System appendPDF Proof Hi

SAGE Open
Developing a framework for understanding lecturer-student

interaction in English-medium undergraduate lectures in Sri
Lanka: First steps towards dialogic teaching
Journal: SAGE Open
Manuscript ID Draft
Manuscript Type: SAGE Open - Research Paper

Fo
Main Discipline or Subject

Education
Area:
rP
Applied Linguistics < Linguistics < Language Studies < Humanities,

Language Studies < Humanities, Language Teaching < Language Studies
Keywords:
< Humanities, Education < Criminology < Social Sciences, Higher
Education < Education < Social Sciences
ee
Approaches: Qualitative
rR
Methods:
This study focuses on developing a framework to investigate lecturer-

student interaction in English-medium Science lectures a small faculty of
ev
a Sri Lankan university. Generally, lectures in English-medium

undergraduate courses in Sri Lanka tend to be monologic. Although
increased dialogic interaction could help to change this situation, few
studies have examined the occurrence of dialogic interaction in tertiary-
iew
level L2 Science classes. This study, involving 30 students and 4

lecturers, aims to develop a framework by analysing L2 lectures given at
the faculty in a method that contextually suits the lecture delivery style
Abstract:
in Asian countries. Data were collected from observation of 24 lectures
and transcribed recordings of 12 hours of lectures. An analytical
framework, which refines and extends the MICASE corpus interactivity
rating in a contextually focused way, was especially designed to
categorise the lecture discourse along a monologic-interactive/dialogic
continuum. This paper focuses on how this framework was designed.
Dialogic interaction, monologic lectures, lecturer-student interaction,

lecture discourse, Sri Lanka.
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
Page 1 of 30 SAGE Open
1
2
3 Title:
4
5
6
7
Developing a framework for understanding lecturer-student interaction in English-
8 medium undergraduate lectures in Sri Lanka: First steps towards dialogic teaching
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
ee
29
30
31
rR
32
33
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 1
SAGE Open Page 2 of 30
1
2
3 Abstract
4
5
6
This study focuses on developing a framework to investigate lecturer-student interaction in English-
7
8 medium Science lectures a small faculty of a Sri Lankan university. Generally, lectures in English-
9
10 medium undergraduate courses in Sri Lanka tend to be monologic. Although increased dialogic
11 interaction could help to change this situation, few studies have examined the occurrence of dialogic
12
13 interaction in tertiary-level L2 Science classes. This study, involving 30 students and 4 lecturers, aims
14 to develop a framework by analysing L2 lectures given at the faculty in a method that contextually
15
16 suits the lecture delivery style in Asian countries. Data were collected from observation of 24 lectures
17
and transcribed recordings of 12 hours of lectures. An analytical framework, which refines and
18
19 extends the MICASE corpus interactivity rating in a contextually focused way, was especially
20
21 designed to categorise the lecture discourse along a monologic-interactive/dialogic continuum. This
Fo
22 paper focuses on how this framework was designed.

23
24
rP
25
26
27 Key words:
28
ee
29
30 Dialogic interaction, monologic lectures, lecturer-student interaction, lecture discourse, Sri Lanka.
31
rR
32
33
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 2
1
2
3 Introduction
4
5
6
7 This study was undertaken in the context of English medium science lectures at a small
8
9 faculty in a Sri Lankan university where English is spoken as a second language (ESL). In Sri
10
11 Lanka, the tertiary education sector uses English as a medium of instruction alongside Tamil
12
13
14
and Sinhala, the two native languages. In the tertiary education sector, the native languages
15
16 are used in courses in Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, etc. In addition, the prominent
17
18 medium of instruction in schools is Tamil and Sinhala but a few schools in the metropolitan
19
20
areas use English as a medium of instruction. Many government departments and ministries
21
Fo
22
23 function in English, while the private sector uses English as the language of operation.
24
rP
25 However, the prominent role which the English language gained in Sri Lanka during the
26
27 period of British colonisation faced significant upheaval soon after independence in 1948.
28
ee
29
30
31 The Faculty in which the study was undertaken is called Faculty of Applied Sciences
rR
32
33
(hereinafter referred to as FAS) and in the faculty, the students, whose entire school study has
34
35
ev
36 been conducted in the mother tongue Tamil, now have to study in the university through
37
38 English. The study focuses on how an analytical system could be developed for
iew
39
40 understanding the occurrence of dialogic interaction in FAS lectures. Dialogic interaction, at
41
42
43 this point, can be defined simply as a mutual dialogue that takes place between a lecturer and
44
45 students. In other words, it is an interaction in which both the lecturer and the students
46
47 mutually contribute to the discourse with a view to exploring or developing a concept in a
48
49
50
lesson (Scott, Mortimer & Aguiar, 2006). Dialogic interaction can be differentiated from non-
51
52 dialogic interaction in the sense that dialogic interaction carries the notion of mutual
53
54 contributions from both the students and the teachers/lecturers, while non-dialogic lacks that
55
56
mutuality (Pedrosa de Jesus & da Silva Lopes, 2009). In this paper, the term interaction,
57
58
59
60 3
1
2
3 unless specified as dialogic, refers to simple question and answer sequences such as this one
4
5
6 from the FAS discourse.
7
8 E.g. Lecturer: What is PCR?
9 Student: Polymerase chain reaction
10 Lecturer: Yes, correct.
11
12 In Sri Lanka, just like other Asian countries, lecture deliveries are mostly monologic with
13
14 passive students. Neither the lecture deliveries nor the attitude of the students favours a
15
16
participatory learning which allows the students to be active in the learning process. Lecturers
17
18
19 have been exposed to participatory or student centred learning during their staff induction
20
21 training programmes, but the outcomes of such trainings are yet to be measured. On the other
Fo
22
23 hand, Asian students, as reported by Flowerdew, Miller and Li (2000), are reticent in the
24
rP
25
26 classroom because of their lower English proficiency. Hence, in Sri Lankan classrooms, there
27
28 are several other reasons for students’ reticence including cultural barrier and fear of being
ee
29
30 punished by lecturers if they tried to interact with them. The researcher has discussed these
31
rR
32
33
reasons in another paper (Author, xxxx). At the backdrop of the fact that the studies that
34
35 investigate the interaction either in Asia or Sri Lanka are very limited, this study will, as a
ev
36
37 first step, design a framework to investigate the occurrence of dialogic interaction which
38
iew
39
involves students in the centre of the learning process.
40
41
42
43
Literature Review
44
45
46 Classroom interaction is considered to be important for learning, so any attempt to improve
47
48 teaching and learning should consider classroom interaction as a potential area for
49
50 development (Walsh, 2011). This claim is made based on the assertion that language is the
51
52
53 medium of acquiring new knowledge and also, in language classes, language is used as both
54
55 the medium as well as the goal of the study (Walsh, 2011). Similarly, oral interaction that
56
57 occurs between teachers and students and among students is deemed to be important in
58
59
60 4
1
2
3 creating a suitable learning environment and for learners’ development (Hall & Verplaetse,
4
5
6 2000). Interaction in content classes may help students’ academic L2 (Second language)
7
8 competency (Verplaetse, 2000) by giving them the opportunity to practise the language to
9
10 reach fluency and hear the academic talk and later appropriate it. Hence it is generally
11
12
13
believed that through interaction, not only students’ academic communication skills, but also
14
15 their second language develops (Verplaetse, 2000).
16
17
18 The importance of dialogic interaction in learning has been emphasised in sociocultural
19
20 perspectives on learning in both L1 (first language) and L2 contexts. Alexander (2006)
21
Fo
22
23 regards dialogic teaching as “[it] harnesses the power of talk to engage children, stimulate
24
and extend their thinking, and advance their learning and understanding” (p.37). Further,
rP
25
26
27 dialogic talk promotes communication through authentic exchange during which the teacher
28
ee
29
30
helps students share and build meaning (Molinari & Mameli, 2010). Similarly Mercer, Dawes
31
rR
32 and Staarman (2009) argue that through dialogic teaching the classroom communication
33
34 should focus on organizing students’ educational experience to the progressive development
35
ev
36 of their understanding. Sociocultural theory, built on the work of Vygotsky (1978) elaborates
37
38
iew
39 that the role of language and interaction between the teacher and the learners is important for
40
41 the L1 as well as L2 learners (Mercer 2001). Following the path of Vygotsky’s sociocultural
42
43 theory, social constructivists (e.g. Mercer, 1995; Staarman & Mercer, 2010) argue that
44
45
46 teacher-led discussions are important for learning in the classroom. In this kind of learning
47
48 the teacher has an important role as he or she is the one who should exploit students’ present
49
50 understanding and “make explicit their thoughts, reasons and knowledge” through
51
52
53
appropriate use of questions (Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2003, p.101). The argument is that
54
55 the classroom talk should be dialogic with mutual contributions from both the students and
56
57
58
59
60 5
1
2
3 the teacher for developing the discourse, which in turn can be a good platform for content and
4
5
6 language learning (Swain & Lapkin, 1998).
7
8
9 Compared to studies on primary and secondary level spoken classroom discourse (Lemke,
10
11 1990; Mehan, 1979; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1992; Wells, 1993)
12
13
14
tertiary level spoken discourse is only recently gaining momentum. The creation of MICASE
15
16 (Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English) and BASE (British Academic Spoken
17
18 English), another British model similar to MICASE, led to corpus based research on spoken
19
20
academic discourse (for example, Crawford Camiciottoli, 2004; Nesi & Basturkmen, 2006;
21
Fo
22
23 Simpson & Swales, 2001). In addition, there are collections of other corpora such as
24
rP
25 CUCASE (City University Corpus of Academic Spoken English) which has been developed
26
27 at the City University of Hong Kong among the Chinese L1 speakers; NUCASE (New Castle
28
ee
29
30 University Corpus of Academic Spoken English) is built on the Limerick-Belfast Corpus of
31
rR
32 Academic Spoken English (LIBEL CASE) compiled at University of Limerick and Queen’s
33
34 University Belfast; and EDASE (Edinburgh Academic Spoken English Corpus) was
35
ev
36
37
compiled at the University of Edinburgh. But these last few corpora are at their early stage of
38
iew
39 development and published results are yet to appear.

