VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES

TRẦN THỊ PHƯỢNG

AN EXPLORATORY CASE STUDY OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
FROM CONVERSATION ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVES
(Một nghiên cứu trường hợp tìm hiểu về sự tương tác trong lớp học
sử dụng đường hướng phân tích hội thoại)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Methodology
Code: 8140231.01

Hanoi, 2020


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES

TRẦN THỊ PHƯỢNG

AN EXPLORATORY CASE STUDY OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
FROM CONVERSATION ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVES
(Một nghiên cứu trường hợp tìm hiểu về sự tương tác trong lớp học
sử dụng đường hướng phân tích hội thoại)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Methodology
Code: 8140231.01
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lê Văn Canh

Hanoi, 2020


DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis:

“An exploratory case study of classroom

interaction from conversation analysis perspectives” is my own work and effort
and has not been submitted anywhere for any award. Moreover, the contributions of
my colleagues and students are involved. Other sources of information have been
used and acknowledged.

Hanoi, January 2020

Tran Thi Phuong

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to show my sincere appreciation to the following people who
supported me to complete this study.

I wish to express my warmest gratitude to my respectable supervisor, Assoc.
Pro. Dr. Lê Văn Canh, who instructed me how to do this research and provided me
with a lot of professional advice on the thesis writing. I am deeply grateful to his
generosity, kindness, and encouragement. Without his support, I could have never
been able to finish this study.
I also would like to express my gratefulness to the participants of this study students from class 10E1 and 10 A1 and the teachers at Le Hong Phong high school
in Nam Dinh province for their whole-hearted participation.
I feel a deep gratitude to my family. My thankfulness goes to my parents
who have patiently supported me to complete the research, and to my husband who
have stood by me as an enthusiastic supporter.

ii


ABSTRACT

This study was designed to explore the classroom interaction observed in
class 10 E1 and 10 A1 at Le Hong Phong high school in Nam Dinh. After the
observation of some periods, data were collected and analyzed from conversation
analysis perspectives. Then, major findings were drawn. Specifically, different
patterns of interaction were analyzed in great details. These included interaction
between students and teachers and between students and students. It is hoped that
this research will help Vietnamese learners and teachers have a better understanding
of the nature of classroom interaction to improve the teaching and learning of
English.

iii


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS


CA: Conversation analysis
T: Teacher
S: Student

iv


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Description of the teachers ..........................................................................23
Table 2. Description of the students ..........................................................................23
Table 3. Description of speaking lessons observed ..................................................25
Table 4. The approach to study adjacency pairs. ......................................................27
Table 5. Turn Distributions in class 10 E1 for ‘Turn Giving” Categories.........................30
Table 6. Turn Distributions in class 10 A1 for ‘Turn Giving” Categories. .......................31
Table 7. Turn Distributions in both classes for ‘Turn Giving” Categories........................31
Table 8. Turn Distributions in class 10 E1 for ‘Turn Getting” Categories........................32
Table 9. Turn Distributions in class 10 A1 for ‘Turn Getting” Categories. ......................33
Table 10. Turn Distributions in both classes for ‘Turn Getting” Categories. ....................34
Table 11. The occurence of Adjacency Pairs Type Response of the First Pair Part in class
10 E1. .........................................................................................................................35
Table 12. The occurence of Adjacency Pairs Type Response of the First Pair Part in class
10 A1..........................................................................................................................36
Table 13. The occurence of Adjacency Pairs Type Response of the First Pair Part in class
both classes. ................................................................................................................37
Table 14. The occurence of Adjacency Pairs Type Response of the Second Pair Part in
class 10 E1. .................................................................................................................38
Table 15. The occurence of Adjacency Pairs Type Response of the Second Pair Part in
class 10 A1..................................................................................................................39

