System 70 (2017) 14e25

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Creating opportunities for L2 learning in a prediction activity

Olcay Sert
Hacettepe University, HUMAN (Hacettepe University Micro-Analysis Network) Research Centre, Egitim Fakultesi B Blok, Yabanci Diller
Egitimi Bolumu, Beytepe, Ankara 06800 Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In addressing teacher talk and its role in providing opportunities for learning in L2
Received 2 November 2016 classrooms, a growing number of studies have investigated different ways teachers
Received in revised form 8 August 2017 manage learner initiatives and demonstrate L2 Classroom Interactional Competence.
Accepted 13 August 2017
However, despite their commonness in L2 classrooms, an investigation into pre-listening/
Available online 7 September 2017
watching activities (e.g. prediction activities) is scarce in terms of how learning opportu-
nities are created. Based on a corpus of fourteen 45-min EFL classes videotaped at a sec-
Keywords:
ondary school in Turkey, the current paper explores the ways student engagement is
Prediction activities
Conversation analysis
enhanced and learning opportunities are enacted in pre-watching activities in meaning
L2 classroom interaction and fluency contexts. Drawing on the analyses of detailed transcriptions of such activities
Learning opportunities and utilizing the micro-analytic lens of multimodal conversation analysis, it is revealed
Learner initiatives that the teacher creates opportunities for language learning by successfully managing
CIC learner initiatives and emergent knowledge gaps; evidenced through the appropriate use
of resources like embedded correction, embodied repair, and embodied explanations.
Evidence for potential language learning will be shown by tracking students’ use of a
phrase in meaningful communicative events. The findings have implications for research
on L2 classroom interaction, teacher talk, and instructed language learning.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Recent developments in language learning research show that we learn in interaction (Pekarek Doehler, 2010). Giving
students the time to spontaneously think and talk in an L2 and helping them gradually become more fluent speakers are
possible through establishing a meaning and fluency context (Seedhouse, 2004). In meaning and fluency contexts, meaning
making and negotiation for meaning in an L2 is prioritised over formal and structural aspects of language. One of the activities
in L2 classrooms which focuses on meaning and student engagement is a pre-listening/watching activity. Such activities (e.g.
prediction activities) prepare students for the forthcoming task through elicitation of ideas and talk (Lee, 2009). In prediction
activities, any answer given by a student may be acceptable and there is almost no wrong answer. One of the pedagogical
goals in such activities is to engage student attention before the main task/activity starts. Student engagement, rather than
accuracy of structures, becomes the ultimate goal, as it is the participation practices of the students that can create oppor-
tunities for language learning (Walsh, 2002). In line with literature on language learning as a social accomplishment in talk-
in-interaction (Kasper & Wagner, 2011; Markee & Kasper, 2004; Mori & Markee, 2009) emergent language learning op-
portunities in prediction activities then become an important site for investigation.

E-mail address: sertolcay@yahoo.com.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.08.008
0346-251X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 O. Sert / System 70 (2017) 14e25 15

Using conversation analysis (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974), this paper investigates emergent language learning
opportunities in prediction activities in L2 English classrooms in Turkey. The study also documents various ways Classroom
Interactional Competence (CIC, Walsh, 2006) is enacted for facilitating student participation and engagement. The findings
reveal that the teacher creates opportunities for language learning by (1) inviting and facilitating student participation and
engagement and (2) successfully managing learner initiatives (Waring, 2011) and emergent knowledge gaps. The sequential,
micro-analytic evidence for these opportunities are observable through the appropriate use of resources like embedded
correction (i.e. a ‘by the way’ type of repair,1 without explicit focus on linguistic accuracy), embodied repair/correction (i.e. a
correction that includes involvement of gestures into the process of correction), and embodied explanation (i.e. explanations
that include explicit deployment of visual behaviours, like the use of hand gestures). In the analysis of the last extract, I bring
evidence for potential language learning by tracking the students' use of a phrase in meaning-focused communicative events.

