View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Requesting Clarifications for the Meanings of L2 Vocabulary Items and the Emergence of Situated Cognition and Learning

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Requesting Clarifications for the Meanings of L2 Vocabulary Items and the Emergence of Situated Cognition and Learning
Language: English
Authors: Tuncay Koç (ORCID 0000-0002-5615-8056)
Source: Language Learning Journal. 2024 52(4):380-396.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Adult Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, English (Second Language), English Language Learners, Teacher Student Relationship, Oral Communication Method, Adult Education, Information Seeking, Peer Relationship
Geographic Terms: Turkey
DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2023.2179655
ISSN: 0957-1736
1753-2167
Abstract: Researchers and practitioners have long been interested in the role of learner agency in the emergence of learning opportunities. However, despite the growing number of studies, few of them have empirically been able to demonstrate how such moments can create learning opportunities. Based on 12 hours of videotaped data, this study describes the nature of learner initiatives in L2 oral communication classroom interaction and brings evidence for the emergence of situated cognition and learning. An in-depth conversation-analytic investigation of learner-initiated vocabulary explanation sequences reveals three types of sequences which include: (1) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and no claim/display of understanding format; (2) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and claim of understanding format, and (3) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and display of understanding format. The findings of this study contribute to the existing research on learner initiatives in instructed learning settings and language learning with a micro-analytic account of verbal and non-verbal aspects of situated cognition and learning emerging in L2 oral communication classroom interaction.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1428130
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwH_LaxYBHviAIDam3QUlAI-AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJChIeih4CeWvZRzRAIBEICBm_s0_jUGlevSIwdiScNW82ILo6AvDZrywdC83bupNRbIzq5JSbJhC4gqr-OpiDeu2RawrKqL45YT6S9qagOQu01UGExO2H1OhKN_uSUDXoHipMofeZduMDdMI8GF6K9WLvIQVCC6wGClprp9e_BDcXUbzABQLmyR9_wciiqswUZbeOr7v8z7SAnh7r_8j0yh6S6DFcIUbZy7erdT
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0177840453;sdq01aug.24;2024Jun17.03:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177840453-1">Requesting clarifications for the meanings of L2 vocabulary items and the emergence of situated cognition and learning </title> <p>Researchers and practitioners have long been interested in the role of learner agency in the emergence of learning opportunities. However, despite the growing number of studies, few of them have empirically been able to demonstrate how such moments can create learning opportunities. Based on 12 hours of videotaped data, this study describes the nature of learner initiatives in L2 oral communication classroom interaction and brings evidence for the emergence of situated cognition and learning. An in-depth conversation-analytic investigation of learner-initiated vocabulary explanation sequences reveals three types of sequences which include: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and no claim/display of understanding format; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and claim of understanding format, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and display of understanding format. The findings of this study contribute to the existing research on learner initiatives in instructed learning settings and language learning with a micro-analytic account of verbal and non-verbal aspects of situated cognition and learning emerging in L2 oral communication classroom interaction.</p> <p>Keywords: Conversation analysis; L2 classroom interaction; learner initiatives; situated cognition; language learning</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Classrooms are institutional settings that focus on 'the acquisition and demonstration of knowledge' (Gardner and Mushin [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]: 14). The institutional characteristics of the classroom settings require teachers to do 'being the teacher' by delivering content-specific knowledge to their target audience (students) (by telling, asking questions and giving feedback) and students to do 'being students' (by responding to the teacher elicitations), which naturally leads to the emergence of a teacher-dominant pattern of interaction in classrooms (teacher initiation-student response-teacher evaluation/feedback (IRE or IRF), Mehan [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref5">24</reflink>]; Sinclair and Coulthard [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref6">33</reflink>]). However, there are moments in classroom interaction where students move out of this pattern of interaction (Waring [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref7">36</reflink>]) by taking initiatives; that is, making 'uninvited contributions' to the ongoing interaction (Waring [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref8">37</reflink>]: 204). Previous conversation-analytic work has emphasised the important role of learner initiatives in classroom interaction as well as underlining its significance for the emergence of learning opportunities (e.g. Dolce and van Compernolle [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]; Garton [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>]; Waring [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref12">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref13">37</reflink>]). However, relatively lacking is a description of how such moments can create opportunities for learning (except for Sert [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref14">31</reflink>]) in situ. Research within the framework of Conversation Analysis for Second Language Acquisition (CA-SLA) has also explored epistemics in action (Heritage [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref15">8</reflink>]) in instructed learning settings, especially by focusing on the moments where students produce displays of knowledge or understanding as a result of information exchanges (e.g. Koole [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref16">21</reflink>]; Kääntä [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref17">15</reflink>]; Leyland [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref18">23</reflink>]; Jakonen and Morton [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref19">13</reflink>]; Mushin [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref20">26</reflink>]) as well as teachers' orientations to students' claims of no/insufficient knowledge (e.g. Sert [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref21">30</reflink>]; Sert and Walsh [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref22">32</reflink>]). Adopting a conversation-analytic mentality that views understanding and the construction of knowledge as a shared phenomenon (Schegloff [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref23">28</reflink>]), this study explores the nature of learner initiatives in the L2 oral communication classroom and provides evidence for the emergence of situated cognition and learning by focusing on both verbal and non-verbal resources made available by participants in learner-initiated vocabulary explanation sequences.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-3">Background</hd> <p>This section will first provide a review of CA studies on learner initiatives in instructed learning settings. Then, this will be followed by a review of research into epistemics in educational settings.