40
41
42 It is believed that “the existence of spoken language corpora provides excellent opportunities
43
44 for the study of spoken interaction” (Aijmer & Stenstrom, 2005, p.1743), while these studies
45
46
47 aim at “help[ing] second language learners who may have difficulties understanding
48
49 academic speech, and the linguistic analyses focused mostly on the lexical-, topical- and
50
51 discourse patterns of lectures” (Csomay, 2006, p.118). In addition, corpus based studies have
52
53
54
investigated interaction in terms of the use of specific features in discourse. Mainly they have
55
56 looked at interpersonal features such as personal pronouns, questions, asides, etc. (Rounds,
57
58 1987; Northcott, 2001; Crawford Camiciottoli, 2004, 2005; Fortanet, 2004; Morell, 2004,
59
60 6
1
2
3 2007), lexeme in written/spoken discourse (Biber & Barbieri, 2007) or in an area of
4
5
6 conversation analysis (Adel, 2010; O’Keffee, 2006; Walsh, Morton & O'Keeffe, 2011).
7
8
9 Many studies have arisen in the recent past concerning the importance of dialogic interaction
10
11 for the educational development of children at primary as well as secondary levels (Boyd &
12
13 Markarian, 2011; Chin, 2006; Christine & Mortimer, 2008; Mercer, Dawes & Staarman,
14
15
16 2009; Mortimer, 1998, 2008; Scott, Mortimer & Aguiar, 2006; Skidmore, 2000; Wells &
17
18 Arauz, 2006) and an analysis of four decades of research concerning classroom dialogue has
19
20 also been undertaken by Howe and Abedin (2013) covering 225 studies published between
21
Fo
22
23 1972 and 2011. These studies work with the exploration of linguistic elements of dialogic
24
nature found in the interactional episodes. In the context of the present research, a
rP
25
26
27 classification system is needed in order to get an understanding of the overall lecture
28
ee
29
30
discourse as monologic or dialogic. This classification will help understand the nature of the
31
rR
32 lecture discourse in the study context in the absence of previous studies concerning dialogic
33
34 interaction.
35
ev
36
37 Moreover, there aren’t many studies that classify the overall lecture discourse into dialogic
38
iew
39
40
monologic categories. The MICASE corpus has already classified lectures into interactive-
41
42 and non-interactive categories only (Simpson-Vlach & Leicher, 2006), but the dialogicality
43
44 of the lecture discourse is not taken into consideration. It will be beneficial for any higher
45
46
educational institute for having an idea of the types of lecture delivery, mainly in terms of
47
48
49 dialogicality, for its potential benefits for students’ educational development. Therefore, with
50
51 the increased importance of dialogic interaction the need for understanding the occurrence of
52
53 dialogic interaction arises, especially at tertiary level L2 lectures but the mechanisms to
54
55
56 identify such interaction have not been developed. Hence, it is believed that this study would
57
58
59
60 7
1
2
3 fill the gap by developing a framework for identifying the occurrence of dialogic interaction
4
5
6 in tertiary level English medium lecture discourse.
7
8
9 Discourse in this study refers to the linguistic elements of discourse constructed/co-
10
11 constructed between lecturers and students, though there are paralinguistic elements also (e.g.
12
13 gestures). In this study there is a small corpus of FAS lectures and hereinafter referred to as
14
15
16 FAS discourse. The measures used to collect the FAS discourse is explained next.
17
18
19 Collection of FAS discourse
20
21
Fo
22 The main data for the present paper come from lecture transcripts. For this purpose, 24
23
24 lectures were audio recorded (while observed). Of the recorded lectures, a total of 12 from
rP
25
26 the subjects biotechnology, animal physiology, physics and statistics were transcribed. The
27
28
ee
29 lecture recordings were transcribed verbatim, checked and rechecked for accuracy. A
30
31 transcription convention was adopted and a high degree of accuracy was maintained in
rR
32
33 transcribing the lecture discourse (a list of transcription conventions can be found in Author,
34
35
ev
36
xxxx). Special attention was paid to intonation, pauses, etc. as they were important in
37
38 understanding the discourse. The lecture discourse was examined carefully to identify
iew
39
40 instances of student-lecturer interaction.
41
42
43
The four lecturers who conducted those four subjects were identified as ML1, BL1, ML2, and
44
45
46 BL2 in the order stated above. These numbers were assigned based on the order in which the
47
48 observation was made as well as their subject area; that is observation of a mathematics
49
50 lecturer 1 (ML1) commenced before lecturer 2 (ML2). Moreover, lectures were identified
51
52
53 with the short form of the name of the subject. PH, BT, AS, and AP refer to Physics,
54
55 Biotechnology, Applied Statistics, Animal Physiology in the order mentioned, and also a
56
57 number was given to match the sequence of lecture recorded. For example, the third lecture
58
59
60 8
1
2
3 in Biotechnology was identified as BT 3 and so on. However, this number refers to the
4
5
6 observation and recording only but does not indicate the lecturers’ lecture series order. The
7
8 lecture recordings were transcribed verbatim using Sound Scriber, software produced by
9
10 MICASE, downloaded from the MICASE webpage (http://www-personal.umich.edu/
11
12
13
~ebreck/code/sscriber/). In the next section the measures that led to the development of
14
15 analytical framework is discussed.
16
17
18 Important analytical components of a lecture discourse and the relative importance of each of them
19
20 In this study, in the process of finding an analytical framework to analyse the lecture
21
Fo
22
23 discourse the focus will be based on three different layers. One is the lecturers’ questions
24
rP
25 which are the trigger for the development of lecturer-student interactions. The other one is the
26
27 pattern of interactional exchanges that are developed as a result of lecturers’ questions, and
28
ee
29
30
finally the type of overall lecture discourse, which is built up based on the pattern of
31
rR
32 interactional exchanges. That is, it is shown how the first two components contribute to the
33
34 development of a framework to classify the overall lecture discourse. The relative importance
35
ev
36
of each component is explained below. Table 1 shows these three components.
37
38
iew
39
Table 1: Discourse components for the lecture discourse
40
41
Unit of analysis Function
42
43 Types of Lecturers’ How do the lecturers’ questions
Questions (Initiation Move) trigger/contribute to the development of
44
interactional episodes?
45
46 Pattern of interactional How do the interactional episodes contribute to
47 episodes the overall lecture discourse?
48 Types of overall lecture How does the overall lecture discourse
49 discourse contribute towards dialogic or monologic
50 teaching?
51
52
53
54
In this study, the interactional exchanges are called ‘episodes’ (as used by Mortimer &
55
56 Machado, 2000; Mortimer & Scott, 2003; Scott, Mortimer & Aguiar, 2006; Wells, 1993),
57
58 which are similar to Sinclair and Coulthard’s ‘transactions’. For Sinclair and Coulthard the
59
60 9
1
2
3 transaction is deemed to be a feature of teacher style but was not considered as an analytical
4
5
6 unit, while their analysis focuses at the basic level, moves. On the other hand, Wells (1993),
7
8 Mortimer and Scott (2003) and Scott, Mortimer and Aguiar (2006) consider the episode as an
9
10 analytical unit and present a discourse pattern for episodes in the lessons they investigated, so
11
12
13
that in this study the term ‘episode’ is preferred over transaction.
14
15
16 At the next stage, a review of literature for these three components takes place and
17
18 identification systems for lecturers’ questions and pattern of interactional episodes are
19
20
discussed. Finally a framework for analysing the overall lecture discourse is developed.
21
Fo
22
23
Developing an identification system for lecturers’ questions
24
rP
25
26
27
In this study, there is a need to make a classification system for questions which originates in
28
ee
29 tertiary level content classes with NNS (Non Native Speaker) lecturers and students who use
30
31 English as a second language.
rR
32
33
34
Chin (2007) argues that in content classes questions are believed to contribute towards the
35
ev
36
37 meaning making process by way of teacher talk and teacher-student interaction. Questions
38
iew
39 have always been an important interactional tool used by teachers to activate and facilitate the
40
41 learning process (Crawford Camicittoli 2008). The types of questions teachers ask may
42
43
44 decide the nature of the discourse. If the questions are open and warrant students’
45
46 contribution they can generate a lot of interaction, ideas and finally lead to better
47
48 understanding of the subject under discussion, whereas the questions which require only a
49
50
51
short answer or yes or no answer would not be able to help build a discussion in the class.
52
53 Chin (2006) asserts that early studies on teacher questioning focus on the IRF1 (Initiation-
54
55 Response-Follow-up) pattern of discourse (e.g. Mehan, 1979; Lemke, 1990), whereas recent
56
57
58 1 A brief explanation of IRF sequence is given in the next section.
59
60 10
1
2
3 studies focus on students’ construction of knowledge (e.g. Yip, 2004; Chin, 2007). Therefore,
4
5
6 traditionally teachers ask questions to find what students knew. Any deviant ideas from the
7
8 teachers’ preplanned agenda is either rejected or discouraged. However, recent studies have
9
10 shown that in content classes a question is a good way to introduce a problem and warrant the
11
12
13
contribution from the students (Nassaji & Wells, 2000).
14
15
16 Even though researchers sometimes classify the questions in content classes using categories
17
18 that are different from the ESL classes, the functions of questions remain more or less the
19
20
same as that of ESL classes. Many of the studies that deal with content classes come from
21
Fo
22
23 primary and secondary level content classes except Morell’s (2004). Morell tried to identify
24
rP
25 four types of questions in tertiary level content classes. They are similar to the types found in
26
27 the ESL classes: display, referential, rhetorical and indirect questions. Her rhetorical
28
ee
29
30 questions do not warrant a response from the students, while the indirect questions are similar
31
rR
32 to classroom management questions (e.g. ‘Is there anybody who doesn’t have this handout?’
33
34 (Morell, 2004, p. 329), which requires a response not necessarily verbal (e.g. students raise
35
ev
36
37
their hands). As we saw earlier, Morell’s study reveals that there is a higher number of
38
iew
39 display questions than the other three types in the university discourse she investigated.
40
41 Nonetheless, she found that though there were only a few referential questions, they brought
42
43
lengthy interaction or students’ contributions.
44
45
46
47 As the initial analysis of questions revealed, the questions in the FAS discourse arising from
48
49 the NNS students and NNS lecturers are merely basic and directly functional with only a very
50
51 few focussing on the development of cognitive knowledge or conceptual building. van Lier
52
53
54 (1988) advocates that it is immaterial what type of questions are asked but what is important
55
56 is how the teacher controls the classroom discourse with either display or referential
57
58 questions.
59
60 11
1
2
3 In this study, therefore, attempts were made to find the function that was executed through
4
5
6 lecturers’ questions so that the categories to be developed were suitable to capture the
7
8 different functions of the questions.
9
10
11 Carefully observing the lecture discourse data occurring at FAS, the questions lecturers ask
12
13 could be classified into four types: 1) Concept Development Questions (CDQs)
14
15
16 2) Knowledge Testing Questions (KTQs) 3) Knowledge Application Questions (KAQs) and
17
18 4) Classroom Management Questions (CMQs). Each of these categories is explained below.
19
20 In the process of identification of these questions to maintain the inter-rater reliability of the
21
Fo
22
23 categories, a colleague of the researcher was asked to identify the questions in two selected
24
samples (lecture transcripts – AS 3 and BT 3) after the process of identification had been
rP
25
26
27 explained to him. The categories identified were compared with the researcher for
28
ee
29
30
consistency. Even though there were similarities in the identified categories for the subject
31
rR
32 BT 3, in case of AS 3 the colleague has identified 2 questions as KTQs, while the researcher
33
34 considered them to be KAQs. Later discussion and more information on the criteria of
35
ev
36 question types brought the colleague into agreement with the researcher.
37
38
iew
39
40
These four categories have some conformity with the Bloom’s taxonomy of educational
41
42 objectives: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation
43
44 (Krathwohl, 2002). Of which Bloom’s first three are considered to be the lowest and other
45
46
three are the highest levels. It is assumed that when students work at the higher level they
47
48
49 have mastered the lowest levels. That is ‘mastery of each simpler category was prerequisite to
50
51 mastery of the next more complex one’ (Krathwohl, 2002, pp. 212-213). For example, when
52
53 students deal with the application level, it is deemed that they have already mastered the
54
55
56 knowledge and comprehension levels. Nevertheless, not all of Bloom’s categories are
57
58 suitable to the present discourse. For example, the classroom management questions that are
59
60 12
1
2
3 available in the present discourse are not part of Bloom’s classification. The next section
4
5
6 briefly describes these questions.
7
8
9 Conceptual Development Questions (CDQs)
10
11
12 These questions are asked by the lecturers as open-ended questions to get different views of
13
14 the students in order to develop a particular concept or a theme. ‘The teacher asks conceptual
15
16
17
questions to elicit students’ ideas and facilitate productive thinking, invites and welcomes
18
19 students’ responses and questions […]’ (Chin, 2007, p. 817). Also, it is believed that during
20
21 guided discussions, teachers primarily ask conceptual questions to elicit student thinking (van
Fo
22
23
Zee et al., 2001). These questions are similar to open ended referential questions and are also
24
rP
25
26 similar to Bloom’s synthesis questions. E.g. What is quality?
27
28
ee
29 Knowledge Testing Questions (KTQs)