2. Literature review

Student engagement in classroom interaction is key for creating foreign language (L2) learning opportunities (Hellermann,
2008; Walsh, 2006). Such engagement has been found to be emergent especially in meaning and fluency contexts (Seedhouse,
2004) in L2 classrooms. In meaning and fluency contexts, students' active participation is emergent and visible through, for
instance, longer student turns. Since such phenomena have been documented through the use of conversation analysis (CA)
methodology, this study is informed by and contributes to the field of CA-for-SLA (Markee & Kasper, 2004), “a subfield of
second language studies/applied linguistics that uses conversation analytic techniques to study language learning” (Markee &
Kunitz, 2015, p. 425). The paper relies on empirical analyses of participants' (i.e. a teacher's and learners') observable be-
haviours (Garfinkel, 1967) that are made relevant to each other in interaction (emic perspective, see Markee, 2013). The
interactional resources employed by the teacher and the learners will be revealed at turn and action level, paying close
attention to sequential organisation, turn taking, repair and preference organisation at micro level detail. The analysis in this
paper is then data-driven and does not rely on exogenous theories (Hauser, 2011; Markee, 2008).
Classroom interaction is not a unidimensional, stable, and fixed set of practices. It is complex, dynamic and variable so that
multiple contexts emerge and are negotiated based on participant orientations to co-constructed pedagogical phenomena
(Sert, 2015; Seedhouse, 2004; Walsh, 2006). One of these classroom contexts in L2 interaction is called meaning-and-fluency
(Seedhouse, 2004), which “looks similar to daily interactions in many ways, and aims to promote use of language in
meaningful interactions in classrooms” (Sert, 2015, p. 29). An interactive classroom context like meaning and fluency can be
conducive to language development, as it promotes students’ language use and fluency. In such contexts, information seeking
questions (Mehan, 1979), increased teacher wait time (Walsh & Li, 2013), minimal teacher interruptions (Walsh, 2002), and
selective teacher repair practices are quite common.
Since Walsh’s (2002) groundbreaking study on how L2 teachers' use of language in classrooms hinders or facilitates learner
participation, a growing number of studies have revealed the intricate relationship between learner participation/engagement
and learning opportunities (e.g. Waring, 2008). This line of research has also been extended to the relationship between learner
initiatives and learning opportunities (Waring, 2011; Jacknick, 2011; Fagan, 2012; Garton, 2012; also see Sert, 2015 for a
comprehensive review and analyses of L2 classroom data in relation to learner initiatives). Kasper and Wagner (2011, p.117, italics
mine) argue that “language acquisition can be understood as learning to participate in mundane as well as institutional everyday
social environments”, and following Walsh (2002, p. 3), “maximizing learner involvement is conducive to second language
acquisition”. Participation and engagement can be facilitated by teachers, and as Walsh (2002) discusses, when aligned with the
pedagogical purpose at a given time in classroom interaction, interactional resources like direct error correction, content
feedback, checking for confirmation, extended waitetime, and scaffolding might construct learning opportunities.
Learning opportunities can also be facilitated by successfully handling learner initiatives. A review of literature shows the
value of such initiatives. Proposing an empirically based typology of learner initiatives, Waring (2011) demonstrated that L2
learners employ learner initiatives by (1) stepping in on behalf of another, (2) responding when responses are not explicitly
asked for, and (3) using “a given opportunity to do more than what is expected or the unexpected” (p. 214). Investigating
inverted IRF (Initiation-Response-Follow up) sequences, Jacknick (2011) closely analysed post-expansion in student-initiated
sequences in ESL classrooms. She demonstrated student use of power moves, role reversal and student created ‘wiggle room’
(Erickson, 2004), which make students agents of their own learning. According to Jacknick, the student participation
described in her study represents “more than student-centred learning: students are driving their own learning” (2011, p. 51).
With increased possibility for the emergence of learner initiatives, recent research (e.g. Sert, 2015; Seedhouse, 2004;
Walsh, 2011) has documented the value of meaning and fluency context in creating learning opportunities for learners. In
this context, students find more room for participation, longer student turns are elicited, and learners can initiate and change
topics more flexibly. In the present research, it will also be argued that meaning and fluency contexts provide sites for more
engagement, and thus more learning opportunities. The paper will particularly focus on a prediction activity: a pre-watching
activity in the warm up phase based on elicitation of ideas of L2 learners before a video watching activity starts. The selection
of a teaching episode like this is also relevant to the pedagogical value of the use of videos in L2 classrooms, as it has been
shown that such materials create opportunities for communication in the L2 (Sturm, 2012).

1
In this paper, repair and correction will be used interchangeably. For a discussion on the issue, see Hall (2007a, 2007b) and Seedhouse (2007).
16 O. Sert / System 70 (2017) 14e25

The emergence of learner engagement and learning opportunities in a teacher-fronted activity is not of course just bound
to the learners, but is shaped and is co-constructed by the interactional maneuvers of teachers. Teachers' language working in
concert with a particular pedagogical goal at a moment in interaction can potentially facilitate learning opportunities. The
uses of such interactional resources require a set of skills that is termed as L2 Classroom Interactional Competence (CIC).
Walsh (2006) defines CIC as teachers' ability to use interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning. CIC includes
features like maximizing interactional space, shaping learner contributions, effective use of eliciting, and the use of goal
convergent language (Walsh, 2011). A growing body of research has revealed that CIC also includes elements like (1) suc-
cessful management of emergent knowledge gaps in interaction (e.g. managing students’ displays and claims of insufficient
knowledge, Sert & Walsh, 2013), (2) effective use of gestures, (3) increased awareness of (un)willingness to participate, and
(4) successful management of student code-switching (Sert, 2015). CIC also includes resources to manage learner initiatives,
including resources like responding with ironic teasing, invoking learning orientation (Waring, Reddington, & Tadic, 2016),
and strategies like foregrounding achievement and addressing correction (Fagan, 2015).
This section will be closed by providing a brief background on some of the interactional resources employed by the teacher
that have been found to be conducive to student engagement; namely embedded correction (Jefferson, 1987; Fasel Lauzon &
Pekarek Doehler, 2013; Çimenli & Sert, 2017), embodied repair (Sert, 2015; Belhiah, 2013a, 2013b; Seo & Koshik, 2010), and
embodied explanations (Sert, 2015). According to Fasel Lauzon and Pekarek Doehler (2013), embedded corrections may “allow
the teacher to provide corrections without interrupting the flow of the activity” (p. 341). This is important for the purposes of the
current paper in that in a meaning and fluency context, including a prediction activity, the pedagogical aim is not to explicitly
correct student mistakes and focus on linguistic accuracy, but to promote extended student utterances. Another resource that has
been revealed is embodied correction/repair, when gestures are used simultaneously (Sert, 2015) or in isolation (Seo & Koshik,
2010) in repairing utterances in classroom interaction. Such moments in classroom interaction have been found to be important,
as students are exposed to both verbal and visual information embodied in interaction. Finally, explanations of teachers that
include use of gestures (i.e. embodied explanations) have also been conducive to micro-moments of language learning as has
previously been shown by Sert and Walsh (2013) and Waring, Creider, and Box (2013). They show how a teacher's use of hand
gestures in an explanation sequence facilitates student understanding of a vocabulary item, as will also be shown in the analysis
of extract 2. In the following section, the methodology of this study and the context and the participants will be described.

