Content uploaded by Olcay Sert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Olcay Sert on Feb 21, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Classroom discourse and second language acquisition
Christopher Jenks and Olcay Sert
Introduction
Classroom discourse has a special place in the history and study of second language
acquisition (SLA). For example, classrooms have been a source of curiosity for many
researchers and for many decades from the early and seminal work of Evelyn Hatch in the
1970s to current and cutting-edge investigations of multimodal interactions. The importance
of classrooms is evident in the many anthologies and edited collections of SLA research that
have been published in recent years to which the classroom plays a central role in theory
development. Furthermore, the discourse of classrooms–that is, the ways in which teachers
and students interact, exchange ideas, inform each other, and manage learning activities, to
name a few—represents the interests of researchers working in scholarly traditions ranging
from psycholinguistics to conversation analysis. Although SLA research is broad and
interdisciplinary, classroom discourse is a common empirical thread that runs through much
of what is done in this area of study.
This chapter offers an introduction to the empirical boundaries cutting through classroom
discourse and second language studies. The introduction previews some of the key concepts
and approaches that represent this growing area of research. A brief historical overview of the
classroom is provided within the context of SLA research, attending to some of the
similarities that exist within the literature but also exploring why differences in theoretical
approaches have led to division within the field. After the long and rich history of using
Please note that this is the authors' version of the paper. More information on the book is available at https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003177579 .
Please use the following reference for citation purposes:
Jenks, C. J. & Sert, O. (2024). Classroom Discourse and Second Language Acquisition. In B. Paltridge & M. Prior (eds.), The Routledge Handbook
of Second Language Acquisition and Discourse (pp. 270-282). Routledge.
2
classrooms to investigate SLA is discussed, the paper navigates through the plurality of
opinions that exists within literature. Special attention is paid to how psycholinguistic,
sociocultural, interactional, and ethnographic research traditions approach to classroom
discourse as a site for understanding second language development. The paper offers
examples of how researchers study classroom discourse and SLA by providing short
summaries of exemplar studies within each research approach, and ends with a discussion of
future empirical directions and opportunities.
A Shared History
The four approaches to classroom discourse reviewed in this paper all share a common
history, which can be traced back to the 1970s. This shared history is central to understanding
the role classroom discourse has played in researching SLA issues.
SLA research has transformed in the past five decades from a once somewhat esoteric and
marginalized subfield into a burgeoning and interdisciplinary field of study that contributes to
the classroom discourse literature (Ellis, 2021). However, although the study of SLA now
attracts the attention of scholars working in disciplines from Education to Psychology,
adopting methodologies ranging from stimulated recall (Gass & Mackey, 2013) to micro-
analytic approaches (Lee & Hellermann, 2014), this was not always the case.
In the 1970s, SLA work possessed a comparatively narrow focus, which was motivated by a
strong cognitive stance to language and language development (Hatch, 1978). The works at
the time of, for example, Michael Long, Rod Ellis, and Teresa Pica, focused on
demonstrating that SLA occurs within, and is best facilitated by, conversations between
3
students and other more proficient speakers, such as teachers. Although the investigations
conducted by these and other (e.g., Gass, 1997; Mackey, 2007) SLA researchers were
anchored to a cognitive view of language, their work analyzed the discourse produced by
learners when completing typical classroom activities, such as tasks. For example, Long's
(1983) interaction hypothesis is based on the observation that learner discourse provides a
window into how the brain processes input in the target language. The ultimate goal in such
research was to identify what teaching and learning approaches best facilitate second
language development (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2013).
SLA researchers approached the study of classrooms by coding teacher and learner discourse
that were thought to be developmentally beneficial to learning a second language, such as
clarification requests and confirmation checks. Isolating these types of exchanges allowed
SLA researchers to explore how design features embedded in classroom activities influence
learner language. For example, classroom activities were designed and tweaked to investigate
the extent to which certain tasks features maximize language learning opportunities (Long,
2015).
This interest in the relationship between classroom activities and learner discourse is also
shared by discourse and conversation analysts (e.g., Hauser, 2011; Markee, 2008; Markee,
Kunitz, & Sert, 2021), as well as research informed by sociocultural (Zuengler & Miller,
2006) and language socialization (Watson-Gegeo, 2004) theories. Like psycholinguists, these
other more process-oriented researchers have a history of investigating how classroom
discourse aligns with pedagogical goals (Seedhouse, 1996; 2019) and facilitates second
language development (Eskildsen, 2018; He, 2004; Sert, 2017). These overlapping areas of
interest should have led to many exciting interdisciplinary SLA investigations. Unfortunately,
4
research that navigates across theoretical and methodological traditions is sparse and seen as
challenging if not problematic (Larsen-Freeman, 2004).