30
31
rR
32 Knowledge testing questions are used to check subject knowledge of students that has been
33
34 gained in the lectures. They are mostly display type questions and usually require a short
35
ev
36
37 answer. Also, they are similar to factual recall questions, which ask the students to name,
38
iew
39 identify, recall, define, etc., and the emphasis is on memory or observation (Ellis, 1993).
40
41 Many of the KTQs have low cognitive demand. This is also similar to Bloom’s knowledge
42
43
44
question category. E.g. What is biotechnology?
45
46
47 Knowledge Application Questions (KAQs)
48
49
50 These questions do not test the knowledge of the students but test how the knowledge could
51
52 be applied to solve a problem. Usually these questions are used when the lecturers give
53
54 tasks/worksheets to be solved in the class. This is similar to Myhill’s (2006) process
55
56
57 questions. Using process questions the teacher can check on the understanding of the learning
58
59
60 13
1
2
3 process or students could explain their thinking (Myhill, 2006) e.g. How do you find the value
4
5
6 of R?
7
8
9 It is, however, difficult to differentiate the questions from their appearance as KTQ or KAQ
10
11 but it is from the subsequent function of the discourse we can categorise the question.
12
13
14 Classroom Management Questions (CMQs)
15
16
17 These questions are not connected with the teaching or learning of the direct content subject.
18
19
20 They usually deal with management and organisation of related academic activities like
21
Fo
22 submitting assignments, arranging a practical class, etc. (Myhill, 2006). They are similar to
23
24 the classroom procedural questions (Richards & Lockheart, 1996). E.g. Did you submit the
rP
25
26
27
assignment?
28
ee
29
30 Having described four types of identification systems for questions, the system to classify the
31
rR
32 interactional episode is described next.