3. Method

This study employs Conversation Analysis (CA) (Sacks et al., 1974). CA focuses on the micro details of talk-in-interaction,
including participants’ embodied behaviours. CA can simply be defined as the analysis of talk and other conduct in inter-
action. With its micro analytic lens, sequential focus, bottom up approach, understanding of context, and emic perspective, CA
enables researchers to reveal how practices of teaching and learning emerge and are co-constructed in talk-in-interaction. By
tracing the sequential organisation of interaction, “CA has provided a rigorously empirical method that retrieves the par-
ticipants' choices of actions and methods of talk in close analytic details” (Hellermann & Lee, 2014, p. 54e55). The fields of
applied linguistics and language learning have recently used this methodological tool in understanding interactional practices
in L2 learning and teaching, and this has led to the emergence of a new field of inquiry called CA-for-SLA (Markee & Kasper,
2004). Space precludes a full account of CA-for-SLA here, but readers interested in the field can refer to Hellermann (2012),
Lee and Hellermann (2014), Markee and Kunitz (2015), Pekarek Doehler & Pochon Berger (2015), Pekarek Doehler & Fasel
Lauzon (2015), and Sert (2015).
Using CA requires a close investigation of sequence organisation, turn taking, and repair practices of participants.
Following a detailed transcription2 of verbal and embodied behaviours (including transcriptions of intonation, silence, pace,
elongations, gestures etc.), actions are described in interaction. In doing so, how participants orient to each other's behaviours
is revealed, using the sequential formats including adjacency pairs, pre-expansions, insert expansions, and post-expansions
(Schegloff, 2007). Actions (which are the units of analyses) enacted within turns, based on identification of Turn Construc-
tional Units and Transition Relevance Places, are explicated by using next-turn-proof procedure. This entails analysing par-
ticipants' interpretation of a turn or action based on its sequential context. The analysis is built on how participants orient to
each other's actions at micro level detail, rather than on exogenous theory or researcher assumptions. This methodological
approach is different from other approaches to L2 classroom interaction, in that the findings are based on empirical analysis,
evidence for which comes from within interaction.3
In this paper, a single case analysis will be employed. Single case analysis has previously been used by a number of re-
searchers to reveal interactional phenomena both in L2 studies (e.g. Mori, 2004; Waring, 2009; Balaman & Sert, 2017) and in
studies on other institutional contexts (e.g. Firth, 1995; Garcia & Parmer, 1999; Sert, Bozbıyık, Elçin, & Turan, 2015). In single
case analysis, “the resources of past work on a range of phenomena and organizational domains in talk-in-interaction are
brought to bear on the analytic explication of a single fragment of talk” (Schegloff, 1987, p. 101, cited in; Waring, 2009). The
purpose of a single case analysis is not to discover a new practice but to:

2
See the Jeffersonian transcription system in the appendix.
3
Reliability of the claims is checked using next turn proof procedure and participant orientations in CA research, and not using multiple observers as in
other approaches.
 O. Sert / System 70 (2017) 14e25 17

(a) showcase CA's analytical potency in illuminating the intricacies of a single utterance, speech act, or episode
(Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998; Schegloff, 1987, 1988); (b) develop a richer understanding of an existing phenomenon
within its extended local context (Macbeth, 1994; Maynard & Frankel, 2003; Raymond & Heritage, 2006); (c) create a
starting point from which collections of a candidate phenomenon may be built (Hutchby & Wooffit, 1998); and (d)
uncover a particular aspect of interaction previously unnoticed but important for professionals working within a
specific (institutional) context (Maynard & Frankel, 2003; Mori, 2004; Schegloff, 1999). (Waring, 2009, p. 801e02)
The selection of a single case analysis in this paper draws on the need to showcase the intricacies of prediction activities, as such
episodes have been found to be engaging in the overall dataset. Furthermore, the particular episode selected is unique, as it allows
the analyst to showcase interactional practices that are conducive to language learning; in this case learning of the phrase ‘each
other’. As part of a larger study examining teacher elicitations and student participation practices in warm up and pre-watching
phases of speaking activities, the data for the current paper come from a corpus of fourteen 45-min EFL classes videotaped at a
secondary school in Ankara (Turkey) in Spring 2013. In order to collect the data, consent of the participants was granted and a
video-camera, as well as audio recorders were placed to capture the ongoing interactions in the classroom. The teacher participant
was a teacher candidate (female, 22 years old) doing her pre-service practicum teaching. The course she taught consisted of 35
students in the 9th grade at a pre-intermediate English proficiency level at the time of the recording. After the recordings were
obtained, the data was viewed several times and then was transcribed according to the central CA tenet of ‘unmotivated looking’
(ten Have, 2007) to reveal emergent interactional patterns. Then the initial observations on student engagement were made, with
a focus on turn taking, repair, and preference organisation and with close investigation of micro-level details including silences
between and in teacher and student utterances. The selected set of extracts below represent a case in which a pre-watching
activity hosts several instances of teacher elicitation in a meaning and fluency context that foster student engagement, which
then eventually leads to a learning opportunity, as an L2 phrase is used later in the class by the learners.

