage (2014)
outline how this can be done by first implementing a preintervention phase that uses
CA to uncover useful (or not so useful) member practices, an intervention phase that works
to implement CA findings with practitioners, and a postintervention phase to monitor
progress and outcomes. To illustrate this further, Heritage et al.’s (2007) intervention with
doctor/patient interaction shows how CA findings guided doctors to use slightly different
wording in their questioning while soliciting symptom descriptions from patients; the
slight change in wording was found to be successful in obtaining more details about
symptoms.
Interventionist CA has been utilised to train practitioners in fields such as medicine,
mediation services, and speech and language therapy (Egbert 2011; Finlay, Walton, and
Antaki 2011; Hepburn, Wilkinson, and Butler 2014; Heritage and Robinson 2006, 2011;
Kitzinger 2011; Lamerichs and Molder 2011; Maynard, Schaeffer, and Freese 2011; Peräkylä
2011; Stokoe 2011, 2014; Toerien et al. 2011; Wilkinson 2011, 2014). However, CA has not
yet been fully integrated in teacher education, even though self-reflection and micro-
analysis provide ‘insights that neither method generated in isolation’ (Lazaraton and
Ishihara 2005, 529), meaning that self-reflection can be facilitated by analysing classroom
discourse and vice versa. To bridge this gap, I attempted to conduct a CA intervention in
my teacher supervision work. Thus, in this paper, I present a report that is part of a larger
CA-based intervention project devoted to improving the practice of a TESOL K-12 stu­
dent-teacher (ST) over the course of an academic year.

2. Background
2.1. CA and L2 teacher-training
CA is able to detail the nuances, or the ‘how’ of teaching (Waring 2019). As such,
researchers have encouraged microanalysis to be used in teacher training. Seedhouse
(2008, 2019) suggests teacher trainers use videos and transcripts of both experienced and
inexperienced second language teachers to guide new teachers in identifying and analys­
ing the fine-tuned details of pedagogical interactions. In addition, based on the concept
of classroom interactional competence (CIC), or teacher and students’ ability to facilitate
learning through interaction, Walsh (2006, 2011) developed the SETT framework (Self-
Evaluation of Teacher Talk) for language teacher education. SETT requires teachers to
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 111
x exhaustive but as awareness-raising only

identify features of their classroom interactions and align them with their pedagogical
goals. The framework has been successfully utilised for teacher training and research
purposes (Aşık and Kuru Gönen 2016; Baumgart 2019). For example, Aşık and Kuru Gönen
(2016) implemented SETT and reflective journals in a pre-service ELT program. The pre-
service teachers reported an increased language awareness in the classroom; however,
the authors admit a limitation of the study is the reliance on the pre-service teachers’ self-
reporting.
A number of researchers have recently built on the works of Seedhouse and Walsh by
developing CA-based teacher-training models (Huth, Betz, and Taleghani-Nikazm 2019;
Sandlund, Sundqvist, and Nyroos 2016; Waring 2020). For example, Sert’s (2019) IMDAT
framework involves the following steps: (1) Introduce CIC, (2) Micro-teach, (3) Dialogic
reflection, (4) Actual teaching and (5) Teacher collaboration and critical reflection (IMDAT).
The framework/teacher preparation tool engages teachers in microanalysis, promoting
development of CIC and was applied by Bozbıyık, Sert, and Dilek Bacanak (Bozbıyık, et al.,
2021) to clinical practice with a group of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) pre-service
teachers. In focusing in on a single case study, they found that a pre-service teacher was
able to use the framework to become aware of and adjust her line of questioning to elicit
more talk from her students. In tandem with IMDAT, Sert (2021) encourages the devel­
opment of audio-visual tools to be used to introduce instructional practices to pre-service
teachers. Notably, Waring and Creider’s (2021) FAB framework provides a blueprint for
engaging teachers in ‘micro-reflection’ of three specific areas of teaching that have been
gleaned from CA research in the classroom: (1) Fostering an inviting classroom environ­
ment, (2) Attending to student voices and (3) Balancing competing demands (FAB).
While the aforementioned works are innovative in applying CA to teacher education,
this is obviously a burgeoning strand of the field with much work to be done. The current
study tracks a ST’s classroom teaching practice longitudinally to look for direct application
of CA-generated understandings to subsequent development in the ST’s practice. One
target area that emerged in the CA intervention is effective use of elicitations. This was due
to the repeated surfacing of issues with elicitations throughout the intervention, as
pointed out by the ST herself (see the data and method section). As such, I will review
the literature on elicitations in the classroom.

2.2. Classroom discourse and teacher elicitations

Elicitations (e.g. directives, prompts, questions) are requests for responses from students
(Sinclair and Coulthard 2013) and have long been of interest to classroom discourse
analysts. Elicitations allow teachers to provide support for student understanding as
well as manage classroom participation – two key elements of classroom teaching.
Therefore, their effective use is a crucial point of development for a novice teacher.
Seminal papers have specified types of elicitations and their purposes in the classroom,
highlighting the initiation-response-feedback (or evaluation) (IRF/IRE) sequence (Mehan
1979a; Sinclair and Coulthard 2013) and identifying four types of elicitations teachers may
use in the initiating slot of the sequence (choice – e.g. Is the answer x or y?, product – e.g.
what is a fact about x?, process – e.g. why does x occur?, and metaprocess – e.g. can you
explain how you know that?) (Mehan 1979b). The four elicitation types ascend in cognitive
complexity with choice being the easiest to answer (via a yes or no) and metaprocess
112 L. B. CARPENTER

