Learner Silence and Strategic Pausing in Thai EFL Classrooms: A Conversation Analysis–Informed Study
Keywords:
Conversation analysis (CA), Classroom interactional competence (CIC), Proficiency-based comparison, Learner silence, Strategic pausingAbstract
The objective of this research was to investigate interactional challenges in Thai EFL classrooms, particularly learner silence and anxiety during interactions with foreign instructors, through the integration of Conversation Analysis (CA) and Classroom Interactional Competence (CIC). This study adopted
a qualitative, Conversation Analysis (CA)-based approach, analyzing classroom interaction data from
28 English major students categorized into high, intermediate, and low proficiency levels. The findings revealed a significant disparity in interactional patterns; low-proficiency learners exhibited a silence-to-turn ratio nearly three times higher than their high-proficiency counterparts, with average pauses exceeding 2.0 seconds. While silence among high-proficiency learners functioned as cognitive processing for self-repair,
it often resulted in interactional breakdowns among lower-proficiency learners. Based on these empirical findings, the study developed a Conversation Analysis–informed pedagogical framework centered on “Strategic Pausing.” The framework includes four key guidelines: differentiating wait-time based on proficiency levels, utilizing interactional fillers to support turn-holding, employing face-sensitive repair strategies, and balancing teacher-student talk time. This framework reconceptualizes classroom silence as an interactional resource and provides a data-driven foundation for enhancing Classroom Interactional Competence (CIC) in Thai EFL contexts.
References
Ali, E. M. (2025). Teaching English Turn-taking and Pausing Tactics: A Practical Trend for the Promotion of Students’ Performance in Foreign Classes. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 51(5), 55-62.
Balaman, U. (2025). A longitudinal case study of L2 interactional competence development in the ELT
classroom: Teachability and learnability of L2 interactional practices. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 2237-2247. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2025.2323456
ChatGPT. (2026). Conceptual Framework of Learner Silence and Strategic Pausing in Thai EFL Classrooms [AI-generated image]. https://chatgpt.com
Han, X. (2024). From Conversation to Interaction: A Pedagogical Exploration of Applying Conversation
Analysis in EFL Classrooms. TESL-EJ, 28(3), n3. https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.28111a7
Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2012). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J. Sidnell &
T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57-76). Wiley-Blackwell.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-31). John Benjamins.
Kang, H., & Chang, B. (2016). Examining Culture’s Impact on the Learning Behaviors of International
Students from Confucius Culture Studying in Western Online Learning Context. Journal of
International Students, 6(3), 779-797. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i3.356
Lo, M. F. (2017). Classroom interactional competence (CIC) in EFL student-led small group task
interaction. [Doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University]. http://theses.ncl.ac.uk/jspui/handle/10443/4015
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, &
T. K. Bhatia (Eds). Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.
Moorhouse, B. L., Li, Y., & Walsh, S. (2023). E-classroom interactional competencies: Mediating and
assisting language learning during synchronous online lessons. Relc Journal, 54(1), 114-128.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220985274
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of
repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-382.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. Studies in
interactional sociolinguistics, 13, 52-133.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell.
Sert, O. (2019). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh University Press.
Somsai, S., & Intaraprasert, C. (2011). Strategies for coping with face-to-face oral communication problems employed by Thai university students majoring in English. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 88-96.
Stivers, T. (2021). Is conversation built for two? The partitioning of social interaction. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 54(1), 1-19.
Teng, B., & sinwongsuwat, K. (2015). Teaching and Learning English in Thailand and the Integration of
Conversation Analysis (CA) into the classroom. English Language Teaching, 8(3), 13-23.
Tudini, V., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2017). Computer-mediated communication and conversation
analysis. Language, education and technology, 1-12.
Van Zant, A., Berger, J. A., Packard, G. M., & Wang, H. (2025). The Power of Pausing in Conversation.
Available at SSRN 5119651.
Walsh S (2006) Investigating Classroom Discourse. London: Routledge.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge.
Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualising classroom interactional competence. Novitas-Royal (Research on Youth and Language), 6(1), 1-14.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Uttaradit Rajabhat University
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
บทความเป็นลิขสิทธิของคณะมส. มรภ อต.