4. Analysis and findings

The analyses carried out in this section illustrate a variety of interactional resources the teacher employs in engaging
students in a meaning based activity that leads to enhanced learner participation visible through long, meaningful student
turns, and student initiatives. It will be argued that the prediction activity sequence becomes an important site for language
practice, as the teacher creates opportunities for language learning by successfully managing learner initiatives (Waring,
2011) and knowledge gaps (see extract 2). The teacher manages these initiatives through the use of embedded correction,
embodied correction, and embodied explanation; thus showing us various ways Classroom Interactional Competence is
enacted. In the last extract, it will be demonstrated that such interactional achievements may lead to potential learning of
target language items, in this case learning of the phrase ‘each other’. It should be noted that each extract builds off of one
another sequentially to demonstrate how these phenomena occur in a single class.

4.1. Invitation of learner participation

The case to be analysed begins with the initiation of a prediction activity in pre-watching stage of the class. The teacher,
using the interactive whiteboard in the class, freezes the opening scene of a short animated film, in which a girl and a boy are
standing next to each other (see Fig. 1). The teacher (T) invites student responses, asking the learners to guess who the people
on the picture are, thus establishing a meaning-and-fluency context (Seedhouse, 2004). The analysis of the extract that
follows will depict the interactional resources the teacher deploys to open space for interaction through extended wait time,
reformulation of student utterances, elaboration questions, and invitations for participation.

Fig. 1. WB.

Extract 1 starts with T's question about the characters on the picture (who are they?). Following 2.1 s of silence, she asks
another question, this time on the reason for the characters' behaviour (>why are they waiting there?<) in line 03.
18 O. Sert / System 70 (2017) 14e25

Extract 1, who are they?

Following a wait-time (Walsh & Li, 2013) in line 04, two students claim the floor and in line 06, S1 makes her guess
starting with a possibility marker (may[be:) and finishes off her utterance with rising inflection, which also indicates (with
the questioning intonation) that she is imagining that the characters are teachers. Following a teacher-learner echo (maybe
they are teacYhers), which may ensure that the “ class progresses together and that everyone is in the loop” (Walsh,
2012: 9) in line 07, T asks an elaboration question to specify the actions performed by the characters and to elicit more
student talk.
After a hesitation marker and 3.9 s of silence, T offers a possible explanation in line 10. This is immediately followed by S1's
contribution (are they teacher?) in line 11, which triggers a minimal response from an unidentified student and a pos-
sibility marker (maybe) and a (collective) claim of no knowledge (>we don't know<) by T in line 14. As has previously been
discussed by Sert & Walsh (2013), such no knowledge claims are not always about lack of knowledge, which is also the case in
this turn. T starts the turn with a possibility marker, ends it with a possible future action (we will [see), and uses inclusive
personal pronoun “we” twice, while claiming no knowledge and marking a possible future action. This turn indicates to
students that meaning has to be established together collaboratively.
 O. Sert / System 70 (2017) 14e25 19

Following 1.2 s of silence, a hesitation marker by S1, and another long silence, S2 bids for turn in line 18, and the floor is
given to her in the next turn. In line 20, S2 formulates another potential explanation (er they are waiting for a
meeting?), which precedes a partial repetition and another possibility marker by T. T completes her turn by walking in
another direction in the class, thus engaging more students through the use of physical space. In lines 22 and 23, T makes
reference to the forthcoming activity and invites student participation in turn final position (is there any-one?). This
invitation for student engagement precedes a long silence in line 24. T's extension of the wait time in 26 eventually results in
student participation in line 28, as S3 comes up with an alternative response (er they will going to a job.), which is in
line with the suggestion brought up by S1 in line 06. After 1.4 s of silence, an early indicator of trouble, T performs an
embedded correction (see Figs. 2 and 3) by using the present progressive form (#1they're [going#2 to their jobs) as well
as the plural form in turn final word. T embodies this repair with her hand gestures and also marks it at suprasegmental level
using raising intonation and stress ([going), while nodding in turn final position. In line 31, S3 quietly repeats the final part
of T's utterance, thus displaying evidence of partial uptake (
their jobs
). In line 33, with a turn initial connector (
and:
), T
offers another alternative (they are waiting for(.) a bus, [maybe:) and thus shows that the teacher and the students
are co-constructing this prediction activity and creating meaning together in L2. In line 34, S3 repeats the part of T's utterance
which has been emphasised by her (
and:
).
This extract has shown us that this activity, with the management of T, demonstrates a number of ways learners’
engagement is facilitated. T successfully elicits responses from students that require joint co-construction of meaning. T opens
space for interaction through extended wait time, teacher-learner echo, reformulation of student utterances, elaboration
questions, and invitations for participation. Furthermore, she works at the level of linguistic accuracy through embedded and
embodied repairs that are taken up by students. All these resources are displays of CIC, and they help the teacher maintain the
progressivity of talk and thus student participation, which is key for language learning (Walsh, 2006).