being the most difficult (via explaining one’s own thinking in a step-by-step manner).
Moreover, questions that begin with who, what, where, when, why can be used as scaffolds
(Cazden 2001) to help students learn within the zone of proximal development, or the
distance between what a learner can do with or without assistance from experts and more
advanced peers (Vygotsky 1978).
Building on seminal works, it has been found that elicitations are used by teachers to
work on understanding with students. Teachers can scaffold higher-order thinking by
asking questions that increase in cognitive demand as the sequence progresses (e.g. once
a student can identify a learning item, the teacher may then ask what makes you say that?
to stimulate metacognitive processes) (Verplaetse 2000). They also use elicitations when
there is trouble displayed by the student in answering. For example, a designedly
incomplete utterance (DIU) is a turn issued by teachers that is left incomplete to prompt
student self-correction (Koshik 2002) (e.g. today it is . . .). A DIU can be embodied in order
to provide a hint when a student claims insufficient knowledge (Sert 2015) (e.g. after
saying today it is . . . the teacher gestures outside at the clear blue sky and bright sun in an
attempt to elicit the word sunny). In response to an incorrect answer, teachers have been
found to withhold the third-turn evaluation and instead produce a re-initiation, or revised
first-turn elicitation to pursue the correct response (Zemel and Koschmann 2011). Teacher
directives have also been found to inhibit student understanding when produced with
lack of clarity (i.e. many self-repairs, unspecified references, conflicting messages, etc.) or
unarticulated relevance (Waring and Hruska 2012). In sum, elicitations can scaffold
student understanding and pursue correct responses, but they can also be detrimental
when fraught with issues of clarity or relevance.
Another use of elicitations in the classroom is to manage participation. Teachers may
direct an elicitation to the whole class, allowing for an individual to self-select, followed by
reverting to more individual-directed elicitations in the subsequent sequences (Petitjean
2014). Teachers can also use mutual gaze and embodied go-aheads marked by rising
intonation and a nod to elicit talk from students (Sert 2015). Furthermore, they may issue
an epistemic status check (ESC) (e.g. do you know the answer?), which ensures the
‘continuity of interaction and establishes the grounds for moving on to another speaker
in classroom interaction’ (Sert 2015, 75). In encouraging equal participation from students,
teachers may bypass the more vocal students’ bids to participate in favour of engaging
quiet students by asking a question relevant to that student’s life (Waring 2014).
In conclusion, a teacher’s effective use of elicitations is paramount to student under­
standing and classroom management. The current study builds on prior work on elicita­
tions and L2 teacher training, showing one way a TESOL ST can develop effective use of
elicitations by employing CA to closely examine video and transcripts of their teaching. As
the researcher, I draw on CA to observe what changes occurred by the end of the
intervention, if any, in the ST’s use of elicitations.

3. Data and method

The ST, in the study, was an MA candidate in a TESOL Pre K-12 program at a university
located in a major United States city. ST had a Bachelor’s degree in linguistics, and had
taken a class in Interactional Sociolinguistics, which provided her with some background
in discourse analysis. ST’s clinical placement, where the data were collected, was a 7th

practicum
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 113

grade English as a Second Language classroom with all of the students’ first language
being Spanish. Students were of beginner to intermediate proficiency in English. The
school is located in a predominately Spanish-speaking urban neighbourhood with many
of the students being recent immigrants who come from a low socio-economic status. As
the researcher and supervisor, I hold a Master of Education in TESOL and, at the time of
the intervention, had 12 years of professional experience in education. ST had a cooperat­
ing teacher (CT) who did not directly participate in the intervention but appears briefly in
the data.
For the purpose of the CA intervention, I designed and implemented the following
cycle (Figure 1). The broad structure of the cycle was closely aligned to the pre-established
supervision requirements that were outlined by the university (i.e. three observations per
semester with pre- and post-observation meetings). During the first step, the pre-obser­
vation interview, ST presented a lesson plan for the ensuing observation. She shared her
rationale, objectives and anticipated any potential issues students might encounter. I
provided immediate feedback on the lesson plan. We also discussed and addressed issues
that were brought up from previous lessons. Pre-observation meetings were audio-
recorded.
Next, ST taught her lesson while I observed and took field notes. Upon consent from
students’ caregivers, lessons were video-recorded. After each observation, I shared the
video with ST, and we independently watched the footage. To promote agency, I asked ST
to identify segments of video where she felt, for whatever reason, there was room for
improvement in her teaching. Subsequently, I transcribed those sequences using
Jefferson’s (2004) conventions (see Appendix A) with slight modifications to accommo­
date nonverbal conduct. Pseudonyms are used in the transcripts to protect students’
identities. After that, we engaged in an audio-recorded post-observation conference that
was conducted like a data session – the sequences were played back and analysed turn-
by-turn with the transcript. ST showed a great deal of vulnerability, discipline, and
reflective ability while analysing her interaction with students. With guidance, she was

1. Pre-observation
(audio-recorded)
Discuss lesson plan
and rationale
2. Observation
(video-recorded)

5. Post-observation
(audio-recorded): turn Repeat 6 times over
by turn analysis. Discuss the course of the
strategies academic year 3. Watch video
separately; ST identify
problematic sequences

4. RS transcribes
problematic sequences

Figure 1. Intervention cycle.

114 L. B. CARPENTER

able to engage in close analysis of each turn by closely examining the turn’s features, such
these are only paralinguistic, not types of utterances, e.g: Walsh
as elongations, pitch, pauses, overlap, inbreaths and gestures. Examining each turn in this
manner and asking the question why that now? allowed her to see conditional relevance
in a sequence of talk, or how each turn affects the next. Through the guided turn-by-turn
analysis, ST began to notice interactional issues having to do mainly with teacher elicita­
tions and explanations. Subsequently, solutions grounded in TESOL pedagogy were
identified and discussed to try out for the next observation. Finally, the process began
again and was repeated three times total over the course of the semester. By carrying out
the intervention in this manner, each observation/analysis cycle allowed us to identify
issues and implement solutions iteratively.
In this paper, I offer a report of part of the intervention by focusing on one important
practice that was scrutinised often in our turn-by-turn analyses: eliciting student partici­
pation. For the purpose of this report, I use CA to first identify and exemplify three issues
with ST’s elicitations that were apparent in Observation 1 of Spring semester via three
extracts. ST’s objective for Observation 1 was for students to begin using vocabulary in
preparation for a mock high-school interview in which they would have to talk about their
academics, interests, and personal qualities. I offer a summary of the strategies shared
with ST upon jointly identifying the issues with elicitations in the lesson’s post-observa­
tion meeting. Then, I display ST’s subsequent improvement pertaining to each issue via
three extracts from Observation 3 of the same semester. ST’s objective for Observation 3
was for students to identify instances of rhyme and rhythm in poetry. The two observa­
tions occurred 3 months apart, with Observation 1 taking place in February and
Observation 3 in early May. Observation 2 is excluded from this report as ST was still
working through strategies to target issues with elicitations, and growth was not quite
apparent. Choosing extracts from Observations 1 and 3 allow me to present the analysis in
a before-and-after manner.