For example, although early SLA work was instrumental in generating interest in teacher and
learner discourse, some of this concern was unfortunately based on a dissatisfaction with the
cognitive traditions of the time and the methodological approaches that represented such
work (see Wagner, 1996). This dissatisfaction reached its peak much later and most
concretely in a series of articles published in 1997 and 2007 in The Modern Language
Journal (Magnan, 2007). While these widely circulated publications highlighted the fractions
and differences that exist within the study of SLA, readers with less motivation to engage in
empirical tribalism could see that the 1997 and 2007 publications largely ignored the issues
that tie the field together, such as the aim to understand how second language learning occurs
within the discourse of teachers and students.
Some of the empirical methods that are shared by SLA researchers working across theoretical
and methodological traditions include using transcripts to present qualitative observations or
report quantitative findings, coding learner discourse, and tracking learning trajectories over
time. Although there are numerous other empirical approaches used in SLA research
(Doughty & Long, 2008), capturing and analyzing teacher and learner discourse for the
purpose of identifying moments of language development is foundational to researchers
informed by psycholinguistics, conversation analysis, as well as scholarly approaches ranging
from ethnography to cognitive theory.
Indeed, this approach of capturing, and then later making sense of, teacher and learner
discourse can be found in some of the earliest research in both the classroom discourse
5
literature and SLA studies. For instance, observation checklists were a common tool used in
the 1970s to make sense of teacher and learner discourse. Flanders’ (1970) FIAC checklist,
which refers to “interaction analysis categories,” is a prominent example of looking at
classroom discourse through the lens of predefined teaching and learning issues (see also the
FOCUS checklist; Fanselow, 1977; as well as the COLT checklist; Allen, Frohlich, & Spada
1984).
Although checklists were at the time a unique way of observing and coding classroom
discourse, they are limited to etic observations of what researchers believe to be important a
priori, such as response types that provide implicit feedback, and not necessarily what
teachers and students attend to in situ. Like the discourse methods adopted in early SLA
research, checklists do not account for the full range of contextual factors that shape why
teachers and students communicate in particular ways, nor are the researchers following these
approaches concerned with such issues. These observations are not, however, criticisms. Etic
approaches that isolate discourse features are integral to testing SLA hypotheses and
understanding classrooms in relation to specific language teaching and learning issues.
Nonetheless, the practice of isolating discourse features led to several critiques by scholars
unsatisfied with viewing classrooms in such narrowly defined ways (Harrop, 1979), which
was a catalyst (along with technological advancements in recording equipment) for viewing
classroom discourse as a study in its own right.
To this end, the study of classroom discourse as it is presently known emerged in the 1970s.
At the time, however, classroom discourse research was not fundamentally concerned with
tracking second language development (e.g., Mehan, 1979a). Although early classroom
discourse research included discussions of language learning (Cazden, 2001), an emic
6
framework based on understanding the structure of entire lessons through the practice of
recording, transcribing, and analyzing what teachers and students do was the modus operandi
of the time (Coulthard, 1974). For instance, the seminal work of Sinclair and Coulthard
(1975) evolved from an interest in studying the language and structure of classrooms: lessons
were shown to unfold in a somewhat rigid interactional sequence of initiation-response-
feedback (IRF). The observation that lessons are structured according to IRF sequences
demonstrated that a rich understanding of teaching and learning can be established by looking
at the discourse of classrooms (see also Mehan, 1979b).
Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), Mehan (1979b), and other discourse and conversation analysts
(Schwartz, 1977) were instrumental in advancing the methods used to study classroom
discourse (McHoul, 1978). This tradition of capturing, transcribing, and analyzing whole
lessons inspired several decades of interactional (Sert, 2015) and sociocultural (Antón, 1999)
approaches, including numerous investigations concerned with tracking second language
development within classrooms (Hauser, 2013; Markee, 2008). The process-oriented
approaches to classroom discourse and SLA represented a departure from the
psycholinguistic tradition: discourse analysts, as well as sociocultural researchers, established
an agenda of looking at how classrooms are discursively organized as opposed to testing what
correlations can be made between classroom discourse and second language development.
Put differently, discourse and conversation analysts, as well as researchers informed by
sociocultural approaches, view classroom discourse as a process while psycholinguists see
classroom discourse as products of cognition. Despite the shared interests in classroom
discourse identified in this section, the process-product or how-what dichotomy reflects
unique methodological traditions that require further explanation.