4.2. Emergence and management of learner initiative

In extract 2 that follows, we will see the emergence of a learner initiative (line 39), and thus the emergence of a learning
goal that will be tracked (in extract 3) to show how T's CIC can lead to opportunities for learning in L2.
Extract 2 Each other (Sert, 2015, p. 161)
20 O. Sert / System 70 (2017) 14e25

In extract 2, in lines 36 and 37, T refers to the picture and asks the students whether the characters know each other. After a
short silence, S1 asks what “each other” means (ich¼other mea:ns?) in line 39. This is a learner initiative (Waring, 2011),
which can be turned into a learning opportunity if the teacher manages this knowledge gap successfully. This is first followed
by half a second of silence during which T establishes mutual gaze with S1 (line 40), and then she repeats the form in a way
that replaces the mispronunciation of the learner (each other) with emphasis on the mispronunciation in line 39. The
learner takes this up in line 42, as she repeats the phrase in the way that the teacher pronounces it. In line 43, T explains the
meaning of ‘each other’ by using hand gestures (see Fig. 4) and pointing to S1 and herself repeatedly (
you and me
.). While
initiating this turn, ‘you’ is uttered simultaneously with gesture 4.1 and ‘me’ with 4.2, thus the visual information and the
linguistic content is synchronised. She immediately repeats the gesture again in line 44, which overlaps with the student's
information receipt ([[huh::¼), a change of epistemic state token (Heritage, 1984) that may indicate understanding. The
teacher closes expansion with a head nod, and immediately moves back to the meaning-and-fluency context with her
question in line 47 (do they know each other?).
After a turn-allocation in line 48, S2 provides an answer with an epistemic stance marker (i don't think so) followed by a
logical connector and an account for the answer (because they are not talking.) in line 49. In line 50, T responds to the
student answer with a teacherelearner echo (Walsh, 2012) and a reformulation of the answer (>they don't know each
other<). She then waits for 0.9 s, and asks for further ideas by opening space for interaction (is there anyone? (1.1)
yes?), with increased wait-time. In line 53, S1 obtains the floor and starts her turn with an uncertainty marker which
precedes her candidate answer. In line 54, T first paraphrases the student answer and then confirms it. In line 55, she further
shapes the learner contribution (Can Daşkın, 2015; Walsh, 2011) by repeating the grammatically correct version of the
student utterance and by including the indefinite article ‘a’ (they are in a bus sta[tion); thus performing an embedded
correction. She then seeks another student to maximise classroom participation.
Extract 2 illustrates a number of features of CIC. First of all, T successfully manages a shift from meaning-and-fluency to
form-and-accuracy, as S1 asks the meaning of ‘each other’. The way T explained the phrase was a successful moment of
teaching, which led to a ‘change of epistemic state’, thus a micro-moment of learning (Markee & Seo, 2009). How the teacher
succeeded in this is of significant importance here. She synchronised the target words using her hand gestures. Effective use
of gestures is an important aspect of CIC (Sert, 2015; Matsumoto & Dobs, 2017). Her question opened interactional space and
enabled a shift back to meaning-and-fluency, which triggered a relevant response in line 49.
To sum up, T displays CIC through successfully engaging students and managing learner initiatives, using resources like
reformulations, repairs, and gestures. She successfully manages gaps in knowledge, thus creating opportunities for language
learning in this pre-watching activity. How can we be sure that language learning is facilitated within this activity though?
Evidence for learning can be seen when the students use the phrase “each other” in a new sequential context, which will be
analysed using extract 3. A previously repaired phrase, which has been flagged in interaction, will be used in a different
sequential environment by the students, bringing evidence of language learning (Seedhouse, 2010).

4.3. Evidence of language learning

Extract 3 starts after the students have watched the video, 28 min after Extract 2. In line 221 T aims at eliciting student
responses first by mentioning a male character that she saw in the video. Her attempt to trigger student responses is not
successful, as she scans the class for more than 3 s but the students do not respond.
 O. Sert / System 70 (2017) 14e25 21

Extract 3 they are happy, 07_06_2013_30e00

In line 223, she describes this character (fat man) by emphasizing the adjective and using bodily gestures (Fig. 5), and
smiles. Her embodied language use and smile triggers laughter and a confirmation token from many students. Having
established student engagement, in line 225, she elaborates on the topic which again receives a minimal contribution from
22 O. Sert / System 70 (2017) 14e25