4. Analysis
In this section, I examine the development of ST’s practice of eliciting student participa­
tion; specifically, I look at when and how information is elicited from students. After
Observation 1, three main issues were found in regard to elicitations: (1) lack of prepara­
tion, or eliciting and selecting students without first securing attention from the whole
class; (2) lack of focus, or eliciting with abrupt shifts in what is expected from students; and
(3) unresponsiveness, or eliciting without responding to student contributions.

4.1. Unprepared vs. prepared elicitations

Observation 1 of Spring semester showed instances in which ST attempted to elicit
information from students without first preparing the group, or garnering their attention.
In Extract 1, ST is introducing the vocabulary word ‘community service’ using the slide
shown in Figure 2. Prior to the extract, the students were engaged in chatter about the
previous vocabulary word (extracurricular) for a few seconds.
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 115

Extract 1
01 Ss: [ Chatter ]
02 ST: à [ #Oka::y. >Who can read what is]
03 Ss: [ Chatter ]
04 ST: à [community °se:rv- guys?° ]=
05 Pac: [( )girl playing basketball too, ]
06 CT: [=Guys eyes on[Ms. Miller please? ]
07 Dan: [ raises hand ]
08 Ss: [ gaze at ST ]
09 ST: Daniela.
10 +gaze at Dan
11 [What is community] service?
12 Dan: [ Ya::y. ]
13 Chr: [Community service,]
14 Dan: reading- [Community service,]
15 Pac: >When you play.<
16 ST: >Sorry<.
17 +walks to the right
18 Ale: raises hand
19 ST: >#Mm mm.<
20 +touches Ale’s desk
21 >Tell me<.
22 +Gazes at Dan, points
23 Dan: reading- Community service
24 volunteer activity that (.)
25 benefet[ (.) ] others.
26 Ss: [benefit ]
27 ST: Great.
28 Chr: Like the schoo:l.

Figure 2. Community service, Observation 1, Spring.

116 L. B. CARPENTER

In line 02, after issuing an elongated and stressed okay, signalling there is a shift
of some sort to come, ST provides the first elicitation of the sequence but does so
amidst student chatter. Prior to completion of the turn, as students continue speak­
ing in overlap with her talk, she begins speaking more quietly, elongates the first
syllable of service, cuts the word off short, and addresses the class with guys in an
attempt to secure recipiency (line 04). Student attention is clearly not secured at this
point, which is a problem because the majority of students are not prepared to
receive her elicitation.
The CT addresses this by explicitly directing the class to attend to Ms. Miller (ST) in line
06. Just prior to completion of CT’s directive, Daniela raises her hand, orienting to ST’s
unfinished request to read the definition of community service (line 07). Simultaneously,
other students, as directed, shift their gaze to ST (line 08). At this point, students’ attention
is finally secured. Next, Daniela is selected in lines 09–10 before ST repeats the elicitation
What is community service? in line 11. Daniela celebrates being selected in line 12, but
despite her having been selected, newly attentive students call out answers in lines 13–15,
posing some competition for Daniela. Once ST moves to the side of the projector screen
(line 17), she gives Daniela the go ahead to read the definition (lines 21–22), re-establish­
ing her as the selected speaker who now has the floor. Thereafter, Daniela reads the
definition in lines 23–25.
As we discussed in our post-observation meeting, to make the sequence more effi­
cient, ST can prepare the whole group prior to delivering her instructional elicitations and
selecting students. Instead of issuing an elicitation during student chatter, ST could use
that slot to begin directing students’ attention to the PowerPoint slide. Specifically, she
could use embodied resources such as hand gestures and pause more often and for
longer periods of time to allow time for students to orient to her (Boblett 2018). She could
also verbally request the whole groups’ attention in a pre-expansion to ensure the smooth
running of the sequence (Schegloff 2007). An example of how this could be done is to
begin with a verbal utterance such as now we will be learning vocabulary from this slide
accompanied by pointing to the projector screen and then waiting for students’ orienta­
tion to the slide. If this were done prior to the base elicitation of the sequence (to request
that someone read the definition) students would be encouraged to listen once a speaker
has been selected.
After analysing and self-reflecting on Observation 1, ST was able to produce smooth
elicitation sequences in Observation 3 by applying some of the aforementioned
practices. Extract 2 comes from observation 3 and begins after ST has introduced
the definitions of rhyme and rhythm and before finding examples of the concepts in a
poem. Students are engaged in chatter, and Alexandra is chanting let’s boogie, which is
a reference to the game they had played earlier. Note that ST’s non-elicitation turns
which aid in preparing students are indicated with regular arrows and the elicitation
turns with bold arrows.
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 117

Extract 2
65 ST: à [So, walks toward computer ]
66 Ss: [ Chatter ]
67 Ale: [Let’s boogie let’s boogie]
68 let’s [boogie ( ) ]
69 ST: à [For example ]
70 +adds slide
71 [ in here ]
72 +gaze at slide.
73 Ss: [ Chatter ]
74 ST: à [turns body toward Ss, clasps hands]
75 Ss: [ Chatter ]
76 ST: à [in here.
77 Ale: My mother?- reading
78 ST: è Do you guys=
79 +hands clasped
80 =[see: ]=
81 Dan: [raises hand]
82 ST: è =any example of rhyme or rhythm in
83 [#here. ]
84 +waves hand over poem on slide
85 Ale: [ raises hand ]
86 ST: This is just taken
87 fro:m here.
88 +places hand on handout
89 Ale: Can I read it?