7
Main Research Approaches
Several research traditions exist in the study of classroom discourse and SLA with each
school of thought adopting its own set of approaches that reflect different theoretical
motivations. Although an effort was made in the previous section to outline shared interests
and opportunities for interdisciplinary work, detailing some of the instances when different
research traditions adopt the same methods or tools of investigation, the study of classroom
discourse and SLA is made up of investigations operating within clear theoretical boundaries
and carried out according to distinct research approaches.
This section offers a concise overview of four research approaches: psycholinguistic,
sociocultural, interactional, and ethnographic. Again, these four research approaches may
adopt the same methods or tools of investigation. Some approaches, such as interactional and
ethnographic, have been used togather in classroom discourse research. Despite these
similarities and overlap, the objective of this section is to highlight the unique characteristics
of each research approach, helping readers appreciate the plurality of opinions and
approaches that exist in the study of classroom discourse and SLA. To this end, Figure 1
offers a simple way of understanding where these approaches lie in relation to four empirical
perspectives: etic/emic and cognitive/social.
8
Figure 1 - Four axes of classroom discourse approaches
The main approaches to classroom discourse and SLA research can be divided into six
empirical categories: research design, learning theory, unit of analysis, classroom, discourse,
and analysis. It is important to note that the descriptions for each category within each
research approach are simplified below in order to illustrate the differences across research
approaches in an accessible, albeit somewhat superficial, way.
The Psycholinguistic Approach
The psycholinguistic approach, which is sometimes referred to as the (cognitive)
interactionist perspective for its belief that language offers window into the psychological and
cognitive dimensions of language (Ellis, Skehan, Li, Shintani, Lambert, 2019), is largely
9
quantitative in nature with researchers controlling and replicating classroom variables for the
purpose of measuring discourse features (Mackey, Abbuhl, & Gass, 2013). This framework
allows researchers to make correlations between classroom discourse and SLA.
Markee (2015, p. 23) characterizes the psycholinguistic approach as “an etic (researcher‐
centric), theory‐driven, hypothesis‐testing and experimental (i.e., statistically based) research
tradition that seeks to make large‐scale generalizations about cause and effect relationships in
instructed language learning.” Researchers adopting the psycholinguistic approach have a
long history of investigating SLA, offering numerous cognitive-based hypotheses that
contribute to a better understanding of the mind as manifested in the discourse of teaching
and learning.
The psycholinguistic approach possesses the following research characteristics.
1. Research design Research is indifferent to faithfully capturing and depicting teachers
and learners in their “natural” environment. Studies are often
experimental, short-term, and cross-sectional.
2. Learning theory Researchers adopt exogenous theories, which are mostly based on the
view that second language learning is an innate process.
3. Unit of analysis Analytic observations are based on discourses that are believed to be
critical to language learning, such as communicative exchanges that
deal with meaning construction.
4. Classroom Researchers view classrooms as a set of variables that can be
controlled and manipulated in order to test an exogenous theory or
hypothesis. Some researchers create experimental conditions within
10
classrooms that mimic classroom activities.
5. Discourse Discourse is a mental representation. Aspects of discourse are isolated
and treated as dependent variables that can be measured.
6. Analysis Researchers make use of a diverse set of analytic tools, which are
mostly statistical computations based on coding discourse features.
Example study:
Sato, M., & McDonough, K. (2019). Practice is important but how about its
quality? Contextualized practice in the classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
41(5), 999-1026.
The researchers adopt a psycholinguistic approach by examining the influence practice of
correct and incorrect language has on declarative knowledge and speech production. Using
regression models, the researchers demonstrate that declarative knowledge does not
accurately predict the extent to which learners are fluent and accurate.
The Sociocultural Approach
The sociocultural approach (Lantolf, 2000), which is often used alongside language
socialization theories (Duff, 2019; Watson-Gegeo, 2004), is largely qualitative in nature with
researchers viewing the language learning process in classrooms as a mediation between
learners and more proficient interactants (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 1995). Scholars working with
sociocultural theories are influenced by the works of Vygotsky and his research associates
(Lantolf, 2006), but are comparatively more theoretically pluralistic than the other three
approaches. Like ethnographic and conversation analytic approaches, the sociocultural
11
approach is interested in how language develops in and through social contexts (Schieffelin
& Ochs, 1986). For socioculturalists, what this interest often entails is looking at how
language learning is embedded within participatory frameworks, such as when a student
communicates with her teacher whilst receiving feedback.
The sociocultural approach possesses the following research characteristics.
1. Research design Research is often faithful to capturing and depicting teachers and
learners in their “natural” environment. Studies may be short- or long-
term.
2. Learning theory Researchers adopt exogenous learning theories, which are often based
on the view that second language development is situated within the
interactions of teachers and students.