one of the students in line 226. From line 227 to 230, T initiates the first pair part of a question-answer adjacency pair in order
to elicit the story of the video from the learners. Following the wait-time in line 231, S1 selects herself as the next speaker in
line 232. Note that S1 is the student who asked the meaning of ‘each other’ during the pre-watching activity in extract 2. The
second pair part she provides includes 1.1 s of silence and a hesitation marker, which precede 4 s of silence. During this long
silence in line 233, T and S1 maintain mutual gaze and T does not orient to this gap as trouble. T's long wait time pays off as S1
completes her utterance in line 234 (er: (0.4) s:ee (.) each other?). The second part of her response starts with a
hesitation marker and a short silence, and S1 uses the newly learnt phrase (each other) in a meaningful conversation. She
produces this phrase accurately compared to her first use of it in line 39 (extract 2), which demonstrates that T's embodied
explanation and repair was successful. S1 possibly still orients to this phrase as a newly learnt item, as she uses rising in-
flection in turn-final position, in a way to solicit help (see Pekarek Doehler, 2010). The evidence to this claim is the embodied
confirmation of the teacher in turn-initial position in line 235.
In line 235, T completes S1's response with a prepositional phrase (at the train s[tation), which is acknowledged by
S1 in line 236. This is followed by a further elaboration question by T in line 237, which receives another learner turn. From
lines 240 to 244, T invites more learner contributions, following which S2 bids for turn, and the turn is granted to her with a
head nod in line 245. What comes next is an extended learner turn, a desirable feature of a meaning-and-fluency context, and
an indication of successful student engagement. From lines 246 to 253, there is a telling sequence by S2, during which there is
minimal teacher talk in line 250 (¼uh huh?). This display of listenership opens up even more space for interaction and
student participation. In her extended turn, S2 uses the phrase ‘each other’ in turn final position in line 253, this time with the
verb ‘get’, as embodied through the hand gestures of the student (Fig. 6). This is also an indication of how various features of
CIC displayed in a prediction activity might lead to more student engagement and learning opportunities, as the students
actually used newly learnt items in new communicative events in the classroom. It should also be noted that the shift to a
form-and-accuracy context to explain “each other” is integral to the interaction, and it seems that the evidence for learning
stems from this shift to the orientation to the linguistic item, which is embedded in the meaning and fluency context pre-
sented in extract 2.

5. Discussion and conclusion

In this article, I have explicated the complex link between a teacher's management of interaction in an L2 classroom and
emergent language learning opportunities locally accomplished by the teacher and the students in a prediction activity. Using
a single case analysis and utilizing the micro-analytic lens of conversation analysis, various ways Classroom Interactional
Competence is enacted by the teacher have been demonstrated, and the extent to which its employment paves way to learner
initiatives and learning opportunities has been illuminated. The extracts analysed have made a case for the potential impact of
specific teacher actions in prediction activities as a way to construct learning opportunities. In this section, I will provide a
discussion of the analyses, and will give implications for research and teaching.
Taking the position that increased student participation is key for creating language learning opportunities, the findings
have shown that language learners can be engaged in L2 interaction effectively in sequences where a teacher establishes a
context which (1) is meaning based, (2) encourages creativity and imagination, and (3) helps students freely guess imaginary
events. Such concepts are observable in pre-watching activities as has been displayed in the analysis section. Prediction
activities at the pre-watching stage can help teachers successfully establish and maintain a meaning-and-fluency context, in
which the focus is not on formal and linguistic aspects of language but on meaning-making. Sturm (2012) has argued for the
use of pre-watching activities as part of an effective course that includes using film in the L2 classroom. While the current
study has confirmed Sturm's suggestions, Berne’s (1995) findings of her experimental study should also be considered:
Pre-listening activities which involve previewing comprehension questions facilitate listening comprehension while
pre-listening activities which involve passively previewing vocabulary do not facilitate listening comprehension and
under certain circumstances, may even impede listening comprehension (Berne, 1995, p. 326).
Therefore, one may claim that previewing comprehension questions before watching the video could also be helpful in the
context of the present study, yet, it should also be kept in mind that Berne's study relies on audio. Furthermore, the findings of
the present paper have also proposed a micro analytic perspective for considering the role of prediction activities in language
learning in general (e.g. Erten & Karakaş, 2007; Lee, 2009). More conversation analytic research is needed to show how such
activities can facilitate oral production in L2 classrooms and how they can create learning opportunities. This will also be
conducive to our understanding of the ways teachers show CIC.
In extracts 1 and 2, during the prediction activity, T showed signs of L2 CIC in a number of ways, for instance by (1) using
language convergent to the pedagogical goal (less interruptions, limited teacher talk time, lack of direct repair in a meaning
based context), (2) using wait time (e.g. extract 1 line 04, 09), and (3) shaping learner contributions (e.g. reformulation in
extract 2 line 50, embedded correction in line 55). Elaboration questions also encourage the progressivity of talk and open
space for more student engagement. In relation to CIC, Sert (2015) recently showed that effective use of teacher gestures (also
see Matsumoto & Dobs, 2017) can also promote student understanding, which is the case in extract 2, lines 43 and 44. These
findings build on previous findings on L2 CIC (Walsh & Li, 2013; Walsh, 2011).
The successful management of a learner initiative in extract 2 has led to the re-use of that particular phrase (“each other”)
by two different students in extract 3. This finding has an important contribution for research on learner initiatives (e.g.
 O. Sert / System 70 (2017) 14e25 23