In line 65, ST utters so and walks to the computer to change her slide, signalling a
transition. This is done during student chatter (lines 66–68). In lines 69–70, ST incremen­
tally adds for example while changing the slide. Next, in lines 71–72, she utters in here
while gazing at the slide. By incrementally adding each utterance while walking towards
the computer and changing the slide, ST allows students some transitional time to finish
chatter from the previous sequence. Up to this point, student attention has not been
secured. In line 74, while students simultaneously continue with chatter, ST turns her body
towards them while clasping her hands together. She then utters in here with falling
intonation and stress on here (line 76). The body orientation towards students along with
repeating her reference to the projected poem (in here) with emphasis successfully
garners attention from students, which is evident in the fact that the chatter ceases. In
addition, although Alexandra begins an unsolicited reading of the poem in line 77, she
cuts herself off in recognition of the expectation to give ST her attention. Next, in lines
78–84, once student attention is secured, ST delivers her elicitation (do you guys see any
rhyme or rhythm in here). In repeating the phrase in here with raised intonation and hand
movements towards the screen, ST orients the students’ attention towards the poem.
Unlike in Extract 1, here, ST uses incremental verbal utterances, slide animations, body
orientation, gestures, and pauses to prepare the group and secure their attention, which
ensures the smooth delivery of her elicitation. In response, student chatter ceases, and
Alexandra raises her hand, showing further evidence of improvement in the elicitation.

5. Unfocused vs. Focused Elicitations

Observation 1 also showed instances in which ST’s elicitations are unfocused, containing
abrupt shifts in what is expected from students. In Extract 3, ST is shown eliciting student
participation to unpack the meaning of ‘extracurricular’ using the slide (Figure 3).
118 L. B. CARPENTER

Extract 3
17 ST: #Extracurriculars.
18 +points at slide
19 Ss: [ Chatter ]
20 ST: à [Who can read. That’s [ hard. ]
21 Ger: [raises hand]
22 Ss: [ Chatter ]
23 ST: à [Extracurr#iculars>What does it mean]
24 in your own words.< Ge:rry.
25 Holds finger up
26 >W-w-w- but [wait Gerry.< ]
27 CT: [Eyes on Ge:rry,]
28 ST: A:h h[em.]
29 Pac: [Ah ]a:h.
30 (0.3)
31 ST: Points and retracts two fingers at Gerry
32 à tell me.
33 Ger: I gotta read that?
34 +points to board
35 ST: >#Yeah,<
36 Ger: reading- Extracurricular (.)
37 ac[tivities, ]
38 Eli: [I have( )for you ]
39 +high-pitch noise with hand up waving
40 ST: (0.8) downward gesture at Eli
41 Ger: reading- Activities you do in
42 school outside of your classes.=
43 ST: =>Can everyone just say that,<
44 extracurriculars.

Figure 3. Extracurricular, Observation 1, Spring.

After pointing to the slide and uttering the word extracurricular, ST delivers an elicitation
Who can read in line 20. This is done in the midst of students’ chatter; consequently, many of
them remain engaged in talk and fail to orient to ST’s request. However, one student, Gerry,
does respond to the elicitation by raising his hand (line 21). Next, in lines 23–24, ST requests
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 119

instead that a student tell the definition of extracurricular in his or her own words. Just prior to
completion of that turn, Gerry is selected verbally. Here, we see an abrupt shift in expectation
since now, instead of simply reading the definition, which is what he was raising his hand for,
Gerry is being asked to tell what it means in his own words, a task that is cognitively more
demanding (Verplaetse 2000). Nonetheless, once student attention is secured, in line 31–32,
Gerry is given the ‘go ahead’ to speak. That ST’s elicitations are unfocused is further evidenced
in the momentary confusion (also see Waring and Hruska 2012) displayed by Gerry in lines
33–34 where instead of ‘telling’, Gerry issues an understanding check of I gotta read that? as he
points at the definition on the slide. By doing this, Gerry is treating ST’s new elicitation as
problematic as it is no longer the task he raised his hand for. This allows him to take matters
into his own hands and participate on the terms he originally volunteered for. In response, ST
adapts and utters a high-pitched yeah (line 35), aligning with Gerry. As shown, Gerry complies
and successfully reads the definition in lines 36–37 and 41–42.
As noted above, a lack of preparation is also present in the above extract (lines 17–24),
which incurs ST’s re-delivery in lines 22–23. In our post-observation meeting, after
analysing the segment, ST and I identified the strategy of lesson plan scripting (Brown
and Lee 1994) in order to resolve the issue of unfocused elicitations. Lesson plan scripting
is encouraged in teacher preparation programs and involves a student teacher writing out
exactly what they plan to say in their whole group lessons. In addition, literature on
instruction-giving shows the benefit of scripting out instructions, or questions, in a
preparatory stage to ensure they are concise and clear (Glaser 2020; Sowell 2017).
Contrastingly, Observation 3 showed instances in which ST’s elicitations were focused
and following a clear trajectory. Extract 4 begins with the teacher introducing the
vocabulary word ‘rhythm’ using the slide (Figure 4).
Extract 4.
31 ST: U:m so. >Ok so<
32 gaze at screen
33 the first one I was gonna ta-
34 clicks to add definition
35 °I’m gonna talk about i:s rhy#thm°
36 gaze at Ss
37 à [what is rhythm? ]
36 Dan: [A strong repeat pattern]
37 in form.-reading
38 Tia: in [sound.]
39 +raises hand
38 Ste: [Raise ] your hand.
39 ST: A strong repeated pattern i:n sound.
40 Thank you: Daniela
41 [and the:n, clicks to add definition]
42 Tia: [ raises hand ]
43 ST: à >what is rhyme Tia?<
44 +quick nod
45 Tia: reading-when
two words or lines end
46 with the same sound.
47 ST: Ok.
48 à So do you guys see the difference
49 +waving hand across both definitions on screen
50 between those two:?
51 Tia: Mmh:m.
120 L. B. CARPENTER

Figure 4. Rhythm and rhyme, Observation 3, Spring.