3. Unit of analysis Analytic observations are based on exogenous theories. For
sociocultural researchers, this may include participatory frameworks,
scaffolding, and activities.
4. Classroom Researchers view classrooms as salient to how language is used and
learning develops. However, some research creates experimental
conditions within classrooms that mimic classroom
activities.
5. Discourse Language learning is viewed as a social practice, and therefore
discourse is examined as a resource that teachers and students use
during learning activities.
6. Analysis Researchers make use of a diverse set of analytic tools, which may
include discourse analysis or ethnographic observations.
12
Example study:
Li, D., & Zhang, L. (2020). Exploring teacher scaffolding in a CLIL-framed EFL intensive
reading class: A classroom discourse analysis approach. Language Teaching Research, 26,
(3), 333-360.
The researchers adopt a sociocultural approach by analyzing how teachers help students in
their learning through scaffolding practices. Using discourse analysis and drawing from
Vygotskian notions of development, the researchers show that dialogic inquiry and incidental
feedback are developmentally benefical for students’ language and cognition.
The Interactional Approach
The interactional approach, which includes multimodal research (Jacknick, 2021), discourse
analytic methods (Rymes, 2016), and conversation analysis (Sert, 2015), is largely qualitative
in nature with researchers viewing language learning as a social practice. Observations of
classroom discourse are often emic, focusing on how the interactants themselves make sense
of, and engage in practices related to, second language development (Kasper, 2006). The
interactional approach is typically based on micro discursive features, but can also
incorporate critical issues, such as native speakerism (Park, 2007). With the exception of
conversation analysis, the interactional approach is largely open to incorporating different
research traditions (Rampton, Roberts, Leung, & Harris, 2002).
13
The interactional approach possesses the following research characteristics.
1. Research design Research is faithful to capturing and depicting teachers and learners in
their “natural” environment. Historically, studies have been short-
term, focusing on single stretches of communication, though
longitudinal investigations are becoming more common.
2. Learning theory Researchers do not typically adopt exogenous learning theories,
though there is some variation across the different interactional
approaches. For conversation analysis, there is debate over whether
exogenous theories are commensurate with its methodological
principles. The general rule of thumb is that exogenous theories can
be used after the researcher completes an "unmotivated" analysis,
which allows the data to first speak for itself.
3. Unit of analysis Analytic observations are based on the adopted methodological
apparatus. For conversation analysis, a unit of analysis may be
actions in repair sequences, explicit corrections, and word choice, to
name a few.
4. Classroom Context and setting are important in so far as it is demonstrably
relevant to how teachers and students manage their interactions with
each other. The exception to this principle is critical discourse
analysis.
5. Discourse Language learning is viewed as a social practice, and therefore
discourse is examined as a resource that teachers and students use
during learning activities.
6. Analysis The analytic tools used by researchers are limited to the adopted
14
methodological apparatus. For conversation analysis, analytic
observations are limited to, for instance, next-turn proof procedure
and turn-taking rules.
Example study:
Sert, O & Amri, M. (2021). Learning potentials afforded by a film in task-based language
classroom interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 105(S1), 126-141.
The researchers adopt an interactional approach by examining video-recorded interactions of
EFL classrooms in Sweden. Using multimodal conversation analysis, the study examines
how students co-narrate scenes from a film during a discussion task and explores how these
discourses represent opportunities for language learning.
The Ethnographic Approach
The ethnographic approach offers the most holistic understanding of classrooms out of the
four approaches reviewed in this section; this is because ethnographers are not chained to
specific analytic methods (Watson-Gegeo, 1997), but are rather concerned primarily with
understanding all of the potential social and cultural dimensions that may shape language
teaching and learning from the micro discursive features that occupy the attention of
conversation analysts (Kunitz & Markee, 2017) to the macro issues that represent the work of
critical discourse analysts (see Jenks, 2020). Classroom ethnographies are primarily
qualitative, utilizing a mixed-methods approach to investigating second language
development (Davis, 2012), such as discourse analysis, interviews, and classroom
15
observations. Ethnographic descriptions of classroom language learning are emic, drawing
from the resources and practices that are used by teachers and students as they engage in the
learning process.
The ethnographic approach possesses the following research characteristics.
1. Research design Research is faithful to capturing and depicting teachers and learners in
their “natural” environment and over longer periods of observations,
such as an academic semester or year.
2. Learning theory Researchers are theoretically pluralistic, adopting learning theories
that best represent what naturally occurs in the classroom.
3. Unit of analysis Analytic observations are based on the methodologies used by the
researcher (e.g., repair sequences if conversation analysis is adopted).