33
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 14
1
2
3 Developing a classification system for patterns of interactional episodes/exchanges
4
5
6 The interactional pattern could be nuclear or extended. The nuclear exchange is a three
7
8
9 (usually) part exchange which occurs with I – R and F (Initiation- Response and Follow-up).
10
11 This model was developed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) where teachers initiate teacher
12
13 student interaction (or exchanges in Sinclair and Coulthard’s terminology) by asking a
14
15
16
question (Initiation – I) in a one-to-one situation (or sometimes the first question is directed
17
18 to the whole class), and the students respond to that (Response – R) question. This is
19
20 followed by a Follow-up (F) in the form of feedback (F) or an evaluation (E) given by the
21
Fo
22 teacher. This is known as an IRF sequence; nevertheless the F is an optional move. Feedback
23
24
is considered to induce further response from the students. Usually in the feedback move, the
rP
25
26
27 teacher can repeat students’ utterances to signal they are to continue the answer, or ask for
28
ee
29 elaboration (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). Evaluation is a kind of comment, and with evaluation
30
31
the exchange is usually brought to an end (e.g. it’s full of facts that’s right). Therefore, in this
rR
32
33
34 three-part structure (IRF), the teacher poses a question, students respond to it, and the teacher
35
ev
36 gives feedback or evaluation. Nevertheless, within the scope of this study a detailed analysis
37
38
iew
39
of pattern of interaction is not needed. Hence, a different form of classification is developed
40
41 to classify the pattern of interactional episodes found in this study. That is, based on the
42
43 question that initiates the interactional episodes, the episodes are identified. Previously, four
44
45 types of questions have been identified from the FAS discourse: CDQ, KTQ, KAQ, and
46
47
48 CMQ. Hence, if an episode is developed using CDQ that episode is identified as CDE
49
50 (Concept Development episode) and so on. Therefore, in the FAS discourse we can find
51
52 KTEs (Knowledge Testing Episodes), KAEs (Knowledge Application Episodes) and CMEs
53
54
55 (Classroom Management Episodes) as well as CDEs.
56
57
58
59
60 15
1
2
3 Further, in the interactional exchanges many confirmation checks or clarification requests are
4
5
6 found. They play a role in maintaining the interactional flow between the students and
7
8 lecturers. A clarification request is a direct form of question or request to clarify the
9
10 preceding utterance of the other speaker, while a confirmation check is made to ensure that
11
12
13
what is heard by the other speaker is correct. The latter is usually made by repetition of all or
14
15 part of the other's preceding utterance through rising intonation questions (Long, 1981). Both
16
17 these are known as elements of negotiating for meaning and are usually made by the lecturer
18
19
to the students and rarely in the other direction in the observed lectures.
20
21
Fo
22
23 Having reviewed identification systems for lecturers’ questions, and interactional episodes
24
rP
25 for the FAS discourse, next how an analytical framework can be designed for understanding
26
27 the FAS discourse is discussed.
28
ee
29
30
31
Developing an analytical framework for FAS lecture discourse
rR
32
33
34 This study aims to develop a framework to investigate the nature of lecture discourse. Hence,
35
ev
36 there is a need to classify the lectures at FAS into different categories based on the
37
38 predominant discourse structures arises in this study.
iew
39
40
41 Usually lecture discourse is identified as monologic vs dialogic (Nathan, Kim & Grant 2009)
42
43
44 or interactive vs non-interactive (Morell, 2004). Also, some researchers use the term
45
46 authoritative instead of monologic (i.e. Mortimer & Scott, 2003; Scott, 1998; Scott, Mortimer
47
48 & Aguiar, 2006). The two concepts, dialogue and monologue, developed by Lemke (1990)
49
50
51
are similar to dialogic and authoritative discourse identified by Scott (1998). These dialogic
52
53 vs authoritative distinctions in science discourse were further studied by Mortimer (1998) and
54
55 Mortimer and Machado (2000). Mortimer (1998) analysed the discourse of students’ group
56
57
discussion from a secondary level science classroom and found that the discourse contains
58
59
60 16
1
2
3 both authoritative and internally persuasive discourse. These two are similar to authoritative
4
5
6 and dialogic discourse identified by Scott (1998).
7
8
9 Mortimer and Scott (2003) and Scott, Mortimer and Aguiar (2006) identify a framework to
10
11 analyse the individual episodes of the L1 science lessons of the secondary school classrooms.
12
13 The central component of their framework is the communicative approach by which they
14
15
16 mean the overall pattern of the classroom discourse. This communicative approach is
17
18 constructed based mainly on whether the teacher interacts with the students (interactive/non-
19
20 interactive) and whether the teacher takes others’ view into consideration or delivers the
21
Fo
22
23 lesson as a monologic (dialogic/authoritative). As a result they present four types of discourse
24
which they devise by combining the above mentioned two criteria: dialogic/authoritative and
rP
25
26
27 interactive/non-interactive, as given below (table 2). The approach seems to have a broader
28
ee
29
30
analytical coverage of lecture discourse on those two different dimensions. Scott, Mortimer
31
rR
32 and Aguiar (2006) claim that by authoritative discourse they mean “the teacher’s purpose is
33
34 to focus the students’ full attention on just one meaning’, while dialogic discourse ‘takes into
35
ev
36 account a range of students’, and others’ ideas” (2006, p.610).