After announcing her intention to discuss the vocabulary word rhythm (lines 31–35), ST
clicks and adds the definition to the slide followed by a gaze shift from the screen to
students (line 36) while eliciting what is rhythm in line 37. Aside from preparing the
student for the upcoming elicitation, this alignment between visual, verbal, and nonver­
bal resources also serves to highlight the focus of the elicitation and presents a sharp
contrast with Extract 3, where ST abruptly switched the focus of her elicitation, resulting in
confusion of the selected student. In overlap with her elicitation, Daniela self-selects and
reads the definition from the slide (line 36–37). Upon accepting Daniela’s response via
repetition along with a minor re-casted correction, ST then clicks to add the definition of
rhyme (lines 39–41) before asking what is rhyme, as she selects Tia with a quick nod (lines
43–44). Tia then reads the definition of rhyme from the slide (lines 45–46), which is
accepted by ST in line 47 with Ok.
Building from the two very simple introductory questions so far, ST next asks a higher-
order question (do you see the difference between these two) (Bloom 1956) while waving her
hand across the two definitions on the slide (lines 48–50). The yes/no question prompts the
students to compare the two vocabulary words and definition, and Tia acknowledges the
connection in line 51. In this extract, ST shows improvement in the focus of her verbal
elicitations via the nonverbal resources of slide animations and announcing the first
vocabulary word, successfully focusing students on the topics of rhythm and rhyme.
By the final observation, ST had resolved the issue of focus in that elicitations followed
a clear and scaffolded trajectory, starting off with simple questions and then moving on to
more complex ones. ST used her slides and animations to aid her delivery and timing,
which she planned out and rehearsed ahead of time as recommended. Each question was
scripted into her slides, and animations were planned in such a way that provided her
with cues (i.e. clicking to add each question at opportune times while verbally asking
students).
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 121

6. Unresponsive vs. responsive elicitations

Finally, some moments in Observation 1 showed ST-issuing elicitations that were unre­
sponsive to students’ prior contributions. This often happened at times when students
talked out of turn or in overlap with one another. The latter is the case in Extract 5, which
begins with ST unpacking the pronunciation and meaning of the word extracurricular. She
has not yet given any concrete examples of an extracurricular activity. A student, Paco, has
just provided an incorrect multi-unit response of what he thinks is an extracurricular
activity, which consisted of multiple individualistic after school duties, including taking a
shower. The response is incorrect because extracurricular activities are ones that are done
after school that usually still pertain to the school. Extracurricular activities do not involve
personal care and hygiene.
Extract 5
80 ST: Ok. That (.) is a really great
81 thing that you do afterschool,
82 >however.< I’m wondering if
83 you guys agree that that counts
84 as an extracurricular.=
85 Chr: =[NO.]
86 Ale: [NO ] I don’t agree [because= ]
87 Pac: [( ) ]
88 =taking a shower is no:t [( ).]
89 ST: [h h h h]
90 Well not just [taking a shower.]
91 Ale: [( ) hygiene.]
92 Chr: Everybody takes a bath though.
93 ST: à [Ok. Who has a- who has a thought.]=
94 Pac: [ >Do you take a bath everyday?< ]
95 ST: =I’m- I’m going to just tell you
96 that is not an extracurricular
97 à can someone tell me why.
98 Chr: hand up
99 ST: points to Chr
100 Chr: It’s not an extracurricular
101 because ((continues))

Instead of directly rejecting Paco’s incorrect response, ST compliments him before

requesting that the students agree or disagree with his example (lines 80–84). The
elicitation is successful in obtaining multiple eager responses from the students’ who
shout out NO in lines 85–86. Subsequently, in lines 86–92, multiple students shout out
unsolicited accounts for why Paco’s answer was not an example of an extracurricular
activity. Although students were able to identify that Paco’s example was incorrect and
begin giving accounts as to why, ST bypasses these responses. Instead, she produces a
multi-unit turn that is unresponsive to students’ prior contributions. In line 93, she asks
who has a thought even though students have already begun to share their thoughts. The
elicitation is delivered in overlap with Paco’s utterance without securing the group’s
attention. ST then announces in line 95 that she is going to tell them the answer even
though they had already given the correct one, thus sequentially deleting lines 85–92.
From there, she announces the answer and then pivots to a follow-up elicitation in lines
95–97, seeking an account that the students had already given.
In our post-observation meeting, ST and I discussed the first elicitation in detail. ST felt
that she should have responded directly to Paco’s contribution instead of posing a display
122 L. B. CARPENTER

question to the rest of the class. Upon analysis and reflection, she felt that Who has a
thought? set the rest of the sequence up for multiple students to shout out and speak out
of turn. We discussed how, even so, she could have acknowledged students’ contributions
prior to selecting a single speaker next. We considered a few examples of what could have
been said instead that would be responsive while maintaining control as teacher (e.g. I’m
hearing that many of you think this is not an extracurricular activity, but can one person
explain why?). Maloch and Beutel (2010) found in their case study that a teacher who
responded to unsolicited initiations from students allowed the students to participate
more authentically.
In Observation 3, ST’s elicitations were much more responsive. Extract 6 shows ST
utilising elicitations that are responsive to a student’s unsolicited contribution, which
could potentially have been treated as disruptive. Here, ST is about to introduce the
vocabulary words rhyme and rhythm. Alejandro has his back turned to ST and is quietly
watching a fellow student play with a fidget spinner.
Extract 6
01 ST: Ok guys (.) very good.
02 clasps hands and walks toward computer
03 So I just want to quickly revie:w-
04 clicks and gazes at screen
05 u:m this poem has a #li:ttle
06 bit maybe not quite as much as some
07 other poems have
08 but it had a #little bit o:f (.)
09 +hand up pinching fingers together
10 rhyming and [rhythm >in it<.]
11 Alj: [gaze shift to paper ]
12 ST: [( )]
13 Alj: [[I know](.)
14 +gaze and body shift to ST
15 Look.
16 gazes at paper
17 [um.]
18 ST: à [Did] you find any [( )?]
19 Alj: [Yeah I]
20 found ice night,
21 gazes at ST and back to paper
22 mm- tumbling stumbling,
23 Alj: u:h me be.
24 +gaze shifts to ST
25 ST: #Nice. gazes at paper
26 #Yeah so ni- night
27 with apeti:te (.) dry with eyes,
28 tumbling
29 +head tilt right
30 stumbling.
31 +head tilt left
32 U:m so.
33 +gaze shift to screen
34 >Ok so< the first one I was gonna ta-
35 clicks to add definition to screen
36 °I’m gonna talk about i:s° rhy#thm (.)
37 what is rhythm.