4. Classroom Context and setting are important to how learning is understood.
Researchers do not view classrooms as experimental settings.
5. Discourse Language learning is viewed as a social practice, and therefore
discourse is examined as a resource that teachers and students use
during learning activities.
6. Analysis Researchers make use of a diverse set of analytic tools, which may
include narrative analysis, critical theories, and reflective practices.
16
Example study:
Wang, W., & Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. (2019). Translanguaging in a Chinese–English
bilingual education programme: a university-classroom ethnography. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(3), 322-337.
The researchers adopt an ethnographic approach by investigating bilingual classrooms. Using
observation tools, interviews, and fieldwork notes, the researchers uncover the different
translanguaging practices used by university students.
Future Directions
The study of classroom discourse and SLA attracts the attention of scholars working in a
number of disciplines, including Applied Linguistics, Education, Psychology, Anthropology,
and Sociology. What lies ahead in this exiting and growing area of research will vary
according to disciplinary traditions. With that said, there are a number of empirical issues that
will influence how classroom discourse and SLA research moves forward.
Technology is at the heart of future directions in classroom discourse and SLA research. It is
widely accepted within and across the four research approaches that classrooms are not just
physical spaces where person-to-person teaching and learning takes place. Video-mediated
virtual exchanges between language learners (e.g. Çimenli, Sert & Jenks, 2022), as well as
new forms of online teaching that allow learners and teachers to use complex multimodal
resources, are two classroom environments that require further empirical attention.
17
Specifically, the multimodal dimensions of classroom discourse are not limited to what is
commonly understood as “non-verbal” learning, such as teaching materials and student
gestures; future research must attend to the multimodal aspects of screen sharing, annotation,
and the numerous other collaborative activities afforded by Zoom, Teams, and other familiar
video conferencing platforms. Classroom discourse and SLA researchers should address how
these aspects of technologies and multimodality shape the language learning process.
Scholarship has witnessed new ways of presenting, disseminating, and publishing classroom
discourse research in the last decade, and this trend will continue in subsequent years.
Initiatives like the Corpus of English for Academic and Professional Purposes (CEAPP)
allow researchers and teachers to view annotated and transcribed classroom videos. Future
research must utilize such resources, and seek ways to incorporate them into teaching
practices. Put differently, accessible and online classroom discourse corpora will fuel more
research at the intersection of classroom discourse and SLA, while bridging the research-
practice gap. Technological advancements in video data production will also lead to different
forms of analytic and dissemination practices, such as mobile tagging tools (Seedhouse 2021;
Sert 2021a), automatic transcriptions, and teaching and learning analytics.
Dissemination practices in classroom discourse research will transform publication traditions.
Journals are now increasingly linking published findings with online records of raw
classroom data. Such practices will change how research is conceptualized, managed, and of
course, shared (see Willemsen et al. 2019). These developments will facilitate much needed
discussions regarding open access, data privacy, and research ethics. Furthermore, the
availability of classroom videos together with their transcriptions will create a dilemma
18
between more accessible transcriptions and transcriptions that are heavily annotated using
complex notation systems (Housley, Albert, & Stokoe, 2019).
Issues of accessibility and dissemination are, however, bound to the political and hegemonic
nature of English-centric publication expectations. As argued by (Sert 2021b), classroom
discourse research has a language bias with most studies coming from English-speaking
countries or focusing on English as a second language. Additional studies from other
languages and regions, including the Global South, are clearly needed. To this end, many
studies are now exploring the extent to which translanguaging classroom discourse (Li Wei &
Lin 2019) provides opportunities to rethink what multilingualism means for the study of, and
the institutional policies associated with, SLA.
Methodological design and innovation are two important pillars of development in any
scientific field. In terms of design, there is a clear need for more longitudinal classroom
discourse and SLA research. Studies must document the complex interactional history of
language users both within (Kunitz, Markee, & Sert, 2021) and beyond the borders of formal
instruction (Hellermann, Eskildsen, Doehler, & Piirainen-Marsh, 2019) over different periods
of time. Longtudinal research can easily accommodate, and is perhaps best conducted using,
mixed-methods approaches, such as conversation analysis and corpus linguistics (Walsh,
Morton, & O'Keeffe, 2011; Sert 2019a). In the same vein, classroom discourse research that
incorporates diverse methodological principles is equipped to better address the needs of
pracitioners in the field (e.g., Bozbıyık, Sert, & Dilek Bacanak, 2021).