Table 16. The occurence of Adjacency Pairs Type Response of the Second Pair Part in
class both classes. ........................................................................................................40
Table 17. Different patterns of repair practices in both classes. .......................................41

v


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Classroom interaction ..................................................................................6
Figure 2. Different interactional practices ................................................................12
Figure 3. The approach to study turn taking organization ........................................26
Figure 4. The approach to study repair organization ................................................29

vi


TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ....................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .....................................................................1
1.1. Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study ....................................1
1.2. Aims of the study ................................................................................................. 2
1.3. Research questions ............................................................................................... 2

1.4. Scope of the study ................................................................................................2
1.5. Method of the study ............................................................................................. 3
1.6. Significance of the study ...................................................................................... 3
1.7. Organization of the thesis.....................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................5
2.1. Classroom interaction........................................................................................... 5
2.1.1. Definitions of interaction ..................................................................................5
2.1.2. Definitions of classroom interaction .................................................................5
2.1.3. The roles of classroom interaction ....................................................................6
2.1.4. Aspects of classroom interaction ......................................................................7
2.1.5. Types of classroom interaction .........................................................................8
2.1.6. Interactional practices .....................................................................................10
2.2. Conversation analysis......................................................................................... 10
2.2.1. Definition of conversation analysis .................................................................10
2.2.2. Principles of CA ..............................................................................................11

vii


2.2.3. Conversation analysis and interaction practice research ................................12
2.2.4. CA as a research method researching classroom interaction ..........................17
2.2.5. Related studies on classroom interaction ........................................................18
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .............................................................19
3.1. Research approach ............................................................................................. 19
3.1.1. Overview of case study ...................................................................................19
3.1.2. Rationale for the use of a case study ...............................................................19
3.1.3. Steps of a case study research .........................................................................21
3.2. The research design ............................................................................................ 21
3.2.1. Research context .............................................................................................21
3.2.2. Research participants ......................................................................................23

3.2.3. Research procedures........................................................................................23
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS .......................................30
4.1. Overview ............................................................................................................ 30
4.2. Findings .............................................................................................................. 30
4.2.1. Turn taking organization .................................................................................30
4.2.2. Sequencing pracices and adjacency pairs .......................................................34
4.2.3. Repair practices ...............................................................................................41
4.3. Discussions ......................................................................................................... 42
4.3.1. Turn taking organization .................................................................................42
4.3.2. Adjacency pairs ...............................................................................................48
4.3.3. Repair practices ...............................................................................................55
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION .......................................................................61
5.1. Recapitulation .................................................................................................... 61
5.2. Major findings and conclusion ........................................................................... 61
5.3. Implications for teaching.................................................................................... 62
5.4. Limitations of the study ..................................................................................... 62
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................63

viii


CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study
Over the past few decades, foreign language teaching, which is a complex
process, has witnessed extensive changes in methodologies. Many approaches have
been come and gone so far. However, communicative competence remains to be the
ultimate goal. Accordingly, students should be encouraged to get engaged in
interactive activities in classroom such as pair work or group work.
The increasing importance of classroom interaction has been proved and

demonstrated in many researches. According to Ellis (1985), classroom interaction
plays a central role in the process of acquiring a language. It encourages students to
participate in classroom activities and hence, produces more outputs. He also
claimed that communication would break down in the absence of interaction.
Despite the acknowledged importance of interaction to the learners’ communicative
competence, there has been little research on classroom interaction in Vietnamese
high schools.
Therefore, there arises a need to analyze interaction in the classroom on
which, according to Betsy Rymes, it is worth spending time because it might
1. help both teachers and students acquire a deeper understanding of each other.
2. enable teachers to realize differences in classroom talks among different
groups of students
3. to some extent improve students’ academic performance
4. inspire teachers themselves in the process of teaching
In researching classroom interaction, conversation analysis (CA) has been
promoted as an appropriate research method. According to Seehouse (2011), CA
helps to “ investigate various dynamics of classroom talk-in-interaction and shed
light on teaching and learning practices”.
CA originated from ethnomethodology - “the study of how people use social
interaction to maintain an ongoing sense of reality in a situation” in the 1960s and