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-4">Research on learner initiatives</hd> <p>Research within the framework of CA-SLA has shown that learner initiatives are important parts of classroom interaction (e.g. Garton [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>]; Waring [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref26">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref27">37</reflink>]). A learner initiative in a broad sense is defined as 'any learner attempt to make an uninvited contribution to the ongoing classroom talk' (Waring [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref28">37</reflink>]: 204). Studies exploring the nature of learner initiatives in instructed learning settings have provided a micro-analytic account of: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>) the reasons why learners take initiative, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>) the different ways learners take initiative, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>) how teachers respond to such moments of classroom interaction, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>) positive impact of learner initiatives on instructional focus (e.g. creation of learning opportunities).</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-5">The purposes of learner initiatives</hd> <p>Studies on learner initiatives in instructed learning settings have shown that learners take initiatives for different purposes such as <emph>displaying understanding problems</emph>, <emph>requesting clarifications</emph> or <emph>displaying understanding</emph> or <emph>knowledge</emph> (e.g. Dolce and van Compernolle [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>]; Garton [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref34">6</reflink>]; Waring [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref35">37</reflink>]). Garton ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref36">6</reflink>]), for example, in his micro-analytic study, which is based on the audio-recordings of the interactions in adult EFL classes, showed that learners take initiatives for: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>) requesting confirmations (e.g. 'so we must use everything'), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>) requesting clarifications (e.g. 'what is the meaning of "timetable"?'), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>) requesting information (e.g. 'sorry, it is uncountable, "way"?') and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref40">4</reflink>) hypothesis testing (trying out their understandings). Dolce and van Compernolle ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>]), also examined the cases of student-initiations in an advanced level Chinese as-a-foreign language classroom and identified three types of student-initiated topic expansions which included: <emph>genuine questions</emph>, <emph>topic elaborations</emph> and <emph>challenges to teacher assertions</emph>. Waring ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref42">37</reflink>]: 215) in her micro-analytic study based on the analysis of 14 hours of video-taped data, also showed that learners take initiates mostly 'to joke, resist, redirect, plead, persuade, assert stances, display knowledge, seek and pursue understandings or import casual conversations into the classroom'.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-6">The ways learners take initiatives</hd> <p>There are also studies exploring the different ways learners take initiative in L2 classroom settings. In one of these studies, Koç, Bacanak, and Ergül ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref43">19</reflink>]) investigated the nature of learner initiatives, taken to request clarifications for the meanings of unknown vocabulary items, in an L2 classroom setting. The findings revealed that students not only use formulaic expressions (e.g. 'what does it mean?') or repetition of the problematic vocabulary items (e.g. 'commercials?') for requesting clarifications for the meanings of L2 vocabulary items, but they also resort to embodied resources such as gaze, gestures and facial expressions in their clarification requests. In another study, Tai and Brandt ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref44">34</reflink>]: 2) examining a single case taken from a corpus of 4.000 hours of classroom interaction in a beginner-level adult English for Speakers of Other Languages classroom found that a beginning-level ESOL student took initiative to request clarification for the meaning of the L2 phrase 'excuse me' by using <emph>embodied enactments</emph>, in which students initiate clarification requests by 'playing out hypothetical scenarios, verbally and physically'.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-7">The ways teachers respond to learner initiatives</hd> <p>Prior work has also explored the different ways teachers manage learner initiatives during ongoing interaction in instructed learning settings. Fagan ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>]), for example, examined how a novice teacher dealt with unexpected learner initiations in whole-group interactions in an advanced level four skills integrated general English classroom and identified two teacher practices (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>) <emph>glossing over learner contributions</emph> (addressing unexpected learner contributions as they arise) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>) <emph>assuming the role of the information provider</emph> (providing information on a topic). Donald ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref48">2</reflink>]) also investigated the ways a teacher handled learner initiatives in a teacher-fronted English reading and grammar classroom. Two different teacher practices were identified for responding to learner initiatives, which included <emph>using recipient design to better understand student questions</emph> and <emph>explicitly answering learner questions by using designedly incomplete utterances (DIUs)</emph> (Koshik [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>]). Kardaş İşler, Balaman, and Şahin ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref50">16</reflink>]), using a corpus of video-recorded interactions in a social studies classroom in a primary school, examined the ways a teacher responded to learner initiations. Their analyses highlighted how the teacher handled learner initiations through the use of resources such as <emph>questions, DIUs, hinting, reformulations, and explicit positive assessments</emph>. In another study based on the analysis of a single case, Sert ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref51">31</reflink>]) empirically demonstrated how a novice EFL teacher created a vocabulary learning opportunity for an L2 learner by successfully managing a learner initiative taken to request clarification for the meaning of the phrase 'each other', through the use of an embodied explanation (deictic gesture).</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-8">The positive impact of learner initiatives on instructional focus</hd> <p>Research has also highlighted the positive effects of learner initiatives on ongoing interaction in instructed learning settings. Garton ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>]), for example, examined the role of learner initiatives in a teacher-fronted adult EFL classroom and suggested that learner initiatives have an important role to play in increasing the comprehensible input and output in the language classroom. Jacknick ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref53">10</reflink>]: 34) also argued that learner initiatives 'affect the unfolding of talk by inserting turns where none were projected, and demonstrate the exercise of student agency in a setting that has often been characterised as limiting'. Waring ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref54">37</reflink>]), in her conversation-analytic study, in which she identified a typology of learner initiatives, pointed out that learner initiatives can afford opportunities for learning by pushing the boundaries of traditional interactional patterns in the classrooms.</p> <p>The review of studies above has provided a micro-analytic picture of (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>) why learners take initiative in instructed learning settings, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>) the different ways learners take initiative, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref57">3</reflink>) how teachers respond to learner initiatives, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref58">4</reflink>) the positive impact of learner initiatives on instructional focus.