Rethinking Teacher Third Turns in Thai EFL Classrooms: An Analysis Beyond Feedback
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Using Conversation Analysis (CA), the study examines a single Thai undergraduate English as a foreign language (EFL) conversation class to explore the interactional work accomplished through the teacher’s third turns within the initiation-response-feedback (IRF) sequence. Focusing on naturally occurring classroom interaction, the analysis is situated within Seedhouse’s (2004) four micro-pedagogical contexts, i.e., procedural, task-oriented, form-and-accuracy, and meaning-and-fluency. Adopting CA’s commitment to local logic, emic rationality, and situated action, the study foregrounds how the interactional work of the third turn emerges moment-by-moment in response to students’ prior turns and displayed understandings. The findings show that, unlike much previous research that prioritized a single pedagogical context, the teacher’s third-turn practices recur across the different contexts examined, while their interactional functions vary depending on local pedagogical orientations. Rather than operating as uniform acts of feedback or evaluation, teacher third turns are shaped by unfolding pedagogical contexts. The study concludes by suggesting that future research adopt collective case analysis to examine the extent to which such interactional patterns recur across classrooms and pedagogical settings.
Article Details
References
Badem-Korkmaz, F., & Balaman, U. (2020). Third position repair for resolving troubles in understanding teacher instructions. Linguistics and Education, 60, 100859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100859
Cho, E., Park, H. J. L., & Looney, S. D. (2024). Multimodality in third turn repetitions: Evaluation, mitigation, and the pursuit of responses in a Korean-as-foreign-language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 13621688241241037. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241241037
Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2019). What makes for effective feedback: Staff and student perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877
Dippold, D. (2014). “That’s wrong”: Repair and rapport in culturally diverse higher education classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 402–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12061.x
Esterhazy, R., & Damşa, C. (2019). Unpacking the feedback process: An analysis of undergraduate students’ interactional meaning-making of feedback comments. Studies in Higher Education, 44(2), 260–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1359249
Farrelly, M. J., & Sinwongsuwat, K. (2021). Strategies used and challenges faced by Thai EFL teachers when eliciting talk during classroom interactions in high school contexts. SAGE Open, 11(4), 21582440211050385. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211050385
Hall, J. K. (1997). Differential teacher attention to student utterances: The construction of different opportunities for learning in the IRF. Linguistics and Education, 9(3), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(97)90003-6
Hall, J. K. (2007). Redressing the roles of correction and repair in research on second and foreign language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00619.x
Heron, M., Medland, E., Winstone, N., & Pitt, E. (2023). Developing the relational in teacher feedback literacy: Exploring feedback talk. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1932735
Jácome, L. M. P., Jaimes, C. A. L., & Angulo, L. C. D. (2016). From feedback to follow-up in the third turn of IRF sequences: A challenge to promote genuine interaction in EFL classes. Rastros Rostros, 18(33), 71-81. https://revistas.ucc.edu.co/index.php/ra/article/view/1846
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Pragmatics & beyond new series (Vol. 125, pp. 13–31). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
Kaewkascholkul, N., & Jaturapitakkul, N. (2023). Thai teacher’s corrective feedback on adult learners’ errors in speaking. THAITESOL Journal, 36(2), 39–60. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/thaitesoljournal/article/view/269075
Lee, Y.-A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 180–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.004
Markee, N. (2004). Zones of interactional transition in ESL Classes. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 583–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-20-.x
Park, Y. (2014). The roles of third-turn repeats in two L2 classroom interactional contexts. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt006
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American journal of sociology, 97(5), 1295-1345. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/229903
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I (Vol. 1). Cambridge university press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
Seedhouse, P. (2015). L2 classroom interaction as a complex adaptive system. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (1st ed., pp. 373–389). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118531242.ch22
Seedhouse, P., & Walsh, S. (2010). Learning a second language through classroom interaction. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising “learning” in applied linguistics (pp. 127–146). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289772_8
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1168984
Supakorn, S. (2020). A conversation analytic study of classroom interactional competence. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 13(2), 15-40. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/243685
Tai, W. H., & Poon, B. (2016). A conversation analysis of teacher's feedback and students' uptake in an intermediate English as a second language classroom at INTO Newcastle University. Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences (ARECLS), 13(2016), 15-43. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10131681/
ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. SAGE Publications, Ltd, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208895
Vattøy, K. D., & Gamlem, S. M. (2020). Teacher–student interactions and feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(3), 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2019.1707512
Wagner, S., & Park, I. (2022). Whole‐class co‐construction in a high school Spanish classroom: A conversation analytic perspective. Language Learning, 72(S1), 203–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12472
Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation‐Response‐Feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59(4), 796–824. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00526.x
Waring, H. Z. (2012). “Any questions?”: Investigating the nature of understanding‐checks in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 722–752. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.48
Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. Routledge. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1093310