1


1970s. It laid a solid foundation for the development of CA. Initially, CA was used
to analyze ordinary conversations in daily life. Later on, it was adopted to study
interaction in second language acquisition (SLA).
Realizing the essential roles of interaction in SLA and the importance of
analyzing interaction in such institutional contexts as schools, I would like to have a
more thorough understanding of how interaction occurs and is maintained

throughout in the environment of classroom, which therefore serves as an
implication for future teaching and learning.
All of these aforementioned factors have inspired me to conduct the study
titled “An exploratory case study of classroom interaction from conversation
analysis perspectives”.
1.2. Aims of the study
This study aimed to explore what actually takes place in a particular case, which
is, in this study, a Vietnamese high school. The purpose of this exploration is to
identify the relationship between classroom interaction patterns and learners’ learning
through the lens of conversation analysis (CA).
In addition, the study was carried out to shed light on the possibility that
interaction within class would open up opportunities for SLA and the extent to
which students’ communicative competence would be improved through
interaction.
It is intended that the findings of the study can provide useful information on
how teachers can improve the classroom interaction for students’ better learning
outcomes, which are, in this study, limited to speaking performance only.
1.3. Research question
In the light of the aforementioned aims, the study is intended to answer the
following research question:
How does interaction occur in class in a high school in Nam Dinh province?
1.4. Scope of the study
Classroom interaction is a matter of global concern so many researchers all

2


over the world have been doing researches on this issue. Moreover, it extensively
covers so many aspects in SLA that a great deal of work needs to be done to fully
understand it. Therefore, this research paper has no intention of exploring the entire

problems. To limit the scope of the study, the researcher made an effort to study
conversational interactions in several English classes. The study was conducted on a
male teacher, his students from class 10E1, a female teacher and her students from
class 10A1 at a high school in Nam Dinh province. They had two speaking lessons
including unit 2 – your body and you and unit 3 – music. All speaking activities
were recorded in order to examine patterns of interaction happening during these
classes. The study just focused on two classes of grade 10 students so the results
could not be applied for all students at high schools.
1.5. Method of the study
Basically, the researcher conducted a case study on classroom interaction
between teacher – students and students - students. As Jabcobsen (2002) stated that
the study is intended for interaction between a specific context and a phenomenon
to be analyzed, then the use of case studies is optimum. Therefore, qualitative
method is adopted during the process of the study
In order to get data for analysis and discussion, a number of steps were taken
including:
- Gathering materials on related studies
- Finding a suitable theoretical framework based on which the analysis was
performed
- Observing classrooms and audio-recording
1.6. Significance of the study
The findings of this case study are believed to be useful for both researchers
and teachers. Firstly, once completed, it will provide a theoretical foundation for
further study to investigate classroom interaction. Secondly, will be much beneficial
to EFL teachers as they can thoroughly understand the nature of interaction in the
school context from a new perspective. Therefore, they can make some adaptations

3



to enhance the effectiveness of communication.
1.7. Organization of the thesis
The thesis consists of three main parts namely Introduction, Development
and Conclusion.
Chapter ONE: Introduction introduces the rationale, aims, research
question, hypothesis, scope, significance, and method of the study.
Chapter TWO: Literature Review elaborates on relevant theoretical
background including interaction, classroom interaction and its importance,
conversation analysis approach and reviews of related studies.
Chapter THREE: Methodology gives a description of the case of the study
at a high school.
Chapter FOUR: Findings and Discussion presents the findings together
with data analysis and discussion.
Chapter FIVE: Conclusion, recapitulates the major findings of the study,
puts forward recommendations for further study and acknowledges its limitations of
the study.