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-9">Research on the socially shared aspect of cognition and learning</hd> <p>Research using the micro-analytic lens of CA has also explored epistemics in action (Heritage [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref59">8</reflink>]) in instructed learning settings, especially by focusing on the moments where students produce displays of knowledge or understanding as a result of information exchanges (e.g. Koole [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref60">21</reflink>]; Kääntä [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref61">15</reflink>]; Leyland [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref62">23</reflink>]; Jakonen and Morton [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref63">13</reflink>]; Mushin [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref64">26</reflink>]) as well as teachers' orientations to students' claims of no/insufficient knowledge (e.g. Sert [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref65">30</reflink>]; Sert and Walsh [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref66">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-10">Research on knowledge and understanding displays produced by students</hd> <p>Some of the studies on epistemics in classroom settings focus on the display of knowledge or understanding produced by learners following exchanges of information. Koole ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref67">21</reflink>]), for example, explored the instances of interaction in maths classrooms (in two Dutch secondary schools) where teachers explained mathematics problems to individual students. In these explanation sequences, teachers adopt two different explanation approaches which the author refers to as the 'discourse unit' and 'dialogue approach' (Koole [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref68">21</reflink>]: 189). In the first approach, teachers explain how to do the task at hand without engaging students in the explanation process. The second approach, on the other hand, requires student contribution to the explanation process through a series of questions asked by the teacher. Koole ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref69">21</reflink>]: 185) summarises his findings as follows:</p> <p>[the]discourse unit format presents an interactional environment that renders students' displays of epistemic access into doing understanding, in particular claims of understanding, while the dyadic format presents an environment that renders students' responses displays of knowing, more accurately demonstrations of knowing.</p> <p>Jakonen and Morton ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref70">13</reflink>]), in their study, examined the interaction in history classes taught through English at a secondary school in Finland by focusing on epistemic search sequences (ESS). ESSs are initiated by students to 'collectively resolve emerging knowledge gaps while working on pedagogic tasks' (p.1). As a result of the analyses of three different types of epistemic search sequences - <emph>resolving a knowledge gap with a knowing answer, practising around 'unknowing' responses,</emph> and <emph>contesting 'knowing' responses</emph><emph>-</emph> it was shown that epistemic search sequences 'are initiated when a speaker displays an 'unknowing' epistemic stance by making an information request about some aspect of language or the content being worked on' (p.1). In another study, Jakonen ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref71">11</reflink>]: 100) explored the ways learning materials (e.g. course books or tasks sheets) are manually handled 'for constructing the social actions of requesting and asserting information' in student-student interaction in a Content-and Language-Integrated-Learning (CLIL) classroom. The findings (Jakonen [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref72">11</reflink>]: 100) showed that:</p> <p>...manual handling of such everyday learning materials as handouts and tasks sheets is not only an important resource for constructing the social actions of requesting and asserting information but is also oriented as a basis for drawing inferences about the participants' relative epistemic statuses.</p> <p>Gardner and Mushin ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref73">4</reflink>]) explored students' non-verbal responses to teachers' informing turns in classroom interaction data from an Australian indigenous school in Queensland. The findings shed light on visible signs of attention (e.g. eye-gaze and body orientation) and showed how the epistemic trajectory can be spotted from the delivery of the task instruction to the task itself. The findings (Gardner and Mushin [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref74">4</reflink>]-32-3) showed that:</p> <p>...the students in this class who showed those visible signs were the ones who managed to engage in the task and thereby demonstrate both that they know what to do and, in this case, that they know how to use location language appropriately. Those students who showed a lack of visible signs of engagement were unable to engage in the task, making it difficult for the teacher to ascertain whether the children understood not only what was required of them in performing the task, but also the curriculum content—using location words.</p> <p>In another study, Kääntä ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref75">15</reflink>]: 87) investigated the nature of correction initiations performed by students in teacher-led interaction in a CLIL classroom. The research findings highlighted the role of embodiment in 'doing noticing' as well as depicting 'how students display what they know and how this knowledge is made visible/hearable in and through interaction in front of the class'.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-11">Research on teachers' orientations to learners' knowledge and understanding displays</hd> <p>There are also studies focusing on teachers' orientations to knowledge and understanding displays produced by students. Sert ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref76">30</reflink>]), for example, investigated instances of interaction in English language classrooms where the teacher employs epistemic status checks (e.g. 'no idea?', 'you don't know?') to interpret students' state of knowledge following delayed second pair parts to teacher questions. The findings suggested that an epistemic status check 'makes students' insufficient knowledge relevant in talk and prepares the ground for speaker change in classroom interaction' (Sert [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref77">30</reflink>]: 24). Sert and Walsh ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref78">32</reflink>]) investigated how claims of insufficient knowledge of students are interactionally managed in English language classrooms. Their findings showed that the teacher successfully managed students' claims of insufficient knowledge by using interactional resources such as <emph>deictic gestures, embodied vocabulary explanations, code-switching and DIUs</emph> (Koshik [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref79">22</reflink>]), which in the end supported student participation and demonstrations of student understanding.</p> <p>To the best of my knowledge despite the growing number of studies on learner initiatives in instructed learning settings which underline the significance of learner initiative for the emergence of learning opportunities, there is little classroom interaction research that has empirically demonstrated how learner initiatives create learning opportunities in L2 classroom settings. Building on the conversation-analytic research reviewed above on learner initiatives in instructed learning settings as well as research on epistemics, this study set out to explore the nature of learner initiatives in L2 oral communication classroom interaction to provide evidence for the emergence of situated cognition and learning by focusing on both verbal and non-verbal resources employed by participants.