In lines 01–10, ST transitions to the topics of rhythm and rhyme by indicating that the
poem they had read contains some examples. As she is finishing the transition, Alejandro
shifts his gaze from his peer to his paper (line 11) followed by calling out I know with a
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 123

whole body and gaze shift towards ST (13–14). He holds the floor with look and um as he
gazes at his paper in lines 15–17. At this point, ST could attempt to continue with her
agenda of introducing the vocabulary words; however, in line 18, she engages Alejandro,
who had been previously disengaged, by responding to his attempt to obtain the floor in
lines 13–17. She achieves responsiveness via an elicitation in line 18 that gives him the go
ahead to share what he found. Next, Alejandro responds to her elicitation by sharing the
rhymes he found (line 16–18 and 21) followed by ST swiftly accepting his contribution
(line 25) and repeating his examples with a recast of one incorrect one (night/appetite
instead of ice/night) (lines 26–31). Giving the student the floor while the teacher is in the
process of introducing a new concept could potentially derail the trajectory of ST’s
agenda. However, the IRE sequence seen here in lines 18–31 is produced concisely by
both ST and Alejandro, and ST is able to transition back to her main agenda, thereafter.
The transition begins in lines 28–31 where ST uses head tilting to embody rhythm as she
repeats two more of Alejandro’s responses, leading nicely into the vocabulary explanation
to follow. Finally, ST seamlessly resumes her main project of introducing the vocabulary
words rhyme and rhythm (lines 32–37).

7. Discussion and conclusion

In this paper, I have presented a report of a longitudinal CA intervention with a TESOL
student-teaching candidate in a 7th grade ESL classroom. To summarise, three issues with
ST’s elicitations were identified in the intervention: lack of preparation, or eliciting and
selecting students without first securing attention from the whole class; lack of focus, or
eliciting with abrupt shifts in focus; and unresponsiveness, or eliciting without responding
to student contributions. I have described how the issues were targeted via pedagogical
strategies, grounded in literature, that were communicated in the post-observation meet­
ing. The strategies that were taken up by ST as evident in Observation 3 include applying
wait time with embodied resources (Boblett 2018) in pre-expansion sequences (Schegloff
2007); lesson plan and instruction scripting (Brown and Lee 1994; Glaser 2020; Sowell
2017) with questions levelled from cognitively simple to more complex (Cazden 2001;
Mehan 1979b; Verplaetse 2000); and responding to students’ unsolicited initiations to
create more authentic student participation (Maloch and Beutel 2010). By applying the
aforementioned strategies after analysing her teaching, ST was able to improve how she
elicits participation from students by the final observation of the semester. This shows
that turn-by-turn analysis coupled with focused pedagogical feedback given by an
experienced supervisor can shape the development of a student teacher. Of course, it is
up to the teacher to take up these strategies and implement them in future lessons. That
said, it seems that CA can work as a useful tool for enhancing the repeated observation
cycle that is widely utilised in teacher education programs.
It is worthy to note ST’s development of self-efficacy throughout the intervention. After
each observation, once we identified the issues in the teaching, we discussed pedagogical
strategies in a general sense. The specific ways ST deployed the strategies in her teaching
were entirely up to her. In one instance, while I suggested ST integrate my feedback by
scripting out her elicitations, the particularities of how this was done (using the slides and
animations to not only plan but also pace her delivery) were a direct result of ST’s own
innovation. This not only shows self-reflection on behalf of ST but also highlights her
124 L. B. CARPENTER

agency in her own development. As noted earlier, reflection is a crucial part of teacher
education (Farrell 2019; Olteanu 2016). I suggest that the detailed analytical work CA
offers can bolster self-reflection and subsequent improvement with the least prescriptive
feedback from a supervisor. This allows new teachers space to develop self-efficacy.
In teacher education, we must guide teachers to work through feedback cycles that begin
with self-reflection and end with catalysing change in their classroom teaching (Farrell 2019). I
would argue that CA-based intervention is one way teachers might learn to move through
these iterative processes with greater efficiency. It is inevitable that interactional issues will
continue to arise for ST in regard to preparedness, focus, and responsiveness of elicitations
from time to time. However, it is my hope that after having done the CA intervention, ST is
able to recognise these issues and work through them more easily each time.
i think this research could have been clearer in
1. analyse each utterance of one type (ignore the others)
2. CA => all the para ling features, etc => think about forms and functions - see if they match or not (Walsh - why do I trust Walsh?)
explain why adopt transcription system of Jefferson (x just bec of popularity, but its effectiveness to CA)
Acknowledgements more for me *the frameworks presented in the research (t training & transcription)