4


CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
In this part, an overview of literature background related to the study is
exposed, laying the solid foundation for the next parts. Key concepts of interaction,
classroom interaction, types of classroom interaction are defined. Furthermore, a
critical outlook of conversational analysis – the theoretical framework for the data
analysis and related studies are attached for a better understanding of the research
problems.
2.1. Classroom interaction
2.1.1. Definitions of interaction
Verbal interaction is regarded as an inseparable part in daily life because

people need to interact with others to satisfy their needs and achieve their goals
(Amin, 2015).
Brown (2001) also shared the same viewpoint with Amin, in which he agreed
that interaction is considered as “the heart communication; it is what
communication is all about.” Interaction occurs during the process of
communication when people exchange messages. Therefore, it helps prevent
“communication breakdown” (Ellis, 1990).
According to Robinson (1994) (as cited in Tuan & Nhu, 2010), interaction is
“the process referring to face-to-face action. It can be either verbal channeled
through written or spoken words, or non-verbal, channeled through tough,
proximity, eye-contact, facial expressions, gesturing, etc.” By this he meant
interaction can be performed both verbally and non-verbally.
Hadfield and Hadfield introduced a broader definition of the term interaction
which is not just meaning-focused by stating that “the word interaction involves
more than just putting a message together; it involves also responding to other
people. This means choosing the language that is appropriate for the person you are
talking to (interlocutor), responding to what others say, taking turns in a
conversation, encouraging people to speak, expressing interests, changing the topic,
asking people to repeat or explain what they say and so on.” (as cited in Taous,
2012)
2.1.2. Definitions of classroom interaction

5


Interaction can be classified according to places, time and people involved in
and the one which occurs in the classroom including teacher and students can be
called classroom interaction.
According to Dagarin (2004), classroom interaction is a series of reciprocal
actions carried out by both teacher and students in the classroom. It means that

one’s action has certain effects on the others’ reactions; therefore communication
will be maintained.
Having the same idea, Malamah-Thomas (1987) pointed out that classroom
interaction is a two-way action and reaction. He illustrated how teacher and students
interact with each other in classroom in the following figure:

Figure 1. Classroom interaction
Interaction that takes place in the classroom can follow different patterns
including pair discussions, group discussions and whole class discussions. In other
words, it occurs during the process of exchanging knowledge between teachers and
students. Students give corresponding responses to teacher’s instruction, which is
considered pedagogic interaction as stated by Sarosdy et al (2006):
“The classroom or pedagogic interaction is a continuous and ever changing
process and the factors of context shift from minute to minute. The teacher acts
upon the students to cause a reaction. The reaction includes a response to a
question, an item in a drill, a word pronounced and a sentence written.”
2.1.3. The roles of classroom interaction
Admittedly, classroom interaction is of utmost importance because it can be
used as an educational strategy to enhance students’ performance in class. They are
provided with language input which is beyond the current level of their linguistic
6


competence to convey meanings according to Saville-Troike (as cited in Mulyati,
2013). They stand chances of getting feedback from the teacher or other students in
order to improve their language system. Brock (1986) also agreed that the more
students are exposed to classroom interaction, the more easily and quickly they can
learn the target language. Brown (2001) stated that interaction can motivate leaners
to take risks to produce the target language.
Moreover, classroom interaction means not only the active involvement in

the teaching and learning activities but also the established relationships with others
in the classroom. Khadidja (2009) claimed that classroom interaction offers learners
opportunities to participate in collaborative learning requiring a certain amount of
talk to each other, therefore fostering mutual understanding. Only when the
understanding is created can teachers and students attain their goals.
In addition, learners’ communicative success can be measured through their
exchanging information with the teachers or with their peers (Lyster, 2007).
More importantly, classroom interaction acts as a stimulus to active
participation in class. Runmei (2008) believed that students will be encouraged to
communicate with others in a real situation as long as good classroom interaction is
established. It depends on how teachers give chances to students to talk. Khan
(2009) noted that classroom interaction is a contributing factor to students’
activeness in the learning process
2.1.4. Aspects of classroom interaction
2.1.4.1. Teacher talk
Teacher talk, literally, means any kind of language that teachers use in the
classroom. Richards (1992) provided a definition of this term in Longman
Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, which is “variety of
language sometimes used by teachers when they are in the process of teaching. In
trying to communicate with learners, teachers often simplify their speech, giving it
many of the characteristics of foreigner talk and other simplified styles of speech
addressed to language learners”.

7


It is undeniable that teacher talk in foreign language classrooms has always
been a topic for research among linguists. According to Nunan (1991), it plays an
important role and has certain effects on “not only the organization of the classroom
but also the processes of acquisition”.