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-12">Data and method</hd> <p>The focal extracts for this study come from a corpus of 14 50-minute adult English oral communication classes videotaped in a higher education setting in Turkey. The classes were taught by the same teacher as a part of the English language preparatory programme offered to develop the language competence of learners so that they could pursue their studies in the undergraduate programmes, where the medium of instruction would be in English. In the language preparatory programme, there were four levels of courses based on the Common European Framework (CEFR): A1, A2, B1, and B2. The courses were mainly designed with two components: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>) main course lessons, which involved grammar and vocabulary-based lessons integrating all four skills, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>) skills courses, designed to improve the writing and oral communication skills of the students at all levels. The aim of the instruction in the specific L2 context of this research was to provide opportunities for L2 learners to communicate in the target language (English). The classroom consisted of 11 students (six females and five males) who all spoke Turkish as their mother tongue. The students had achieved the B1 level based on the Common European Framework (CEFR) and were taking upper-intermediate level (B2) classes. The teacher, of Romanian origin, had more than 10 years' teaching experience. The data were collected using three digital cameras over a period of six weeks soon after receiving the Ethics Committee permission and signed consent from the teacher and student participants. The participants were assured of the confidentiality of the data and their rights to withdraw at any time. The students and the teacher were also informed that they would be anonymous in any publications.</p> <p>In this study, Conversation Analysis (CA) is used as a data analysis method (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref82">27</reflink>]). CA as a research methodology investigates recordings of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction:</p> <p>...to discover how participants understand and respond to one another in their turns at talk, with a central focus being on how sequences of actions are generated. To put it another way, the objective of CA is to uncover the tacit reasoning procedures and sociolinguistic competencies underlying the production and interpretation of talk in organized sequences of interaction (Hutchby and Wooffitt [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref83">9</reflink>]: 14).</p> <p>A growing number of studies in the fields of applied linguistics and language learning have also adopted CA methodology to examine the intricacies of interaction in L2 classrooms (e.g. Koç [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref84">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref85">20</reflink>]; Seedhouse [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref86">29</reflink>]; Sert [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref87">31</reflink>]; Tai and Brandt [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref88">34</reflink>]; Walsh [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref89">35</reflink>]; Waring [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref90">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>In line with CA practice, following the data collection process the whole data were transcribed using the modified version of the transcription conventions developed by Jefferson ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref91">14</reflink>]) (see Appendix 1). The participant students' names were changed with pseudonyms to ensure the anonymity of participants' identities. The embodied actions were also illustrated using the multimodal transcription conventions (Mondada [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref92">25</reflink>]) as well as still pictures taken from the videotaped research corpus (see Appendix 2). The transcripts, along with the video recordings, were carefully reviewed. In the review process, vocabulary explanations emerged as a commonly occurring phenomenon in classroom interaction. From the research corpus, a collection of 148 instances of vocabulary explanation was built. Based on who initiated the sequence, two broad categories were identified: teacher-initiated vocabulary explanation sequences (132 sequences) and learner-initiated vocabulary explanation sequences (16 sequences) (please see Koç [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref93">17</reflink>]). A closer investigation of learner-initiated vocabulary explanation sequences revealed three types of learner-initiated vocabulary explanation sequences: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and no claim/display of understanding format (seven sequences); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref95">2</reflink>) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and claim of understanding format (six sequences), and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref96">3</reflink>) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and display of understanding format (3 sequences). In this paper, I focus on three extracts representative of each category in the collection.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-13">The analysis and findings</hd> <p>The analyses, in this section, illustrate the nature of learner initiatives in L2 oral communication classroom interaction and bring evidence for the emergence of situated cognition and learning. An in-depth conversation-analytic investigation of learner-initiated vocabulary explanation sequences revealed three different types of sequences: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and no claim/display of understanding format; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref98">2</reflink>) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and claim of understanding format, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref99">3</reflink>) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and display of understanding format. In the first format, students take the initiative and request clarification for the meanings of L2 words and then following the teacher's vocabulary explanation, they do not produce any claim/display of understanding. In the second format, students request clarifications for the meanings of L2 words and following the teacher's explanation they produce claims of understanding of the teacher's explanation by producing a change of state/confirmation token. In the third format, on the other hand, students take the initiative to request clarification for the meanings of L2 vocabulary items and then, following the teacher's explanation, they make their understanding accessible to their peers or to the teacher by providing the L1 translation of the target words or by showing their access to a synonym of the target vocabulary items. As Seedhouse's ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref100">29</reflink>]) conceptualisation of <emph>L2 classroom contexts</emph> will be used at some points during the analysis of the focal extracts, a description of it will be provided. According to Seedhouse ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref101">29</reflink>]: 101), L2 classroom interaction consists of sub-contexts 'each with its own basic pedagogical focus and corresponding organisation of turn-taking and sequence', which include a <emph>form-and-accuracy context</emph> (the focus is on some specific linguistic forms), a <emph>meaning-and-fluency context</emph> (the focus is on the communication of personal feelings), a <emph>task-oriented context</emph> (the focus is on the accomplishment of the task), and a <emph>procedural context</emph> (the focus is on setting the scene and giving the instructions before a classroom activity begins).</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-14">Clarification request + vocabulary explanation and no claim/display of understanding format</hd> <p>Extract-1 is an example of a learner-initiated vocabulary explanation sequence, in which students take the initiative to request clarification for the meanings of spontaneously arising problematic L2 vocabulary items and then produce no claim/display of understanding following the teacher's explanation. The following segment occurs while students are reading a newspaper record in the student course book.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-15">Extract-1 enormous</hd> <p>In line 01, Ber takes initiative (Waring [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref102">37</reflink>]) and shifts the focus of task-oriented ongoing interaction to form and accuracy by requesting clarification for the vocabulary item '<bold>enormous</bold>' (Seedhouse [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref103">29</reflink>]) switching to his L1 '<bold>enormous ne demekti ya<emph>? what does enormous mean?