The Role of Third Turn Repeats in Korean EFL Classrooms
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper extends research on interactional forms of teacher repeats and their management in third turn by analyzing teacher student interaction in Korean EFL classrooms. Research has shown that classroom interaction is characterized by an overwhelming number of teacher repetition in feedback moves following the Initiation-Response-Feedback sequence (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975); whereby the teacher controls the interaction through evaluation of the student answer. In the tightly controlled contexts of Korean EFL classrooms, the teacher appears to be constantly placed in a position of conflict. She has to follow a tightly scheduled lesson plan, which allocates a rather strict time frame and organization, at the same time attend to individual student learning. The focal practice is understood as these teachers’ attempt at resolving the obstacle through interactive practices of repeating the student response. The focal practice promotes the possibility of producing a socially harmonious, accepting response (i.e., intersubjectivity) without compromising lesson progressivity, despite the fact that the responses or part of the response produced by the student is not fully accurate. Finally, the interactive consequences of the focal practice are compared with other evaluative tokens that may also occur in the third turn.
Abstract
This paper extends research on interactional forms of teacher repeats and their management in third turn by analyzing teacher student interaction in Korean EFL classrooms. Research has shown that classroom interaction is characterized by an overwhelming number of teacher repetition in feedback moves following the Initiation-Response-Feedback sequence (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975); whereby the teacher controls the interaction through evaluation of the student answer. In the tightly controlled contexts of Korean EFL classrooms, the teacher appears to be constantly placed in a position of conflict. She has to follow a tightly scheduled lesson plan, which allocates a rather strict time frame and organization, at the same time attend to individual student learning. The focal practice is understood as these teachers’ attempt at resolving the obstacle through interactive practices of repeating the student response. The focal practice promotes the possibility of producing a socially harmonious, accepting response (i.e., intersubjectivity) without compromising lesson progressivity, despite the fact that the responses or part of the response produced by the student is not fully accurate. Finally, the interactive consequences of the focal practice are compared with other evaluative tokens that may also occur in the third turn.
참고문헌 (33)
- Atkinson, M. J., "Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis" (1984), Cambridge University Press
- Berger, C. R., "Acquiring social information, In Strategic interpersonal communication", pp.1~30 (1994), Erlbaum
- Cazden, C., "Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning" (2001), Heinemann
- Clayman, S., "Sequence and solidarity, In Advances in group processes: Group cohesion, trust, and solidarity", pp.229~253 (2002), Elsevier Science
- Firth, A., "Second", foreign language learning as a social accomplishment : Elaborations on a ‘reconceptualized’ SLA, 2007, pp.91, 800~819
- Ford, C. E., "At the intersection of turn and sequence: Negation and what comes next, In Studies in interactional linguistics", pp.51~79 (2001), John Benjamins
- Ford, C. E., "‘‘Getting past no’’: Sequence, action and sound production in the projection of no-initiated turns, In Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation", pp.233~269 (2004), John Benjamins
- Gardner, R., "listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance" (2001), John Benjamins
- Gardner, R., "The ‘‘right’’ connections: Acknowledging epistemic progression in talk", Language in Society, 36, pp.319~341 (2007)
- Hall, J. K., "Differential teacher attention to student utterances:The construction of different opportunities for learning in the IRF", Linguistics and Education, 9(3), pp.287~283 (1998)
- Hellerman, J., "The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: teacher repetition in feedback moves", Language in Society, 32(1), pp.79~104 (2003)
- Heritage, J., "Garfinkel and ethnomethodology" (1984), Polity Press
- Heritage, J., "Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places), In Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives", pp.255~280 (2007), Cambridge University Press
- Heritage, J., "Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions" (2010), Wiley-Blackwell
- Heritage, J., "Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences : And-prefacing as a feature of question design", Language in Society, 23, pp.1~29 (1994)
- Kang, D. -M., "The classroom language use of a Korean elementary school EFL teacher: Another look at TETE", System, 36(2), pp.214~226 (2008)
- 고정민, "교수방법과 TETE 수업을 중심으로 살펴본 중학교 영어교육", Foreign Languages Education, 15(1), pp.383~407 (2008), 한국외국어교육학회
- Lee, Y. -A., "Third turn position in teacher talk : Contingency and the work of teaching", Journal of Pragmatics, 39, pp.180~206 (2007)
- Koshik, I., "Designedly incomplete utterances : A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences", Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35, pp.277~310 (2002)
- McHoul, A., "The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom", Language in Society, 7(2), pp.183~213 (1978)
- McKeachie, W. J., "McKeachie’s teaching tips(12th edition)" (2006), Houghton Mifflin
- Mehan, H., "Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom" (1979), Harvard University Press
- Pekarek Doehler, S., "Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On language, learning and documenting learning in conversation analytic SLA research, In Conceptualising learning in applied linguistics", pp.105~127 (2010), Palgrave Macmillan
- Sacks H., "Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction, In Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology", pp.15~21 (1979), Irvington Press
- Sacks, H., "A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation", Language, 50, pp.696~735 (1974)
- Schegloff, E. A., "The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation", Language, 53(2), pp.361~382 (1977)
- Schegloff, E. A., "Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation", American Journal of Sociology, 98, pp.1295~1345 (1992)
- Schegloff, E. A., "Sequence Organization" (2007), Cambridge University Press
- Seedhouse, P., "The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective" (2004), Blackwell Publishing, Ltd
- Sinclair, J., "Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils" (1975), Oxford University Press
- Sohn, Sung-Ock, "Grammaticalization in Korean", UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute, ~
- Waring, H. Z., "Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities", The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), pp.577~94 (2008)
- Wertsch, J. V., "Vygotsky and the social formation of mind" (1985), Harvard University Press