In recent years, classroom discourse research has increasingly adopted an understanding of
interactional competence (IC) to investigate second language learning, as evidenced by a
19
growing number of articles in special issues (e.g. Pekarek Doehler, 2018; Roever & Kasper,
2018), edited volumes (Salaberry & Kunitz, 2019), as well as numerous publications on
classrooms (e.g. Watanabe, 2017; Pekarek Doehler, 2018; Sert, 2019a), second language
teaching (e.g. Waring 2018; Huth 2021), language teacher education (Sert 2019b; Walsh
2013), and proficiency assessment (e.g. Lam, 2018). IC in a second language encompasses
the methods used by learners to organize their participation in classrooms (Pekarek Doehler
& Pochon Berger, 2018).
Furthermore, IC is a growing area of interest for teacher education research. Such research
informs an understanding of second languge learning in two ways. First, an understanding of
IC is a concrete way of training language instructors to design communicative language
lessons that facilitate second language development (see Kunitz & Yeh, 2019). Secondly, an
understanding of IC can be used by novice researchers and teachers to observe classroom
practices (Walsh, 2011; Sert, 2019b; see also Biggs, 1996). The study of IC within teacher
education has also been used to track the development of teacher practices over time
(Bozbıyık, Sert, & Dilek Bacanak, 2021; Sert, 2019b; Carpenter, 2021). To this end, future
research can investigate how teachers, in classrooms, change their interactional practices over
a semester or academic year to allow for more student engagement or “acquisition-rich”
learning environments. This line of research has great potential to document what kind of
interaction leads to better learning opportunities. That is, if researchers can identify and track
the interactional practices of teachers and students (e.g., feedback, question types, evaluation,
and gestures), then this analytic focus can aid in designing learning materials and training
future language instructors (Sert, 2021a).
20
Further Reading
Jenks, C.J. (2020). Researching classroom discourse: A student guide. Routledge.
In this practical guide to doing classroom discourse research, the author introduces a
number of research skills needed to investigate the language of teaching and learning.
Chapters are organized around three stages of research: planning, analyzing, and
understanding and reporting. The book is an essential read for anyone learning how to
research classroom discourse.
Kunitz, S., Markee, N. & Sert, O. (2021). Classroom-based conversation analytic research:
Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy. Springer.
This edited collection explores the many ways in which classroom discourse is investigated
from a conversation analytic perspective. Although the chapters do not all examine second
language development, contributions attend to issues directly relevant to learning, such as
pedagogical decisions and testing practices. The book is helpful for readers looking for a
broad overview of conversation analytic investigations of classrooms.
Lantolf, James. P., Thorne, & Steven L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of
second language development. Oxford University Press.
Although this book does not strictly focus on classroom discourse, the chapters provide a
comprehensive account of sociocultural theory. Readers interested in the works of Lev
Vygotsky and his theory of mental functions will benefit from reading this book.
21
Leow, R.P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach.
Routledge.
The book introduces readers to the cognitive dimensions of learning in second language
classrooms. Chapters are organized around five dimensions of research: theoretical,
empirical, methodological, pedagogical, and model building. The author proposes a
cognitive model for second language development, which is helpful for readers interested
in research design issues.
Seliger, H.W., & Long, M.H. (1983). Classroom oriented research in second language
acquisition. Newbury House Publishers.
The contributions in this seminal collection of early classroom discourse and SLA research
cover a range of empirical topics from diary studies to error feedback. Although the book
was published over four decades ago, the chapters provide informative examples of how
classroom discourse can be approached from different theoretical perspectives. The book is
a necessary read for anyone wanting a glimpse into early classroom discourse and SLA
research.
Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh University
Press.
This book is an introduction to L2 classroom discourse research from a conversation
analytic perspective. The book introduces CA methodology and presents close analysis of
epistemic, multilingual and multimodal practices in language classrooms. The author
provides research-informed implications for teaching and teacher education.
22
References
Allen, J.P., Frohlich, M. & Spada, N. (1984). The communicative orientation of language
teaching: An observation scheme. In J. Handscombe, R. Orem and B. Taylor (Eds.),
On TESOL ’83: The question of control (pp. 231-252). TESOL.
Antón, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives
on teacher-learner interaction in the second-language classroom. The Modern
Language Journal, 83(3), 303-318 https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00024.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing Teaching Through Constructive Alignment. Higher Education
32(3): 347–364 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871 .
Bozbıyık, M., Sert, O. & Dilek Bacanak, K. (2021). VEO-integrated IMDAT in pre-service
language teacher education: A focus on change in teacher questioning practices. In
Seedhouse, P. (Ed.). Video enhanced observation for language teaching: Reflection
and professional development (pp. 97-116). Bloomsbury.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2013). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language
learning, teaching, and testing. Routledge.