Garton, 2012; Jacknick, 2011), but also extends previous studies showing that gestures of teachers also play an integral part in
managing learner initiatives. The teacher creates opportunities for language learning by successfully managing learner ini-
tiatives (Waring, 2011), pedagogical shifts (e.g. in between meaning-and-fluency and form-and-accuracy contexts) and
knowledge gaps, as well as by the appropriate use of embedded correction, embodied correction, and embodied explanation.
The tracking of the learning goal (the phrase ‘each other’) also provides important insights into how learning behaviours
(Markee, 2008) can be tracked to reveal language learning. Here, it should be noted that different methodologies and ap-
proaches have different conceptualisations of learning. Here, I follow the conceptualisations of learning based on Seedhouse
(2010) and Pekarek Doehler (2010). According to Pekarek Doehler:
“at least part of the process of learning is analysable as embodied in the details of social interaction, through such
pervasive elements as repair, hesitation, repetition, turn-taking and sequential organisation, but also gaze, gesture,
body orientation and the manipulation of objects” (p. 109).
Based on what Pekarek Doehler argues here, what we have observed in the analysis of extracts is that the phrase “each
other” emerged in the sequential unfolding of interaction as a ‘second pair part of an adjacency pair’, first pair part of which
projected the use of “each other”. The use could be tracked by looking into repair, turn taking, and use of gestures. These then
(as has been shown in the analysis of extract 3) led to the use of the same phrase by the student who initially displayed no
knowledge of that word. Therefore, learning refers here to changes in epistemic states (from not knowing to knowing and
using in meaningful contexts) as enacted in the sequential unfolding of talk, which is observable in participation, use, and in
co-construction of actions.
The paper has implications for both teaching and research. Teachers should be more aware of the value of pre-watching
activities as they can facilitate learner engagement, and thus can successfully prepare the learners for forthcoming activities
and tasks. The interactional resources deployed by the teacher in this single case can be used in teacher education especially
for raising pre-service or in-service teachers’ awareness on language use and management of such activities. From a research
perspective, similar investigations can be carried out on classroom activities that promote student engagement, like brain-
storming activities or learner-learner tasks that require imagination of learners for creating task outputs.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Christine Jacknick, Drew Fagan, and Shane Donald for their invaluable feedback on earlier versions of this
paper. Special thanks to anonymous reviewers and editors for their suggestions, which helped improving the manuscript.

Appendix

Transcription conventions

Adapted from Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998).

(1.8) Numbers enclosed in parentheses indicate a pause. The number represents the number of seconds of duration of the pause, to one decimal
place. A pause of less than 0.2 s is marked by (.)
[] Brackets around portions of utterances show that those portions overlap with a portion of another speaker's utterance.
¼ An equal sign is used to show that there is no time lapse between the portions connected by the equal signs. This is used where a second
speaker begins their utterance just at the moment when the first speaker finishes.
:: A colon after a vowel or a word is used to show that the sound is extended. The number of colons shows the length of the extension.
(hm, hh) These are onomatopoetic representations of the audible exhalation of air
.hh This indicates an audible inhalation of air, for example, as a gasp. The more h's, the longer the in-breath.
? A question mark indicates that there is slightly rising intonation.
. A period indicates that there is slightly falling intonation.
, A comma indicates a continuation of tone.
e A dash indicates an abrupt cut off, where the speaker stopped speaking suddenly.
[Y Up or down arrows are used to indicate that there is sharply rising or falling intonation. The arrow is placed just before the syllable in which the
change in intonation occurs.
Under Underlines indicate speaker emphasis on the underlined portion of the word.
CAPS Capital letters indicate that the speaker spoke the capitalized portion of the utterance at a higher volume than the speaker's normal volume.


This indicates an utterance that is much softer than the normal speech of the speaker. This symbol will appear at the beginning and at the end
of the utterance in question.
> <, < > ‘Greater than’ and ‘less than’ signs indicate that the talk they surround was noticeably faster, or slower than the surrounding talk.
(would) When a word appears in parentheses, it indicates that the transcriber has guessed as to what was said, because it was indecipherable on the
tape. If the transcriber was unable to guess what was said, nothing appears within the parentheses.
£C'mon£ Sterling signs are used to indicate a smiley or jokey voice.
þ marks the onset of an embodied action (e.g. shift of gaze, pointing)
italics English translation
24 O. Sert / System 70 (2017) 14e25