37
38
iew
39 Table 2: Mortimer and Scott’s (2003) framework to analyse lecture discourse

40
41 Interactive/dialogic Non-interactive/dialogic
42
43 Interactive/authoritative Non-interactive/authoritative
44
45 The work by Scott, Mortimer and
46
47 colleagues seems reasonably appropriate for the present study as their proposed framework
48
49 has a consideration for dialogic discourse in addition to interactive discourse. However, their
50
51
52 framework is applicable to the interactional episodes within a lesson, not to the whole lesson
53
54 or lecture which is required in the present study context.
55
56
57
58
59
60 17
1
2
3 As an alternative, the MICASE categories of discourse could be reviewed. The MICASE
4
5
6 corpus is a spoken language corpus of approximately 1.8 million words (nearly 200 hours). It
7
8 analyses various speech events of the selected disciplines of the University of Michigan in
9
10 Ann Arbor, Michigan (Simpson-Vlach and Leicher 2006). The MICASE corpus identifies
11
12
13
five categories to classify speech events (e.g. a lecture) with two extremes: highly monologic
14
15 and highly interactive, as shown in the table 3 below.
16
17
18 Table 3: MICASE classification system of speech events
19
20 Category Description
21 HIGHLY MONOLOGIC One speaker monopolizes the floor in a
Fo
22 lecture, occasionally with a few questions or

23 brief comments
24 MOSTLY MONOLOGIC Primarily monologic discourse interspersed
rP
25 with some segments of interactive discourse

26
MIXED No one discourse mode is predominant
27
28 MOSTLY INTERACTIVE Primarily interactional discourse involving
ee
29 two or more speakers, interspersed with

30 some longer segments of monologic
31 discourse
rR
32 HIGHLY INTERACTIVE Highly interactional discourse involving two

33 or more speakers, with shorter turns and no
34 monologic segments
35
ev
(Source: MICASE manual 2002)