Brown (2007) associated teacher talk with seven aspects including dealing
with feelings, praising and encouraging, using ideas of students, asking questions,
giving information and criticizing student behavior.
Similarly, Celcia-Murcia (1989), as cited by Hidayat in his thesis,
“distinguishes teacher talk into indirect and direct teacher talk. Indirect teacher talk
covers four areas of teaching and learning process, that is (1) accepting students’
feeling, (2) stimulating students’ motivation and interest, (3) using students’
perception, and (4) offering questions. Direct teacher talk may come out in terms of
(1) informing something, (2) giving direction, and (3) justifying students’
authority”.
2.1.4.2. Student talk
On the other hand, student talk means any kind of language that students use
in the classroom. Students initiate talks when asking questions, creating talk
exchanges, repeating and answering teacher’s or peers’ questions. Students’
participation in classroom activities is as important as teacher’s. However, many of
them find it reluctant to get involved, consider themselves as “passive recipients”
rather than “active speakers” according to Tsui (1985). Therefore, the issue of how
to increase students’ talking time is becoming a matter of concern.
2.1.5. Types of classroom interaction
Malamah-Thomas (1987) divided classroom interaction into seven types
depending on participants involved.
2.1.5.1. Teacher speaking to the whole class
According to Dagarin (2004), the language classroom is often dominated
by this type of interaction. It typically follows a structure in which teacher
initiated, students respond and the pattern of IRF (Interaction – Response –
Feedback) exchange structure is applied. Teachers take on the role of a controller

8



who is totally responsible for what and how students act in class. Harmer (1991)
believes that teachers, fulfilling this role, “[...] control not only what the students
do, but also when they speak and what language they use.” For example,
teachers give instructions, introduce a new grammatical item or assign tasks.
2.1.5.2. Teacher speaking to an individual student with the rest of students of the
class as hearers
This second type of interaction is easily noticed in almost every class.
Dagarin (2004) stated that “the second arrangement is conducted when the teacher
refers to the whole class, but expects only one student or a group of students to
answer”. It is considered a useful tool to access individual students. It can occur, for
example, when teachers raise a question and expect answers to that question.
2.1.5.3. Teacher speaking to a group of students
This type of classroom interaction requires teachers’ involvement in
students’ group work. Teachers can play the role of organizers to offer students
suggestions regarding the way students may progress in an activity. However, such
help should be available only when necessary. Moreover, when students are
struggling to generate the ideas or getting stuck on some questions, teachers can
serve as a prompter. It is a way to encourage students to keep going.
2.1.5.4. Student speaking to teacher
Students take the initiative in communicating with teachers. According to
Mingzi (2005), this kind of interaction commonly happens in “learner-centered
classrooms”. Students raise questions whenever they are not clear about the
information provided or encounter an elusive problem.
2.1.5.5. Student speaking to student
This kind of interaction is associated with activities involving pair work.
Two students make conversations with each other or act out role plays which are
effective means of simulating real-life situations. These activities help to expand
students’ talk to practice producing target language.

9



2.1.5.6. Student speaking to group members
The interaction happens within the group when students come up with an
idea and try to communicate it to the other group members. In addition, students can
rehearse before making a presentation in front of the class. This kind is also
pervasive in languages classroom as the communicative language teaching is paid
more attention.
2.1.5.7. Students speaking to the whole class
The activity of presentation often trigger this type of interaction when a
student has a talk at the front and when another student gives comments on his/her
presentation.
2.1.6. Interactional practices
According to Wong and Waring (2010), interactional practices are defined as
“the systematic verbal and nonverbal methods participants use to engage in social
interaction”. Having the same idea, Seedhouse (2011) stated that interactional
practices are what “interactants use normatively and reflexively both as an action
template for the production of their social actions and as a point of reference for the
interpretations of their actions.” In other words, interactional practices are
considered strategies employed by interlocutors to construct interaction.
2.2. Conversation analysis
2.2.1. Definition of conversation analysis
Conversation analysis is a major area of study in the analysis of discourse.
Many researchers of applied linguistics and sociologists have studied the definitions
of the term Conversation Analysis (CA).
Psathas