References

Balaman, U., & Sert, O. (2017). The Coordination of Online L2 Interaction and Orientations to Task Interface for Epistemic Progression. Journal of Pragmatics,
115, 115e129.
Belhiah, H. (2013a). Gesture as a resource for intersubjectivity in second-language learning situations. Classroom Discourse, 4(2), 111e129.
Belhiah, H. (2013b). Using the hand to choreograph instruction: On the functional role of gesture in definition talk. The Modern Language Journal, 97(2),
417e434.
Berne, J. E. (1995). How does varying pre-listening activities affect second language listening comprehension? Hispania, 78(2), 316e329.
Can Daşkın, N. (2015). Shaping learner contributions in an EFL classroom: Implications for L2 classroom interactional competence. Classroom Discourse, 6(1),
33e56.
Çimenli, B., & Sert, O. (2017). Orientations to linguistic form in meaning and fluency contexts in a Turkish as a foreign language classroom. In G. Schwab, S.
Hoffmann, & A. Scho €n (Eds.), Interaktion im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Beitra€ge aus der empirischen Forschung (pp. 17e32). Münster: LIT Verlag.
Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social Theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Malden, MA: Polity Press<x>.
Erten, I. H., & Karakaş, M. (2007). Understanding the divergent influences of reading activities on the comprehension of short stories. The Reading Matrix,
7(3), 113e133.
Fagan, D. S. (2012). Dealing with unexpected learner contributions in whole group activities: An examination of novice language teacher discursive
practices. Classroom Discourse, 3(2), 107e128.
Fagan, D. S. (2015). Managing language errors in real-time: A microanalysis of teacher practices. System, 55, 74e85.
Fasel Lauzon, V., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2013). Focus on form as a joint accomplishment: An attempt to bridge the gap between focus on form research and
conversation analytic research on SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 51(4), 323e351.
Firth, A. (1995). ‘Accounts’ in negotiation discourse: A single-case analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 23(2), 199e226.
Garcia, A. C., & Parmer, P. A. (1999). Misplaced mistrust: The collaborative construction of doubt in 911 emergency calls. Symbolic Interaction, 22(4),
297e324.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Garton, S. (2012). Speaking out of turn? Taking the initiative in teacher-fronted classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 3(1), 29e45.
Hall, J. K. (2007a). Redressing the roles of correction and repair in research on second and foreign language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4),
511e526.
Hall, J. K. (2007b). The devil's in the details: A response to Seedhouse. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 534e536.
Hauser, E. (2011). On the danger of exogenous theory in CA-for-SLA: A response to Hellermann and cole (2009). Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 348e352.
ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hellermann, J. (2012). Conversation analysis and language acquisition. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.
wbeal0205.
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in
conversation analysis (pp. 299e345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hellermann, J., & Lee, Y. A. (2014). Members and their competencies: Contributions of ethnomethodological conversation analysis to a multilingual turn in
second language acquisition. System, 44, 54e65.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jacknick, C. M. (2011). “But this is writing”: Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 5(1), 39e54.
http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_5_1/jacknick.pdf.
Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button, & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 86e100).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second
language acquisition (pp. 117e142). London: Routledge.
Lee, W. (2009). Making English lessons engaging through video materials supported with advance organizers and prediction. TESL Reporter, 42(2), 57e74.
Lee, Y. A., & Hellermann, J. (2014). Tracing developmental changes through conversation analysis: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. TESOL Quarterly,
48(4), 763e788.
MacBeth, D. (1994). Classroom encounters with the unspeakable: “Do you see, Danelle?”. Discourse Processes, 17, 311e335.
Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29, 404e427.
Markee, N. (2013). Emic and etic in qualitative research. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 491e500.
Markee, N., & Kunitz, S. (2015). CA-for-sla studies of classroom Interaction: Quo vadis? In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and
interaction (pp. 425e439). West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
Markee, N., & Seo, M. S. (2009). Learning talk analysis. IRAL- International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(1), 37e63.
Matsumoto, Y., & Dobs, A. M. (2017). Pedagogical gestures as interactional resources for teaching and learning tense and aspect in the ESL grammar
classroom. Language Learning, 67(1), 7e42.
Maynard, D., & Frankel, R. M. (2003). Indeterminancy and uncertainty in the delivery of diagnostic news in internal medicine: A single case analysis. In P. J.
Glenn, C. D. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper (pp. 393e410). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal,
88(4), 536e550.
Mori, J., & Markee, N. (2009). Language learning, cognition, and interactional practices: An introduction. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, 47(1), 1e9.
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On language, learning and documenting learning in conversation analytic
SLA research. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising learning in applied linguistics (pp. 105e126). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization,
repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno, & S. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp.
233e268). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Lauzon, V. F. (2015). Documenting change across time. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp.
409e424). West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35, 677e705.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696e735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 101e114.
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew, & A. Wootton (Eds.), Ervin Goffman, Exploring the interaction order (pp. 89e135).
Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Discourse, pragmatics, conversation analysis. Discourse Studies, 1, 405e435.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: Volume 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
 O. Sert / System 70 (2017) 14e25 25

Seedhouse, P. (2007). On ethnomethodological CA and “linguistic CA: A reply to Hall. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 527e533.
Seedhouse, P. (2010). A framework for conceptualising learning in applied linguistics. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising learning in
applied linguistics (pp. 105e126). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seo, M., & Koshik, I. (2010). A conversation analytic study of gestures that engender repair in ESL conversational tutoring. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8),
2219e2239.
Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
€g
Sert, O., Bozbıyık, M., Elçin, M., & Turan, S. (2015). Standart Hasta e Tıp O € Bilgi Iddiaları
rencisi Etkileşiminde On _ ve Etkileşimsel Sorunlar. Mersin Üniversitesi
Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 12(2), 45e72.
Sert, O., & Walsh, S. (2013). The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in english language classrooms. Language and Education,
27(6), 542e565.
Sturm, J. L. (2012). Using film in the L2 classroom: A graduate course in film pedagogy. Foreign Language Annals, 45(2), 246e259.
Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3e23.
Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. New York: Routledge.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom Discourse: Language in action. London: Routledge.
Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualising classroom interactional competence. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 6(1), 1e14. http://www.
novitasroyal.org/Vol_6_1/Walsh.pdf.
Walsh, S., & Li, L. (2013). Conversations as space for learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics., 23(2), 247e266.
Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal,
92(4), 577e594.
Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning., 59(4), 796e824.
Waring, H. Z. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities in the language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 2(2), 201e218.
Waring, H. Z., Creider, S., & Box, C. (2013). Explaining vocabulary in the language classroom. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2, 249e264.
Waring, H. Z., Reddington, E., & Tadic, N. (2016). Responding artfully to student-initiated departures in the adult ESL classroom. Linguistics and Education, 33,
28e39.