</emph></bold>'. In doing so, he also orients towards his left looking at his peers (see Figure 1). After Cag's clarification request, Ber repeats the word '<bold>enormous</bold>' to bring it to Cag's attention. In the subsequent lines, in an overlapping manner, first Nis provides a candidate word explanation which is delivered in a quiet tone in the format of a synonym '<bold>[°huge°</bold>' and then Sua gives another word explanation by switching to her L1 '[<bold>muazzam</bold>'. Following a 0.2 s of silence, the teacher also does a word explanation by first repeating the target word '[enormous' and then providing synonyms of it with an accompanying embodied description. In doing so, Ber also notes down the teacher's explanation and then the sequence comes to an end without further contribution from the students or the teacher (see Figure 2).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Gazing at his peers. A student is turning to his left and gazing at his peers while requesting clarification.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Noting down. The student who requested clarification is taking note.</p> <p>As shown in Extract-1, one of the students in the classroom takes initiative during the ongoing interaction and reshapes the focus of the ongoing classroom interaction (Seedhouse [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref104">29</reflink>]) by requesting clarification for the meaning of a vocabulary item 'enormous' in the text that has been assigned by the teacher. Following his peers' and the teacher's vocabulary explanation, the initiative-taking student notes the explanation down without claiming/showing his understanding. It is important to note that Ber's initiative provides an opportunity for learning for both himself and also for his peers who may not have been able to voice their problems of understanding. In addition to this, it is also shown that the initiative-taking student provides no verbal claim/display of understanding following the vocabulary explanation, but he does note down the explanation which is an embodied sign of his understanding of the vocabulary explanation provided by his peers and the teacher.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-16">Clarification request + vocabulary explanation and claim of understanding format</hd> <p>Extract-2 is an example of learner-initiated vocabulary sequences in which students take the initiative to request clarification for the meanings of L2 vocabulary items and following the teacher's explanation, produce only claims of understanding such as 'huh' 'yes' or 'okay'. In the following segment, one of the students (Sua) takes initiative during a meaning and fluency-oriented interaction and requests clarification for the meaning of the vocabulary item 'bankrupt'. Prior to the initiation of the vocabulary explanation sequence, the class has finished doing a listening task in which someone calls to an agony aunt on a radio show to get some advice for her problem and the students has read three different summaries of the problem to choose the best summary.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-17">Extract-2 bankrupt</hd> <p>In line 01, the extract starts with the teacher asking students about which summary best describes the caller's problem. In line 02, in a latching way, Sua takes initiative and reshapes the trajectory of the ongoing task-oriented interaction by requesting clarification for the meaning of the vocabulary item 'bankrupt'. As doing so, she also shifts her gaze at the teacher, with a frowning facial expression, and opens his palm (Koç, Bacanak, and Ergül [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref105">19</reflink>]) (see Figure 3). Following a 0.5-second gap, the teacher first requests confirmation by repeating the word 'bankrupt' with a rising pitch and then provides a verbal explanation by saying '<bold>when you have no more money</bold>'. Following a 0.3 s gap and Nur's claim of understanding, the teacher further explains that bankruptcy is the situation '<bold>when you finish, all your money</bold>', which receives a claim of understanding from Sua who says '<bold>°hu:h okay°</bold>'. In doing so, she also tilts her head backwards and closes her eyes (see Figure 4). In the following lines, the teacher gives a summary of her explanation which receives no further orientation from the students. The sequence then comes to an end by Sed who provides a candidate response to the teacher's elicitation.</p> <p>Figure 3.</p> <p>Displaying a thinking face with an open palm. A student is gazing at the teacher with a thinking facial expression and an open palm while requesting clarification.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. Tilting head backwards and closing eyes. The student who requested clarification is tilting her head backwards while closing her eyes.</p> <p>The analysis of Extract-2 has shown that one of the students (Sua) takes initiative and shifts the focus of task-oriented classroom interaction to vocabulary teaching (Seedhouse [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref106">29</reflink>]) by asking for the meaning of the vocabulary item 'bankrupt' that she has difficulty in understanding. The teacher, then, makes a verbal vocabulary explanation which is oriented by Sua producing a claim of understanding '<bold>hu:h okay</bold>'. The analysis of the extract shows that Sua's request for clarification on the meaning of the word 'bankrupt' not only paves the way for her understanding the meaning of the target word but it also opens space for the peer's understanding where Nur produces a claim of understanding token in line 06. Above all, the analysis of the extract has shown that Sua here is doing a situated display of understanding which is evidenced by both verbal and embodied behaviours displayed. Both her producing a change of state token (e.g. huh) and the embodied behaviours that she is making such as gazing at the teacher with a thinking face while requesting clarification and tilting her head backwards and closing her eyes while producing a change of state token indicate a change in her epistemic state or give us clues about the cognitive process that she is going through.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-18">Clarification request + vocabulary explanation and display of understanding format</hd> <p>Extract-3 is an example of <emph>clarification request + vocabulary explanation and display of understanding</emph> type of learner initiated vocabulary explanation sequences and illustrates how one of the students (Mar) takes an initiative to request clarification for the meaning of an L2 word 'resolved' and shifts the focus of meaning-and-fluency oriented on-going classroom interaction to form-and-accuracy (vocabulary explanation) context (Seedhouse [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref107">29</reflink>]). Then, following the teacher's explanation, he first makes his understanding accessible to his peers by providing the L1 translation of the target word and then he displays his understanding to the teacher by showing his access to a synonym of the target vocabulary item. Before the focal extract, the class had finished reading the text in the students' course book about a singer 'Lee Hard' and the teacher had started doing post-reading activities.