36
37
38
MICASE classification is applicable for whole lectures but it does not consider the
iew
39
40 dialogic/authoritative categories, like Mortimer and Scott (2003).
41
42
43 Another problem with MICASE is the operationalisation of the MICASE categories. For
44
45 example, one of the MICASE categories ‘mostly monologic’ is defined as ‘a lecture which is
46
47
48 primarily monologic discourse interspersed with some segments of interactive discourse’.
49
50 Here the word ‘some’ is an abstract property and it cannot be easily quantified looking at a
51
52 lecture discourse. That is, ‘some’ does not describe what number or what duration. This
53
54
55
confusion is applicable to other categories of MICASE too. Therefore, though features of
56
57 MICASE seem to be a suitable classification system for the present lecture discourse, there
58
59
60 18
1
2
3 are two kinds of inherent problems if one is to use the MICASE system. One is the lack of
4
5
6 accountability of the dialogic discourse and the other one is the difficulty in the
7
8 operationalisation of the MICASE categories. Hence, a slightly modified system would
9
10 overcome these two practical difficulties and could yield a system that is suitable for the
11
12
13
classification of overall lecture discourse at FAS.
14
15
16 In order to overcome the problem of the operationalisation of the MICASE categories, the
17
18 total duration of interactional episodes could be considered. At the beginning, the total
19
20 duration of interactional episodes would be a suitable indicator to mark the extent to which
21
Fo
22
23 the lecturers and students interact with each other. This is preferable to a classification system
24
that uses the number of questions asked (e.g. Morell, 2004) because the number does not give
rP
25
26
27 a clear idea of the intensity of the interaction which takes place. In addition, to operationalise
28
ee
29
30
the MICASE categories some assertions are needed. The duration of the lecture hour at FAS
31
rR
32 is one hour and the total average talking time of the 12 transcribed lectures is 53 minutes.
33
34 Considering 50 as the maximum duration of interaction that would possibly take place in a
35
ev
36 single lecture, five interactive categories could be assigned with five scales as shown below
37
38
iew
39 in table 4.
40
41
42 Table 4: Assigning duration to MICASE categories
43
44 MICASE categories Value assigned with total duration
45 of interactional episodes (minutes)
46 Highly Monologic < 10
47 Mostly Monologic 10–20
48 Mixed Lectures 21–30
49 Mostly Interactive 31–40
50
Highly Interactive > 40
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 19
1
2
3 Now based on the duration of the total interactional episodes of each lecture its overall
4
5
6 discourse type could easily be decided. For example, if a lecture’s total duration of
7
8 interactional episodes is 15 minutes it can be classified as mostly monologic. However, now
9
10 attention should also be paid to the second problem with MICASE – lack of dialogic value of
11
12
13
the discourse. In order to consider the dialogic values within interactive lectures, a
14
15 conditional sub category could be made within interactive lectures. The basic consideration is
16
17 that for a lecture to be dialogic it should have interactional episodes of the concept
18
19
development category. The interactional episodes in this study are classified based on the
20
21
Fo
22 questions that initiated the episodes. There are episodes initiated with CDQ, KTQ, KAQ or
23
24 CMQ and similarly the episodes are identified as Concept Development Episodes (CDE),
rP
25
26 Knowledge Testing Episodes (KTE), Knowledge Application Episodes (KAE) or Classroom
27
28
ee
29 Management Episodes (CME). Concept development episodes (CDE) (an example is given in
30
31 the appendix), in comparison, have the potential to incorporate the students’ views into
rR
32
33 knowledge building, although others too have some other communicative values such as a
34
35
ev
36
KAE.
37
38
iew
39 Therefore, a lecture which is mostly or highly interactive has a substantial amount of lecturer-
40
41 student interaction. In addition, if the CDEs predominate in the total interactional episodes,
42
43 those lectures could be classified as dialogic. Or else if other episodes such as KTEs, KAEs
44
45
46 or CMEs predominate in the discourse they are considered interactive (or non-dialogic) only.
47
48
49 The new framework developed for the current study has categories, similar to MICASE, from
50
51 monologic to dialogic lectures and in between a category called mixed lectures. In addition, it
52
53 has two more categories within the dialogic lectures: mostly dialogic and highly dialogic.
54
55
56 These two would be alternative categories to both mostly interactive and highly interactive
57
58 respectively. If a highly interactive lecture contains a higher duration of CDEs over other
59
60 20
1
2
3 episodes, it is called highly dialogic. Similarly, mostly interactive lectures as mostly dialogic,
4
5
6 when CDEs predominate in their discourse, as shown in table 5 below.
7
8
9 Table 5: The framework for the analysis of the FAS overall lecture discourse
10 Duration of total interactional episodes Discourse category of lecture2
11 (minutes)
12 <10 Highly Monologic
13 10–20 Mostly Monologic
14 21–30 Mixed Lectures
15 31–40 Other types of episodes Mostly Interactive
predominates the discourse
16
CDE predominates the discourse Mostly Dialogic
17
18
> 40 Other types of episodes Highly Interactive
19 predominates the discourse
20 CDE predominates the discourse Highly Dialogic
21
Fo
22
23
24
As a summary, the proposed framework, similar to MICASE, has five categories: highly
rP
25
26
27 monologic, mostly monologic, mixed, mostly interactive and highly interactive. However,
28
ee
29 unlike MICASE, this study considers the dialogic teaching also as a key feature for
30
31
successful lecture delivery and therefore, within the interactive categories it introduces two
rR
32
33
34 alternative categories. They are mostly dialogic and highly dialogic. In addition, they are
35
ev
36 decided based on the presence of CDE and other types of episodes, i.e. knowledge testing
37
38
iew
39
episodes (KTE), knowledge application episodes (KAE) or classroom management episodes
40
41 (CME).
42
43
44 Even though in other types of episodes also, other than the dialogic, there are interactional
45
46 exchanges the benefits of such interaction towards construction of knowledge is in question.
47
48
49
For example, a knowledge testing question which leads to KTE makes students respond in
50
51 one or two words and might not place a cognitive demand on students. Rather it tests
52
53 students’ memory and also most of the time it ends as one to one recitation script. On the
54
55
56
57 2In this category monologic refers to non-interactive discourse, while interactive refers to non-dialogic
58 discourse.
59
60 21
1
2
3 other hand, the presence of CDEs cannot be assumed to always bring lengthy answers from
4
5
6 students, though using CDEs one can generate extended sequence of interaction, when other
7
8 conditions are favourable (e.g. cooperation from students).
9
10
11 Limitations
12
13
14 In this study, the analytical framework was developed on the assumption that lectures are
15
16 conducted for an hour at each contact, considering the FAS situation. In case, when lectures
17
18
19 are conducted longer than an hour the analysis should be done based on each hour only.
20
21
Fo
22 Deciding on the types of questions and episodes may be influenced by personal judgement
23
24 which may affect the classification of the types of lecture discourse. Also, calculating
rP
25
26 duration of individual episodes is a laborious task and may consume a lot of researcher’s
27
28
ee
29 time. Despites these constraints, there are merits too as explained under implications below.
30
31
rR
32 Benefits and Implications of the framework developed