I would like to thank the ST for her openness and dedication to this project. I would also like to thank
my advisor, Dr. Hansun Waring for all of her support and guidance. Finally, I want to acknowledge
my colleagues in doctoral seminar for engaging in data sessions with me.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Antaki, C., Ed. 2011. Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in Institutional Talk.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Aşık, A., and S. İ. Kuru Gönen. 2016. “Pre-service EFL Teachers’ Reported Perceptions of Their
Development through SETT Experience.” Classroom Discourse 7 (2): 164–183. doi:10.1080/
19463014.2016.1150865.
Bailey, K. M. 2006. Language Teacher Supervision: A Case-based Approach. New York, NY: Ernst Klett
Sprachen.
Ball, D. L., and F. M. Forzani. 2009. “The Work of Teaching and the Challenge for Teacher Education.”
Journal of Teacher Education 60 (5): 497–511. doi:10.1177/0022487109348479.
Baumgart, J. 2019. “A Critical-Reflective Analysis of Discourse.” In Quality in TESOL and Teacher
Education: From a Results Culture Towards a Quality Culture edited by J. D. M. Agudo, 84-94. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Bloom, B. S. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Ann Arbor, MI: David McKay.
Boblett, N. 2018. “Doing Exploratory Talk in the Language Classroom: A Sequential Account.”
Hacettepe University Journal of Education 33 (Special Issue): 261–277.
Bozbıyık, M., O. Sert, and K. Dilek Bacanak. 2021. “VEO-integrated IMDAT in Pre-service Language
Teacher Education: A Focus on Change in Teacher Questioning Practices.” In Video Enhanced
Observation for Language Teaching: Reflection and Professional Development, edited by P.
Seedhouse. London: Bloomsbury.
Brown, H. D., and H. Lee. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Cazden, C. B. 2001. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Egbert, M. 2011. “Conversation Analysis Applied to User-centred Design: A Study of Who ‘The User’
Is.” In Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in Institutional Talk, edited by C.
Antaki, 207–221. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 125

Farrell, T. S. 2019. Reflective Practice in ELT. Sheffield, UK: Equinox Publishing Limited.
Finlay, W. M. L., C. Walton, and C. Antaki. 2011. “Giving Feedback to Care Staff about Offering
Choices to People with Intellectual Disabilities.” In Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and
Change in Institutional Talk, edited by C. Antaki, 161–183. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Glaser, K. 2020. “Instruction-giving in the Primary English Classroom: Creating or Obstructing
Learning Opportunities?” In Classroom Observation: Researching Interaction in English Language
Teaching edited by F. Lenz, M. Frobenius, R. Klattenberg, 57–83. Berlin: Peter Lang, .
Hepburn, A., S. Wilkinson, and C. W. Butler. 2014. “Intervening with Conversation Analysis in
Telephone Helpline Services: Strategies to Improve Effectiveness.” Research on Language and
Social Interaction 47 (3): 239–254. doi:10.1080/08351813.2014.925661.
Heritage, J., and J. D. Robinson. 2006. “The Structure of Patients’ Presenting Concerns: Physicians’
Opening Questions.” Health Communication 19: 89–102. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1902_1.
Heritage, J., and J. D. Robinson. 2011. “‘Some’ versus ‘Any’ Medical Issues: Encouraging Patients to
Reveal Their Unmet Concerns.” In Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in
Institutional Talk, edited by C. Antaki, 15–31. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heritage, J., J. D. Robinson, M. N. Elliott, M. Beckett, and M. Wilkes. 2007. “Reducing Patients’ Unmet
Concerns in Primary Care: The Difference One Word Can Make.” Journal of General Internal
Medicine 22 (10): 1429–1433. doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0279-0.
Huth, T., E. Betz, and C. Taleghani-Nikazm. 2019. “Rethinking Language Teacher Training: Steps for
Making Talk-in-interaction Research Accessible to Practitioners.” Classroom Discourse 10 (1): 99–
122. doi:10.1080/19463014.2019.1570529.
Jefferson, G. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis:
Studies from the First Generation, edited by G. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kitzinger, C. 2011. “Working with Childbirth Helplines: The Contributions and Limitations of
Conversation Analysis.” In Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in Institutional
Talk, edited by C. Antaki, 98–118. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Koshik, I. 2002. “Designedly Incomplete Utterances: A Pedagogical Practice for Eliciting Knowledge
Displays in Error Correction Sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 35 (3): 277–
309. doi:10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2.
Lamerichs, J., and H. Molder. 2011. “Reflecting on Your Own Talk: The Discursive Action Method at
Work.” In Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in Institutional Talk, edited by C.
Antaki, 184–206. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lazaraton, A., and N. Ishihara. 2005. “Understanding Second Language Teacher Practice Using
Microanalysis and Self-reflection: A Collaborative Case Study.” The Modern Language Journal 89
(4): 529–542. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00328.x.
Maloch, B., and D. D. Beutel. 2010. “’Big Loud Voice. You Have Important Things to Say’: The Nature
of Student Initiations during One Teacher’s Interactive Read-Alouds.” Journal of Classroom
Interaction 42 (2): 20–29.
Maynard, D. W., N. C. Schaeffer, and J. Freese. 2011. “Improving Response Rates in Telephone
Interviews.” In Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in Institutional Talk, edited
by C. Antaki, 54–74. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mehan, H. 1979a. “‘What Time Is It, Denise?’ Asking Known Information Questions in Classroom
Discourse.” Theory into Practice 18 (4): 285–294. doi:10.1080/00405847909542846.
Mehan, H. 1979b. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Mercado, L. A., and L. Baecher. 2014. “Video-Based Self-Observation as a Component of
Developmental Teacher Evaluation.” Global Education Review 1 (3): 63–77.
Olteanu, C. 2016. “Reflection and the Object of Learning.” International Journal for Lesson and
Learning Studies 5 (1): 60–75. doi:10.1108/IJLLS-08-2015-0026.
Peräkylä, A. 2011. “After Interpretation: Third-position Utterances in Psychoanalysis.” Research on
Language & Social Interaction 44 (3): 288–316.
Petitjean, C. 2014. “Social Representations of Turn-taking in Classrooms: From Compulsory to Post-
compulsory Schooling in French-speaking Switzerland.” Classroom Discourse 5 (2): 138–157.
doi:10.1080/19463014.2013.823350.
126 L. B. CARPENTER