Carpenter, L.B. (2021). Supporting student–teacher development of elicitations over time: A
conversation analytic intervention. Classroom Discourse, 1-19
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.1946112 .
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Heinemann.
Corpus of English for Academic and Professional Purposes. (2014). Corpus of videos and
23
accompanying transcripts from educational contexts. Unpublished raw data.
https://ceapp.la.psu.edu/
Coulthard, M. (1974). Approaches to the analysis of classroom interaction. Educational
Review, 26(3), 229-240 https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191740260306 .
Çimenli, B., Sert, O. & Jenks, C. J. (2022). Topic maintenance in video-based
virtual exchange: Rolling the ball back in L2 interactions. System. 108, 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102834
Davis, K.A. (2012). Ethnographic approaches to second language acquisition research. In
C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1-8). John Wiley &
Sons.
Doughty, C.J., & Long, M.H. (Eds.), (2008). The handbook of second language acquisition.
John Wiley & Sons.
Duff, P.A. (2019). Social dimensions and processes in second language acquisition:
Multilingual socialization in transnational contexts. The Modern Language Journal,
103, 6-22 https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12534.
Ellis, R. (2021). A short history of SLA: Where have we come from and where are we going?
Language Teaching, 54, 190-205 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000038.
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019). Cognitive-interactionist
perspectives. In R. Ellis, P. Skehan, S. Li, N. Shintani., & C. Lambert (Eds.), Task-
based language teaching: Theory and practice (pp. 29-63).
Cambridge University Press.
Eskildsen, S.W. (2018). ‘We're learning a lot of new words’: Encountering new L2
vocabulary outside of class. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 46-63
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12451.
Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals, 10,
24
583-593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1977.tb03035.x .
Flanders, N. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Addison Wesley.
Gass, S.M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the development of second languages. Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Gass, S.M., & Mackey, A. (2013). Stimulated recall methodology in second language
research. Routledge.
Harrop, L.A. (1979). Unreliability of classroom observation. Educational Research, 21(3),
207-211 https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188790210306 .
Hatch, E. (1978). Second language acquisition. Newbury House.
Hauser, E. (2011). On the danger of exogenous theory in CA-for-SLA: A response to
Hellermann and Cole (2009). Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 348-352
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr015.
Hauser, E. (2013). Stability and change in one adult's second language English negation.
Language Learning, 63(3), 463-498 https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12012 .
He, A.W. (2004). CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom. The
Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 568-582 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-
7902.2004.t01-19-.x.
Hellermann, J., Eskildsen, S. W., Doehler, S. P., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2019). Conversation
analytic research on learning-in-action: The complex ecology of second language
interaction ‘in the wild’. Springer.
Housley, W., Albert, S., & Stokoe, E. (2019). Natural action processing: Conversation
analysis and big interactional data. In Proceedings of Halfway to the Future (HTTF
2019), November 19-20, 2019, Association for Computing Machinery.
Huth, T. (2021). Conceptualizing interactional learning targets for the second language
curriculum. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation
25
analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (pp. 359-381).
Springer.
Jacknick, C.M. (2021). Multimodal participation and engagement. Edinburgh University
Press.
Jenks, C. J. (2020). Applying critical discourse analysis to classrooms. Classroom Discourse,
11(2), 99-106 https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2020.1761847.
Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA
Review, 19(1), 83-99 https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.07kas.
Kunitz, S., & Markee, N. (2017). Understanding the fuzzy borders of context in conversation
analysis and ethnography. In S. Wortham, D. Kim, & S. May (Eds.), Discourse and
education. Encyclopedia of language and education: (pp. 15-27). Springer.
Kunitz, S., & Yeh, M. (2019). Instructed L2 interactional competence in the first year. In
M.R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence
(pp. 228-259). Routledge.
Kunitz, S., Markee, N. & Sert, O. (2021). Classroom-based conversation analytic research:
Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy. Springer.
Lam, D. M. (2018). What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker
contribution as a feature of interactional competence. Language Testing, 35(3), 377-
401 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758126 .
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University
Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 28(1), 67-109 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060037.
26
Lantolf, J.P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108-124
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500002646.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2004). CA for SLA? It all depends. The Modern Language Journal,
88(4), 603-607.
Lee, Y.A., & Hellermann, J. (2014). Tracing developmental changes through conversation
analysis: Cross‐sectional and longitudinal analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 763-788
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.149.
Long, M.H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non‐native speakers.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004848 .
Long, M.H. (2015) Second language acquisition and task‐based language teaching.
Wiley‐ Blackwell.
Mackey, A. (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford
University Press.
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S.M. (2013). Interactionist approach. In S.M. Gass & A.
Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 25-41).
Routledge.
Magnan, S. S. (2007). Presenting the focus issue. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 733-
734.
Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA.
Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 404-427 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm052.
Markee, N. (2015). Overview of the research methodologies and assessment section. In N.
Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 23-25).
John Wiley & Sons.
27
Markee, N., Kunitz, S., & Sert, O. (2021). Introduction: CA-SLA and the diffusion of
innovations. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based
conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy
(pp. 1-18). Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_1 .
McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in
Society, 7(2), 183-213.
Mehan, H. (1979a). "What time is it, Denise?": Asking known information questions in
classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 28(4), 285-294
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405847909542846.
Mehan, H. (1979b). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard
University Press.
Rampton, B., Roberts, C., Leung, C., & Harris, R. (2002). Methodology in the analysis of
classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 373-392
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.3.373 .
Rymes, B. (2016). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection. Routledge.
Park, J.E. (2007). Co-construction of nonnative speaker identity in cross-cultural interaction.
Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 339-360 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm001 .
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development
of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 3-24
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E. (2018). L2 interactional competence as increased ability
for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied
Linguistics, 39(4), 555-578 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw021.
Roever, C., & Kasper, G. (2018). Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence
28
as a target construct in testing speaking. Language Testing, 35(3), 331-355
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758128 .
Salaberry, M. R., & Kunitz, S. (Eds.). (2019). Teaching and testing L2 interactional
competence: Bridging theory and practice. Routledge.
Schieffelin, B.B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 15(1), 163-191.
Schwartz, J. (1977). Repair in conversations between adult second language learners of
English. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of California, Los Angeles.
Seedhouse, P. (1996). Classroom interaction: possibilities and impossibilities. ELT Journal,
50(1), 16-24 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.1.16 .
Seedhouse, P. (2019). L2 classroom contexts: Deviance, confusion, grappling and flouting.
Classroom Discourse, 10(1), 10-28 https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1555768.
Seedhouse, P. (2021). Video enhanced observation for language teaching: Reflection and
professional development. Bloomsbury.
Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh
University Press.
Sert, O. (2017). Creating opportunities for L2 learning in a prediction activity. System, 70,
14-25 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.08.008.
Sert, O. (2019a). The interplay between collaborative turn sequences and active
listenership: Implications for the development of L2 interactional competence. In
M.R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional
competence: bridging theory and practice (pp. 142-166). London, UK: Routledge.
Sert, O. (2019b). Classroom interaction and language teacher education. In S. Walsh & S.
Mann (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English language teacher education (pp.
216-238). Routledge.
29
Sert, O. (2021a). Transforming CA findings into future L2 teaching practices: Challenges and
prospects for teacher education. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-
based conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on
pedagogy (p. 259-279). Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_13 .
Sert, O. (2021b). Classroom discourse and interaction – A field in transformation. In D.
Dippold & M. Heron (Eds.), Meaningful teaching interaction at the internationalised
university: From research to impact (p. xv-xix). Routledge.
Sert, O & Amri, M. (2021). Learning potentials afforded by a film in task-based language
classroom interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 105(S1), 126-141.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12684
Sinclair, J.H., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used
by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
Wagner, J. (1996). Foreign language acquisition through interaction—A critical review of
research on conversational adjustments. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 215-235
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(96)00013-6 .
Walsh, S. (2013). Classroom discourse and teacher development. Edinburgh
University Press.
Walsh, S., Morton, T., & O'Keeffe, A. (2011). Analysing university spoken interaction: A
CL/CA approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(3), 325-345
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.3.03wal.
Waring, H. Z. (2018). Teaching L2 interactional competence: Problems and possibilities.
Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 57-67 https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1434082.
Watanabe, A. (2017). Developing L2 interactional competence: increasing participation
through self-selection in post-expansion sequences. Classroom Discourse, 8(3), 271-
293 https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2017.1354310.
30
Watson-Gegeo, K.A. (1997). Classroom ethnography. In N.H. Hornberger N.H & D. Corson
(Eds.), Research methods in language and education. Encyclopedia of language and
education (pp. 135-144). Springer.
Watson‐Gegeo, K.A. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language
socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 331-350
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00233.x.
Wei, L., & Lin, A.M. (2019). Translanguaging classroom discourse: Pushing limits, breaking
boundaries. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 209-215
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1635032.
Willemsen, A., Gosen, M., Koole, T., & De Glopper, K. (2020). Gesture, gaze and laughter.
Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 2(2).
https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v2i2.118045
Zuengler, J., & Miller, E.R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel
SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 35-58 https://doi.org/10.2307/40264510 .