33
34
35 The analytical framework developed in this study can be applied to the lecture discourse to
ev
36
37 investigate the extent to which dialogic teaching is practised in other larger universities in Sri
38
iew
39
40
Lanka as well as further afield. This study unearths the dialogic teaching in an L2 context at
41
42 tertiary level in the absence of other studies in Asian countries. In addition, the analytical
43
44 framework can be used to categorise individual lecturers’ lecture delivery in terms of dialogic
45
46
interaction. That is, the lecture delivery can be categorised from student centred
47
48
49 (highly/mostly dialogic lecture delivery) to teacher centred (highly/mostly monologic lecture
50
51 delivery). This categorisation can be used as a basis for teacher preparation which helps
52
53 lecturers become equipped with the skills to move to a highly/mostly dialogic lecture
54
55
56 delivery. Walsh (2011) argues for the importance of analysing classroom talk and more
57
58 importantly teachers to have access to their own classroom talk analysed so that it may lead
59
60 22
1
2
3 to better practice. Nevertheless, one should not forget the difficulties in developing dialogic
4
5
6 discourse in the classrooms. Lyle states ‘despite the evidence of positive impact, however,
7
8 there is a well-established and long line of research which suggests that the establishment of
9
10 dialogic approaches to classroom discourse will not be easy’ (Lyle 2008, p. 236).
11
12
13 The studies that have investigated the lecture corpus for interactivity, like that of the
14
15
16 MICASE corpus, are few in number even in the Western countries. For example, the ELC
17
18 (Engineering Lecture Corpus) compiled by Coventry University, UK covers Engineering
19
20 lectures from three universities: Coventry University in the UK, Universiti Teknologi
21
Fo
22
23 Malaysia (UTM) in Malaysia, and Auckland University of Technology (AUT) in New
24
Zealand. But the corpus developers have not analysed the corpus in terms of interactivity. It
rP
25
26
27 is the same for the BASE corpus too. In addition, more academic spoken corpus based
28
ee
29
30
studies can be envisaged in the future as the researchers in different countries have recently
31
rR
32 focused on this. CUCASE, NUCASE and EDASE corpora are being compiled and there are
33
34 not yet any published results. Moreover, these corpora have rarely considered dialogic
35
ev
36 interaction in their study of the lecture corpus, even Pedrosa de Jesus and da Silva Lopes
37
38
iew
39 (2009, 2011), the only known researchers to investigate dialogic interaction at tertiary level
40
41 L1 classes, did not categorise their lecture corpus for dialogic interaction. Therefore to my
42
43 knowledge the present study has attempted to have categorised the lecture corpus in terms of
44
45
46 dialogic interaction, albeit on a small scale.
47
48
49 Therefore, the findings of the study can have wider implications. It could contribute to both
50
51 practitioner perspectives as well as to new knowledge domain. From a practitioner
52
53 perspective the new analytical framework developed in this study can be used by anyone who
54
55
56 would like to evaluate his or her own lecture delivery or by any teacher developers who
57
58 would like to investigate other practitioners’ classes through observation. The analytical
59
60 23
1
2
3 framework developed in this study refines and extends the MICASE corpus interactivity
4
5
6 rating in a contextually-focused way. In particular, it overcomes the two inherent problems
7
8 found in the MICASE system of analysis for interactivity. They are the use of arbitrary values
9
10 for classifying lectures and lack of consideration for dialogic value. This study, which
11
12
13
considers dialogic interaction to be at the heart of its analytical framework, has developed an
14
15 analytical framework that uses exact duration of interactional episodes along with the
16
17 consideration of dialogic episodes. As a result, it can be considered as more suitable to assess
18
19
any lecture delivery in an EMI context with NNS students.
20
21
Fo
22
23 The analytical framework developed in this study could be used in future research studies and
24
rP
25
26
more importantly in teacher preparation activities to identify favourable lecture delivery, as
27
28 mentioned earlier. The framework as a basis can be used to indicate the gap between the
ee
29
30 present level of interactivity in lectures and the desired level and can be of considerable value
31
rR
32
to the teaching and learning in higher education. Therefore, this study being the first to
33
34
35 unearth the practising of dialogic interaction at tertiary level undergraduate classes, using the
ev
36
37 specially designed analytical framework, can make a concrete contribution to teaching and
38
iew
39 learning in higher education, mainly to the concept of developing content and language
40
41
42 development through dialogic lecture delivery at tertiary level L2 content classes.
43
44
45
46
47
48 References:
49
50
51 Ädel, A. (2010). How to use corpus linguistics in the study of political discourse. In A.
52
53 O’Keeffe & M.J. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp.
54
55
591-604). London: Routledge.
56 Aijmer, K. & Stenstrom, A. (2005). Approaches to spoken interaction. Journal of
57
58 Pragmatics, 37, 1743–1751.
59
60 24
1
2
3 Alexander, R.J. (2006). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk. York:
4
5 Dialogos.
6
7 Biber, D. & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers.
8
9
English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263-286.
10 Boyd, M.P. & Markarian, W.C. (2011). Dialogic teaching: talk in service of a dialogic stance.
11
12 Language and Education, 25(6), 515-534.
13
14 Chin, C. (2006). Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to
15
students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315-1346.
16
17 Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate
18
19 productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.
20
21 Christine, B. & Mortimer, E.F. (2008). Dialogic/Authoritative Discourse and Modelling in a
Fo
22 High School Teaching Sequence on Optics. International Journal of Science

23
24 Education, 30(12), 1635-1660.
rP
25
26 Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2004). Interactive discourse structuring in L2 guest lectures:
27
28
Some insights from a comparative corpus-based study. Journal of English for
ee
29 Academic Purposes, 3(1), 39–54.

30
31 Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2005). Adjusting a business lecture for an international audience:
rR
32
33 A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 24,183–199.
34
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2008). Interaction in academic lectures vs written text materials:
35
ev
36 The case of questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1216–1231.

37
38 Csomay, E. (2006). Academic talk in American university classrooms: Crossing the
iew
39
40 boundaries of oral-literate discourse? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5,
41 117–135.
42
43 Ellis, K. (1993). Teacher questioning behaviour and student learning: What research says to
44
45 teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western States
46
Communication Association, Albuquerque, NM, 12–16 February. Retrieved from
47
48 ERIC data base. (ED359572)
49
50 Flowerdew, J., Miller, L. & Li, D.C.S. (2000). Chinese lecturers' perceptions, problems, and
51 strategies in lecturing in English to Chinese speaking students. RELC Journal, 31 (1),
52 116–138.
53
54
55 Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of ‘we’ in university lectures: Reference and function. English for
56
57 Specific Purposes, 23, 45–66.
58
59
60 25
1
2
3 Hall, J.K. & Verplaetse, L.S. (Eds). (2000). Second and Foreign Language Learning through
4
5 Classroom Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6
7 Howe, C. & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: a systematic review across four
8
9
decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325-356.
10 Krathwohl, D.R. (2002) A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice
11
12 41(4), 212–218.
13
14 Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
15
Long, M.H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.)
16
17 Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition (pp. 259-278). New York, NY:
18
19 New York Academy of Sciences.
20
21 Lyle, S. (2008). Dialogic Teaching: Discussing Theoretical Contexts and Reviewing
Fo
22 Evidence from Classroom Practice. Language and Education 22(3), 222-240.

23
24 Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge,
rP
25
26 MA: Harvard University Press.
27
28
Mercer, N. (1995). The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk Amongst Teachers and
ee
29 Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

30
31 Mercer, N. (2001). Language for teaching a language. In C. Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.)
rR
32
33 English Language Teaching in its Social Context: A Reader (pp. 243-257). New
34
York, NY: Routledge.
35
ev
36 Mercer, N., Dawes, L. & Staarman, J.K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science
37
38 classroom. Language and Education 23(4), 353-369.
iew
39
40 Molinari, L. & Mameli, C. (2010). Classroom dialogic discourse: An observational study.
41 Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2, 3857–3860.
42
43 Morell, T. (2004) Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students. English for
44
45 Specific Purposes, 23, 325–338.
46
Morell, T. (2007). What enhances EFL students’ participation in lecture discourse? Student,
47
48 lecturer and discourse perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6,
49
50 222–237.
51
52 Mortimer, E.F. (1998). Multivoicedness and univocality in classroom discourse: An example
53 from theory of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 67–82.
54
55 Mortimer, E.F. & Machado, A.H. (2000). Anomalies and conflicts in classroom discourse.
56
57 Science Education 84, 429–444.
58
59
60 26
1
2
3 Mortimer, E.F. & Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms.
4
5 Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
6
7 Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research
8
9
Papers in Education, 21(1), 19–41.
10 Nassaji, H. & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of triadic dialogue. Applied Linguistics, 21
11
12 (3), 376–406.
13
14 Nathan, M.J., Kim, S. & Grant, T.S. (2009). Instituting change in classroom discourse
15
structure: Human and computer-based motif analysis (WCER Working Paper No.
16
17 2009–1). Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for
18
19 Education Research.
20
21 Author (xxxx). Lecturer-Student Interaction in English-Medium Science Lectures: An
Fo
22 Investigation of Perceptions and Practice at a Sri Lankan University where English

23
24 is a Second Language. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
rP
25
26 Nottingham, UK.
27
28
Author (xxxx). A study on perception of lecturer-student interaction in English medium
ee
29 science lectures. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language) 7(2), 117-136.