Robinson, J. D., and J. Heritage. 2014. “Intervening with Conversation Analysis: The Case of
Medicine.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 47 (3): 201–218. doi:10.1080/
08351813.2014.925658.
Sandlund, E., P. Sundqvist, and L. Nyroos. 2016. “Research-based Professional Development
Workshops for EFL Teachers: Focus on Oral Test Interaction and Assessment.” Nordic Journal of
Modern Language Methodology 4: 1. doi:10.46364/njmlm.v4i1.295.
Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Vol. 1.
New York, NY: Cambridge university press.
Seedhouse, P. 2008. “Learning to Talk the Talk: Conversation Analysis as a Tool for Induction of
Trainee Teachers.” In Professional Encounters in TESOL, edited by S. Garton, K Richards, 42–57.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seedhouse, P. 2019. “L2 Classroom Contexts: Deviance, Confusion, Grappling and Flouting.”
Classroom Discourse 10 (1): 10–28. doi:10.1080/19463014.2018.1555768.
Sert, O. 2015. Social Interaction and L2 Classroom Discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Sert, O. 2021. “Transforming CA Findings into Future L2 Teaching Practices: Challenges and
Prospects for Teacher Education.” In Classroom-based Conversation Analytic Research:
Theoretical and Applied Perspectives on Pedagogy, edited by S. Kunitz, N. Markee, and O. Sert,
259-279. New York, NY: Springer.
Sert, O. 2019. “Classroom Interaction and Language Teacher Education.” In The Routledge Handbook
of English Language Teacher Education, edited by S. Walsh and S. Mann, 216–238. London:
Routledge.
Sidnell, J., and T. Stivers, Eds. 2012. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Vol. 121. West Sussex, UK:
John Wiley & Sons.
Sinclair, J., and M. Coulthard. 2013. “Towards an Analysis of Discourse.” In Advances in Spoken
Discourse Analysis, edited by M. Coulthard, 7–40. London: Routledge.
Sowell, J. 2017. “Good Instruction-Giving in the Second-Language Classroom.” English Teaching
Forum 55 (no. 3): 10–19.
Stokoe, E. 2014. “The Conversation Analytic Role-play Method (CARM): A Method for Training
Communication Skills as an Alternative to Simulated Role-play.” Research on Language and
Social Interaction 47 (no. 3): 255–265. doi:10.1080/08351813.2014.925663.
Stokoe, E. 2011. “Simulated Interaction and Communication Skills Training: The ‘Conversation-
analytic Role-play Method’.” In Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in
Institutional Talk, edited by C. Antaki, 119–139. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Toerien, M., A. Irvine, P. Drew, and R. Sainsbury. 2011. “Should Mandatory Jobseeker Interviews Be
Personalised? the Politics of Using Conversation Analysis to Make Effective Practice
Recommendations.” In Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in Institutional
Talk, edited by C. Antaki, 140–160. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Verplaetse, L. S. 2000. “How Content Teachers Allocate Turns to Limited English Proficient Students.”
Journal of Education 182 (no. 3): 19–35.
Vygotsky, L. 1978. “Interaction between Learning and Development.” Readings on the Development
of Children 23 (no. 3): 34–41.
Walsh, S. 2006. Investigating Classroom Discourse. London: Routledge.
Walsh, S. 2011. Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London: Routledge.
Waring, H. Z., and B. L. Hruska. 2012. “Problematic Directives in Pedagogical Interaction.” Linguistics
and Education 23 (3): 289–300. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2012.06.002.
Waring, H. Z., and S. C. Creider. 2021. Micro-Reflection on Classroom Communication: A FAB
Framework. Sheffield, UK: Equinox.
Waring, H. Z. 2014. “Managing Control and Connection in an Adult ESL Classroom.” Research in the
Teaching of English 49 (no. 1): 52–74.
Waring, H. Z. 2020. “Harnessing the Power of Heteroglossia: How to Multi-task with Teacher Talk.” In
Classroom-based Conversation Analytic Research: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives on
Pedagogy, edited by S. Kunitz, N. Markee, and O. Sert, 281-301. New York, NY: Springer.
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 127

Waring, H. Z. 2019. “The What and How of English Language Teaching: Conversation Analysis
Perspectives.” In Second Handbook of English Language Teaching, edited by X. Gao, 1053–1070.
New York: Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_54-1.
Wilkinson, R. 2014. “Intervening with Conversation Analysis in Speech and Language Therapy:
Improving Aphasic Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 47 (3): 219–238.
doi:10.1080/08351813.2014.925659.
Wilkinson, R. 2011. “Changing Interactional Behaviour: Using Conversation Analysis in Intervention
Programmes for Aphasic Conversation.” In Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change
in Institutional Talk, edited by C. Antaki, 32–53. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zemel, A., and T. Koschmann. 2011. “Pursuing a Question: Reinitiating IRE Sequences as a Method of
Instruction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2): 475–488. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.022.

Appendix A
. (period) falling intonation.
? (question mark) rising intonation.
, (comma) continuing intonation.
- (hyphen) abrupt cut-off.
:: (colon(s)) prolonging of sound.
word (underlining) stress.
word The more underlining, the greater the stress.
WORD (all caps) loud speech.
prosody features
°word° (degree symbols) quiet speech.
↑word (upward arrow) raised pitch.
↓word (downward arrow) lowered pitch.
>word< (more than and less than) quicker speech.
<word> (less than & more than) slowed speech.
< (less than) jump start or rushed start.
hh (series of h’s) aspiration or laughter.
.hh (h’s preceded by dot) inhalation.
(hh) (h’s in parentheses) inside word boundaries.
[] (lined-up brackets) beginning and ending of
[] simultaneous or overlapping speech.
= (equal sign) latch or contiguous utterances of the same speaker.
(2.4) (number in parentheses) length of a silence in 10ths of a second.
(.) (period in parentheses) micro-pause, 0.2 s or less.
() (empty parentheses) non-transcribable segment of talk.
$word$ (dollar or pound signs) smiley voice
+word (plus sign and italicized word) nonverbal conduct occurring simultaneously
word (italicized word) nonverbal conduct