Speaker
Description
While research has documented teachers’ practices for managing stalled progressivity in classroom interaction, comparatively little is known about how L2 learners orient to and manage progressivity in the absence of teachers. Drawing on longitudinal data from a virtual exchange project, this study demonstrates learners’ developing sensitivity to progressivity and the corresponding development in their interactional competence. The findings show how virtual exchange affords opportunities for learners to socialize into interactional practices typically reserved for teachers.
Abstract section 5: References
Amar, C., Nanbu, Z., & Greer, T. (2022). Proffering absurd candidate formulations in the pursuit of progressivity. Classroom Discourse, 13(3), 264–292.
Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35, 367–392.
Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (initiation–response–feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59(4), 796–824.
Abstract section 1: Relevance
In Conversation Analysis, progressivity refers to participants’ orientation to keeping interaction moving forward through the orderly organization of turns and sequences. In language classrooms, breakdowns in progressivity, such as delayed or absent responses after a question is asked, are typically resolved through teachers’ elicitation practices (Amar, Nanbu, & Greer, 2022). However, less is known about how second language learners manage progressivity when teacher support is absent. Understanding how learners sustain interaction autonomously is crucial for pedagogy, particularly in technology-mediated contexts (such as virtual exchange) that increasingly position learners as primary managers of talk.
Abstract section 3: Content/method
The study employs Conversation Analysis to examine naturally occurring data from synchronous Zoom discussions embedded in a virtual exchange project linking learners from a Japanese university and students at a university in the U.S. The dataset consists of recordings of interactions between Japanese EFL learners and L1 or proficient speakers of English. The synchronous sessions took place in the absence of teachers, thus creating conditions in which participants were solely responsible for sustaining interactional flow.
Abstract section 4: Outcomes/results
Analysis reveals a longitudinal shift in the Japanese learners’ participation, from cautious to proactive engagement, evidenced by an increasing orientation to sequence organization, conditional relevance, and the timely management of emerging interactional contingencies (Stivers & Robinson, 2006). Rather than reflecting gains in grammatical accuracy, the findings demonstrate development in interactional competence as a situated, practice-based phenomenon. Pedagogically, the results call into question the tightly scripted nature of teacher-led classroom interaction (Warring, 2009), which often pre-empts learners’ responsibility for sustaining progressivity, and underscore the value of providing learners with opportunities to appropriate interactional practices under conditions of shared accountability.
Abstract section 2: Contribution/research questions
This research examines how participation in Virtual Exchange (VE) supports L2 learners’ developing ability to sustain interactional progressivity inn the absence of teacher intervention. It therefore addresses the following questions:
(1) How do L2 learners orient to threatened progressivity in peer interaction?
(2) What interactional practices emerge as learners assume greater responsibility for sequence advancement over time?
| Title | The talk must go on: Sustaining progressivity in interaction |
|---|---|
| Teaching Context | College and university education |