30
31 Nesi, H. & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Lexical bundles and discourse signalling in academic
rR
32
33 lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(3), 283–304.
34
Northcott, J. (2001). Towards an ethnography of the MBA classroom: A consideration of the
35
ev
36 role of interactive lecturing styles within the context of one MBA programme.
37
38 English for Specific Purposes, 20, 15–37.
iew
39
40 O’Keeffe, A. (2006). Investigating Media Discourse. London: Routledge.
41 Pedrosa de Jesus, M.H. & da Silva Lopes, V. (2009). Classroom questioning and teaching
42
43 approaches: A study with Biology undergraduates. In G. Çakmakci & M.F. Taşar
44
45 (Eds.) Contemporary Science Education Research: Scientific Literacy and Social
46
Aspects of Science (pp. 33-39). Istanbul: Pegem Akademi.
47
48 Pedrosa de Jesus, M.H. & da Silva Lopes, B. (2011). The relationship between teaching and
49
50 learning conceptions, preferred teaching approaches and questioning practices.
51
52 Research Papers in Education, 26(2), 223–243.
53 Richards, J.C. & Lockheart, C. (1996). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms.
54
55 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56
57
58
59
60 27
1
2
3 Rojas–Drummond, S. & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective
4
5 collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 99–
6
7 111.
8
9
Rounds, P.L. (1987). Multifunctional personal pronoun use in an educational setting. English
10 for Specific Purposes, 6(1), 13–29.
11
12 Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian
13
14 analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32(1), 45–80.
15
Scott, P. & Mortimer, E.F. (2005). Meaning making in high school science classrooms: A
16
17 framework for analysing meaning making interactions. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart,
18
19 O.D. Jong & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.) Research and the Quality of the Science Education
20
21 (pp. 395–406). The Netherlands: Springer.
Fo
22 Scott, P. & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: Striking a balance
23
24 between ‘opening up’ and ‘closing down’ classroom talk. School Science Review, 88,
rP
25
26 77–83.
27
28
Scott, P.H., Mortimer, E.F. & Aguiar, O.G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and
ee
29 dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in

30
31 high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605–631. DOI 10.1002/sce.20131
rR
32
33 Simpson, R. & Swales, J.M. (Eds.) (2001). Corpus Linguistics in North America: Selections
34
from 1999 Symposium. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press.
35
ev
36 Simpson-Vlach, R.C. & Leicher, S. (2006). The MICASE Handbook: A Resource for Users of
37
38 the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
iew
39
40 Michigan Press.
41 Sinclair, J.M. & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used
42
43 by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
44
45 Sinclair, J.M. & Coulthard, M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In M. Coulthard
46
(Ed.) Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis (pp. 1-34). London: Routledge.
47
48 Skidmore, D. (2000). From Pedagogical Dialogue to Dialogical Pedagogy. Language and
49
50 Education, 14(4), 283-296.
51
52 Staarman, J. & Mercer, N. (2010). The Guided construction of knowledge: Talk between
53 teachers and students. In K. Littleton, C. Wood & J.K. Staarman (Eds.) International
54
55 Handbook of Psychology (pp. 75-104). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
56
57
58
59
60 28
1
2
3 Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent
4
5 French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(iii),
6
7 320–337.
8
9
The English Language Institute, University of Michigan. (2002). MICASE manual: The
10 Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English.
11
12 van Lier, L. (1988). The Classroom and the Language Learner. London: Longman.
13
14 van Zee, E.H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D. & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher
15
questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science
16
17 Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.
18
19 Verplaetse, L.S. (2000). Mr. Wonder–ful: portrait of a dialogic teacher. In J.K. Hall & L.S.
20
21 Verplaetse (Eds.) Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom
Fo
22 Interaction (pp. 221-241). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

23
24 Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. London: Harvard University.
rP
25
26 Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. Oxon: Routledge.
27
28
Walsh, S., Morton, T. & O'Keeffe, A. (2011). Analyzing university spoken interaction: A
ee
29 CL/CA approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(3), 325-345.

30
31 Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories
rR
32
33 of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom.
34
Linguistics and Education, 5, 1–38.
35
ev
36 Wells, G. & Arauz, R.M. (2006). Dialogue in the Classroom. The Journal of the Learning
37
38 Sciences, 15(3), 379-428.
iew
39
40
Yip, D.Y. (2004). Questioning skills for conceptual change in science instruction. Journal of
41
42 Biological Education, 38, 76–83.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50 Appendix
51
52
53 Example of a CDE from FAS lecture:
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 29
1
2
3 ML2: but now– because in the market you know most of the sugars are good in quality but
4
5 earlier days– no we see for that– quality of the sugar so when you– when you talk about the quality
6
7 of the sugar what do you see↑? (I)
8
9
MM3: [[inaudible answer]] (R)
10
11 ML2: sorry↑? (CR)
12
13 MM3: size (R)
14
15 ML2: size ok we will write it we talk about sugar we talk about size then↑? (E – Evaluation + I)
16
17 MM8: colour (R)
18
19 ML2: colour very good then↑? (E – Evaluation + I)
20
21 MMn: cost (R)
Fo
22
24
MMn: cost (R)
rP
25
26
28
ee
29 MMn: cost (R)

30
ML2: cost ok we will keep it aside cost then↑? [..........] (E – Evaluation + I )
31
rR
32
I - Initiation R- Response E- Evaluation CR-Clarification Request ↑- raising intonation for questions
33
34 ML2 – Lecturer MM1,2.. – Male Students MMn –Unidentified Male student
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 30

System appendPDF Proof Hi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

System appendPDF Proof Hi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAGE Open

Developing a framework for understanding lecturer-student

Journal: SAGE Open

Manuscript Type: SAGE Open - Research Paper

Main Discipline or Subject

Applied Linguistics < Linguistics < Language Studies < Humanities,

This study focuses on developing a framework to investigate lecturer-

a Sri Lankan university. Generally, lectures in English-medium

level L2 Science classes. This study, involving 30 students and 4

Dialogic interaction, monologic lectures, lecturer-student interaction,

22 paper focuses on how this framework was designed.

39 development and published results are yet to appear.

29 Knowledge Testing Questions (KTQs)

32 interactional episode is described next.

36 account a range of students’, and others’ ideas” (2006, p.610).

39 Table 2: Mortimer and Scott’s (2003) framework to analyse lecture discourse

22 lecture, occasionally with a few questions or

25 with some segments of interactive discourse

29 two or more speakers, interspersed with

32 HIGHLY INTERACTIVE Highly interactional discourse involving two

(Source: MICASE manual 2002)

32 Benefits and Implications of the framework developed

22 High School Teaching Sequence on Optics. International Journal of Science

29 Academic Purposes, 3(1), 39–54.

36 The case of questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1216–1231.

22 Evidence from Classroom Practice. Language and Education 22(3), 222-240.

29 Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

22 Investigation of Perceptions and Practice at a Sri Lankan University where English

29 science lectures. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language) 7(2), 117-136.

29 dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in

22 Interaction (pp. 221-241). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

29 CL/CA approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(3), 325-345.

29 MMn: cost (R)

You might also like