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-19">Extract-3 resolved</hd> <p>In line 01, the extract starts as a meaning and fluency context (Seedhouse [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref108">29</reflink>]) as the teacher asks about the students' comprehension of the text. However, in the following lines, it doesn't proceed with a meaning and fluency focus as students orient to the meaning of the words in the text, which shifts the context to a form and accuracy focus (lines 07-09) (Seedhouse [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref109">29</reflink>]). Despite the teacher's effort to bring the pedagogical focus back to meaning and fluency (in lines 11-16), in line 19, Mar takes initiative (Waring [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref110">37</reflink>]) and requests a clarification for the meaning of the vocabulary item 'resolved' by repeating it with rising intonation. In doing so, he also raises his head and fixes his gaze on the teacher (see Figure 5). In lines 21 and 22, the teacher makes a verbal vocabulary explanation by providing the synonyms of the target vocabulary item '<bold>resolve (0.3) solve the same (0.3) find a solution</bold>'. In doing so, Mar also displays a thinking face (see Figure 6) which is socially shared evidence of the cognitive process he is going through. In line 24, Nis claims understanding the meaning of the target vocabulary item by producing a change of state token (Heritage [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref111">7</reflink>]) together with a positive response marker '<bold>huh yes</bold>'. In the following line, Mar takes the turn again to first produce a change of state token and then to display his candidate understanding to his peers by switching to his L1 '<bold>huh çözüm bulmak</bold> (find a solution)'. In doing so, he also leans back (see Figure 7) with a relieved facial expression. As he receives no immediate confirmation from the teacher during 0.3-gap, in an overlap with the teacher's turn, in line 28, Mar takes the turn again to make his understanding accessible to the teacher by providing another synonym of the target vocabulary item '<bold>sort out</bold>'. Here, Mar shows his access to a synonym of the target vocabulary item for displaying his understanding to the teacher without being requested to do so. In line 30, Nis, one of his peers, explicitly states that Mar has learnt the vocabulary item 'resolved' (Jakonen [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref112">12</reflink>]) by switching to her L1 '<bold>öğrenmişsin (you have learnt)</bold>'. In the following lines, the teacher confirms and praises Mar with an explicit positive assessment marker produced in a smiley voice, which receives an immediate 'thank you' reply from Mar who also simultaneously smiles at the teacher (see Figure 8).</p> <p>Figure 5.</p> <p>Looking at with a fixed eye gaze. A student is raising his head from the task sheet and gazing at the teacher while requesting clarification.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph: Figure 6. Displaying a thinking face. The student who requested clarification is listening to the teacher with a thinking facial expression.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 7. Tilting head backwards with a relieved facial expression. The student who requested clarification is tilting his head backwards with a relieved facial expression.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 8. Displaying a smiling facial expression. The student who requested clarification is gazing at the teacher with a smiling facial expression.</p> <p>The analysis of Extract-3 shows that one of the students in the classroom (Mar) first takes an initiative and puts the ongoing meaning and fluency-oriented classroom interaction on hold to request clarification for the meaning of the vocabulary item 'resolved'. Then, following the teacher's orientation to his request and the explanation of the problematic vocabulary item (with a synonym of the target vocabulary item), he takes another initiative to make his understanding accessible to his peers by providing an L1 translation of the target vocabulary item. Then, he displays his understanding to the teacher by showing his access to a synonym of the target vocabulary item 'sort out' without being requested to do so. It is important to note that there is a clear change in Mar's epistemic status from lack of knowledge (line 19) to the understanding of the meaning of the target word (line 25). In addition to this, Mar's facial expressions (e.g., thinking face and a relieved facial expression) and embodied actions (e.g., tilting his head backwards) also show that he is doing a situated display of understanding. Here, one can also see that Mar's initiative not only leads to his own understanding but also the understanding of his peer 'Nis' who produces a claim of understanding in line 24. Above all, there is also an explicit orientation to learning itself, with the use of the word learning by the peer (Nis) (in line 30). All these things illustrated above, verbal and embodied resources employed as well as the explicit orientation to learning by the peer, show Mar's learning of the word 'resolved'.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-20">Discussion and conclusion</hd> <p>In addressing learner initiatives in instructed learning settings, this paper has illustrated the nature of learner initiatives in L2 oral communication classroom interaction and brings evidence for the emergence of situated cognition and learning. Following a line-by-line micro-analytic investigation of the detailed transcriptions of the learner-initiated vocabulary explanation sequences, the findings revealed three types of learner-initiated vocabulary explanation sequences which include: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref113">1</reflink>) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and no claim/display of understanding format; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref114">2</reflink>) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and claim of understanding format, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref115">3</reflink>) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and display of understanding format. As shown in the analysis section, the analytic claims about the changes in the epistemic status of participants are based on what is made available by participants.</p> <p>The analysis of these three different types of learner-initiated vocabulary explanation sequences has shown that learner initiatives taken to request clarifications for the meanings of spontaneously arising problematic vocabulary items create learning opportunities for both initiative-taking students (Extract-2 line-08 and Extract-3 lines-25-28) and their peers (Extract-2 line-06 and Extract-3 lines-24). The analysis builds on previous research on learner initiatives by revealing role of learner initiatives in the creation of learning opportunities, in particular, in the emergence of peer learning. It is shown that when L2 learners take initiative to request clarifications for the meanings of L2 vocabulary items from their peers or the teacher, they take active roles in the co-construction of learning and teaching in the classroom. For the sake of their emerging need, they put the ongoing interaction on hold or change the focus of it (Seedhouse [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref116">29</reflink>]). In Extract-1, for example, Ber's request for clarification during a silent reading task creates a whole class vocabulary learning opportunity where both her peers (Sua and Nis) and the teacher step in and explain the meaning of the vocabulary item 'enormous' which gives an opportunity to the rest of the class to listen to an open class vocabulary explanation. Also, in Extract-2, Sua's initiative for requesting clarification for the vocabulary item 'bankrupt' during a focus on meaning activity paves the way for the emergence of a claim of understanding from both Sua and her peer (Nur). In Extract-3, also, Mar's clarification request for the meaning of vocabulary item 'resolved' during meaning and fluency oriented language learning activity (Seedhouse [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref117">29</reflink>]) results in the emergence of a micro-moment of understanding from his peer. All these examples underlie the significance of learners' taking responsibility during classroom interaction for the emergence of learning opportunities in the classrooms.</p> <p>Additionally, the findings of this study also provided evidence for the emergence of situated cognition and learning by focusing on what is made available by the students themselves. By documenting the verbal and non-verbal resources employed by participants during learner-initiated vocabulary explanations, the findings of this study empirically demonstrate the socially shared aspect of cognition and the change in students' epistemic states.</p> <p>In Extract-1, for example, Ber first makes his lack of knowledge accessible by requesting clarification for the meaning of the vocabulary item 'enormous' (line-01) and following his peers' and the teacher's explanation he notes the explanation down, which is an embodied sign of his understanding the teacher's explanation. In Extract-2, however, one of the students, Sua, first shows her understanding problem by requesting clarification from the teacher for the vocabulary item 'bankrupt' and then produces a claim of understanding '<bold>hu:h okay</bold>' after the teacher's explanation, which shows that Sua manages to grasp the meaning of the vocabulary item following the teacher's explanation. In addition to this, the non-verbal aspect of the interaction also gives us clues about the cognitive process that Sua is going through. For example, Sua displays a thinking face while requesting clarification and tilts her head backwards and closes her eyes after the teacher's explanation, which indicate a change in Sua's epistemic status and are the non-verbal signs of her socially shared situated cognition. In the last extract, which involves both verbal and non-verbal clues about the emergence of socially shared cognition as well as an explicit orientation to learning itself by the peer, one of the students (Mar) first requests clarification for the meaning of the vocabulary item 'resolved' and displays his lack of knowledge. Then, following the teacher's explanation, he first makes his understanding accessible to his peers by providing the L1 translation of the target word and then makes his understanding accessible to the teacher by providing a synonym of the target word. In addition to this, the non-verbal resources employed by Mar also give us clues about the change in his epistemic state. For example, as Mar is listening to the teacher's vocabulary explanation, he displays a thinking facial expression and following the teacher's explanation he leans backwards with a relieved facial expression. Moreover, there is also an explicit orientation to learning itself, with the use of the word learning by the peer (line 30), which is also another sign of the emergence of situated cognition and learning following the teacher's vocabulary explanation. This is a significant finding as it can be used in raising teachers' and student teachers' awareness about how a learner initiative, if not ignored and successfully managed, can create opportunities for learning not only for individual initiative-taking students but also for the rest of the class.</p> <p>This study has implications for both pedagogy and research. In terms of pedagogy, the findings of this study provide teachers and teacher candidates with examples of how learners, by taking initiative, take control of the ongoing interaction and create opportunities for learning not only for themselves but also for their peers, which shows the significance of teachers balancing their own pedagogical agenda and the learner initiatives by orienting to student clarification requests and giving them space to demonstrate their problems of understandings. In terms of research, this study opens the way for future research by bringing into light the unrequested understanding displays, in other words, the moments where students not only request clarifications but they also show their understandings. Such moments of classroom interaction are of great significance as they offer researchers and practitioners a rare opportunity to empirically see the reason why it is important to create a classroom atmosphere conducive to learners' taking the initiative to voice their understanding problems and request help.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-21">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-22">Appendix 1. Jefferson transcription notations</hd> <p>. (full stop) falling intonation.</p> <p>? (question mark) rising intonation.</p> <p>, (comma) continuing intonation.</p> <p>- (dash) abrupt cut-off.</p> <p>:: (colon(s)) sound extension</p> <p>word (underlining) stress.</p> <p>WORD (capitals) louder utterance.</p> <p> <bold>°</bold>word° (degree signs) quieter speech.</p> <p>↑↓ (upward and downward arrow) rising or falling pitch.</p> <p>>word< (more than and less than signs) faster talk.</p> <p><word> (less than and more than signs) slower talk</p> <p>heh laughter</p> <p>.hh (h's preceded by a period) in-breath.</p> <p>(word) (words within a single bracket) analyst's best guess for an utterance.</p> <p>= (equals sign) contiguous utterances.</p> <p>(0.4) (number in brackets) length of silence in 10ths of a second.</p> <p>(.) (dot enclosed in brackets) a micro-pause (less than two-10ths of a second).</p> <p>[ ] (square brackets) overlapping utterances.</p> <p>((word)) (double parentheses) analyst's notes.</p> <p>() (empty parentheses) unclear utterances.</p> <p>→ (arrow in the left margin) an analytically important part of an extract.</p> <p> <emph>Italics</emph> English translation.</p> <hd id="AN0177840453-23">Appendix 2. Mondada (2016) conventions for multimodal transcription</hd> <p>** Gestures and descriptions of embodied actions are delimited between</p> <p>++ two identical symbols (one symbol per participant)</p> <p>ΔΔ and are synchronized with corresponding stretches of talk.</p> <p>*—> The action described continues across subsequent lines.</p> <p>——>* until the same symbol is reached.</p> <p>> > The action described begins before the excerpt's beginning.</p> <p>—>> The action described continues after the excerpt's end.</p> <p>..... Action's preparation.</p> <p>—— Action's apex is reached and maintained.</p> <p>,,,,,,,, Action's retraction.</p> <p>ric Participant doing the embodied action is identified when (s)he is not the speaker.</p> <p>fig The exact moment at which a screenshot has been taken</p> <p># is indicated with a specific symbol showing its position within the turn at talk.</p> <ref id="AN0177840453-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Dolce, F.M., and A.R. van Compernolle. 2019. Topic management and student initiation in an advanced chinese-as-a-foreign-language classroom. Classroom Discourse 11, no. 1 : 80 – 98. doi: 10.1080/19463014.2018.1563799.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Donald, S. 2020. Learner initiatives in the EFL classroom: a public/private phenomenon. ELT Journal 74, no. 2 : 136 – 45. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccaa006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Fagan, D.S. 2012. 'Dealing with' unexpected learner contributions in whole group activities: an examination of novice language teacher discursive practices. Classroom Discourse 3, no. 2 : 107 – 28. doi: 10.1080/19463014.2012.716621.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Gardner, R., and I. Mushin. 2017. Epistemic trajectories in the classroom: how children respond in informing sequences. In Children's Knowledge-in-Interaction, eds. A. Bateman and A. Church, 13 – 36. Singapore : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref10" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Garton, S. 2002. Learner initiative in the language classroom. ELT Journal 56, no. 1 : 47 – 56. doi: 10.1093/elt/56.1.47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref11" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Garton, S. 2012. Speaking out of turn? Taking the initiative in teacher-fronted classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse 3, no. 1 : 29 – 45. doi: 10.1080/19463014.2012.666022.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref111" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Heritage, J. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Structure of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, eds. J. Atkinson and J. Heritage, 299 – 345. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref15" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45, no. 1 : 1 – 29. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref83" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Hutchby, I., and R. Wooffitt. 1998. Conversation Analysis. Cambridge : Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacknick, C.M. 2011. Breaking in is hard to do: how students negotiate classroom activity shifts. Classroom Discourse 2, no. 1 : 20 – 38. doi: 10.1080/19463014.2011.562656.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jakonen, T. 2015. Handling knowledge: using classroom materials to construct and interpret information requests. Journal of Pragmatics 89 : 100 – 12. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jakonen, T. 2018. Retrospective orientation to learning activities and achievements as a resource in classroom interaction. The Modern Language Journal 102, no. 4 : 758 – 74. doi: 10.1111/modl.12513.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jakonen, T., and T. Morton. 2015. Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics 36, no. 1 : 73 – 94. doi: 10.1093/applin/amt031.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jefferson, G. 2004. " Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction." In Conversation Analysis: Studies Form First Generation, ed. G.H. Lerner, 13 – 34. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kardaş İşler, N., U. Balaman, and A.E. Şahin. 2019. The interactional management of learner initiatives in social studies classroom discourse. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 23 : 100341. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100341.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kääntä, L. 2014. From noticing to initiating correction: students' epistemic displays in instructional interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 66 : 86 – 105. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koç, T. 2019. A micro-analytic investigation of word explanation sequences in L2 classroom interaction. PhD diss., Gazi University, Turkey.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koç, T. 2022. Management of learner-initiated departures through teasing in adult EFL classrooms. Pedagogies: An International Journal. doi: 10.1080/1554480X.2022.2077340.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koç, T., D.K. Bacanak, and H. Ergül. 2023. Gaze and other non-verbal resources in student clarification requests: a micro-analytic investigation. The Language Learning Journal 51, no. 1 : 61 – 77. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2021.1933142.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koç, T., and H. Ergül. 2023. The use of material resources in vocabulary explanations: a conversation analytic inquiry. Text & Talk 0, no. 0. doi: 10.1515/text-2021-0118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koole, T. 2010. Displays of epistemic access: student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language & Social Interaction 43, no. 2 : 183 – 209. doi: 10.1080/08351811003737846.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koshik, I. 2002. Designedly incomplete utterances: a pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language & Social Interaction 35, no. 3 : 277 – 309. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leyland, C. 2014. Enabling language help: epistemic maneuvering in extended information request sequences between EFL teachers. Novitas ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language) 8, no. 2 : 136 – 52. <ulink href="http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol%5f8%5f2/leyland.pdf">http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol%5f8%5f2/leyland.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mondada, L. 2016. Conventions for multimodal transcription. In Basel : Romanisches Seminar der Universitat. https://franz.unibas.ch/fileadmin/franz/user%5fupload/redaktion/Mondada%5fconv%5fmultimodality. pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mushin, I. 2013. Making knowledge visible in discourse: implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality. Discourse Studies 15, no. 5 : 627 – 645. doi: 10.1177/1461445613501447.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, no. 4 : 696 – 735.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schegloff, Emanuel. 1991. Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. Socially shared cognition. doi: 10.1037/10096-007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seedhouse, P. 2004. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden, MA : Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sert, O. 2013. 'Epistemic status check' as an interactional phenomenon in instructed learning settings. Journal of Pragmatics 45, no. 1 : 13 – 28. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sert, O. 2017. Creating opportunities for L2 learning in a prediction activity. System 70 : 14 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sert, O., and S. Walsh. 2013. The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English language classrooms. Language and Education 27, no. 6 : 542 – 65. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2012.739174.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinclair, John M., and M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tai, K.W.H., and A. Brandt. 2018. Creating an imaginary context: teacher's use of embodied enactments in addressing learner initiatives in a beginner-level adult ESOL classroom. Classroom Discourse 9, no. 3 : 244 – 66. doi: 10.1080/19463014.2018.1496345.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh, S. 2011. Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in action. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waring, H.Z. 2009. Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): a single case analysis. Language Learning 59, no. 4 : 796 – 824. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00526.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waring, H.Z. 2011. Learner initiatives and learning opportunities in the language classroom. Classroom Discourse 2, no. 2 : 201 – 18. doi: 10.1080/19463014.2011.614053.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Tuncay Koç</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref112"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1428130
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Requesting Clarifications for the Meanings of L2 Vocabulary Items and the Emergence of Situated Cognition and Learning
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tuncay+Koç%22">Tuncay Koç</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5615-8056">0000-0002-5615-8056</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Language+Learning+Journal%22"><i>Language Learning Journal</i></searchLink>. 2024 52(4):380-396.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Adult+Education%22">Adult Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+Language+Learners%22">English Language Learners</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Oral+Communication+Method%22">Oral Communication Method</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adult+Education%22">Adult Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Seeking%22">Information Seeking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Turkey%22">Turkey</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/09571736.2023.2179655
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0957-1736<br />1753-2167
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Researchers and practitioners have long been interested in the role of learner agency in the emergence of learning opportunities. However, despite the growing number of studies, few of them have empirically been able to demonstrate how such moments can create learning opportunities. Based on 12 hours of videotaped data, this study describes the nature of learner initiatives in L2 oral communication classroom interaction and brings evidence for the emergence of situated cognition and learning. An in-depth conversation-analytic investigation of learner-initiated vocabulary explanation sequences reveals three types of sequences which include: (1) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and no claim/display of understanding format; (2) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and claim of understanding format, and (3) clarification request + vocabulary explanation and display of understanding format. The findings of this study contribute to the existing research on learner initiatives in instructed learning settings and language learning with a micro-analytic account of verbal and non-verbal aspects of situated cognition and learning emerging in L2 oral communication classroom interaction.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1428130
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1428130
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09571736.2023.2179655
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 380
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English Language Learners
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Oral Communication Method
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adult Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Information Seeking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Turkey
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Requesting Clarifications for the Meanings of L2 Vocabulary Items and the Emergence of Situated Cognition and Learning
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tuncay Koç
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0957-1736
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1753-2167
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Language Learning Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1