(1995)

states


that

conversation

analysis

studies

“the

order/organization /orderliness of social actions that are located in everyday
interaction, in discursive practices, in the sayings/telling/doings of member of
society”. In other words, CA aims to clarify how participants arrange and maintain
the interaction and how they show their understanding of each other during the talk.
Ian Hutchby and Robin Wooffitt (1998) shared the same viewpoint when
10


saying that CA is “the systematic analysis of the talk produced in everyday
situations of human interaction: talk-in-interaction”. According to them, talk-ininteraction is the primary object of CA study. Therefore, attempts “to discover how
participants understand and respond to one another in their turns at talk, with a
central focus on how sequences of action are generated” are becoming the major
aim of CA. To put it another way, the objective of CA is to discover the implicit
process in which competencies regarding sociolinguistics and reasoning are shown
to produce and interpret talk in certain sequences. Concerning this, Schegloff and
Sacks added that the organization of talk should be analyzed from the perspective of
participants themselves who orient to the achievement of an orderly and organized
interaction.
2.2.2. Principles of CA

Seedhouse (2005) briefly discussed four principles underlying CA as
follows. According to Sack (1984), the first principle of CA is that “there is order at
all points in interaction”. This concept stands in total contrast to the widespread
linguistic presumption in the 1960s when CA first emerged, of the fact that
conversations were disordered. This, accordingly, forms the idea of “rational
design”, which regards human interaction as an “emergent collectively organized
event” (ten Have 2007, p. 9)
The second principle of CA is that “contributions to interaction are contextshaped and context-renewing” (Seedhouse, 2004). It means that an utterance
produced will be based on the sequential environment and also shape the next turn
of the participants. Hutchby & Woodffitt (1999) refer to this principle as a “nextturn proof procedure” in which speakers show their understanding of the prior turns
through their subsequently next turns.
The third principle states that “no order of detail can be dismissed a priori as
disorderly, accidental or irrelevant” (Sert and Seedhouse, 2011). They place great
importance on “recorded, naturally occurring conversations”, which play the role of
the primary source of data for CA. It means that the researchers should not
deliberately distort the data. Additionally, Sacks (1984) adds that transcripts of the
events happening in a natural setting not only facilitate researchers in the process of

11


producing in-depth and publishing them but ensure the reliability of the method as
well. (as cited in Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998).
The final principle is that “analysis is bottom up and data driven” (Seedhouse
2005). In other words, analysis should start with details and then later helps
researcher draw more general conclusions. Moreover, data should be interpreted
without “prior theoretical assumptions”. To put it different, exterior factors such as
power or gender are not mentioned in CA unless interlocutors direct themselves
towards them.
There is another way in which the principles of CA can be explained. It is to

answer the question posed during the process of CA analysis of data “Why that, in
that way, right now?” (Seedhouse, 2004). To put it simply, analysts should consider
interaction as “action (why that) which is expressed by means of linguistic forms (in
that way) in a developing sequence (right now)”.
Although CA has certain principles, it is not necessary to stick to them and
apply them in an inflexible way. Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998) claimed that “ it is
essential to adopt a conversation analytic mentality which involves more a cast of
mind, or a way of seeing, than a static and prescriptive set of instructions which
analysts bring to bear on the data.”
2.2.3. Conversation analysis and interaction practice research
Different interactional practices are clearly presented in Figure 2

Figure 2: Different interactional practices

12


It can be clearly shown in the model there are four contributing components
to the happening of interaction namely overall structuring practices, sequencing
practices, turn-taking practices and repair practices. The first three components have
an interrelationship with each other. Turn-taking practices are the fundamental
factors that form sequencing practices. Then more sequences can be arranged in
overall structuring practices to create conversations. The practices of repair can be
taken during the process to address possible problems of the talk.
2.2.3.1. Turn-taking practices
Lying at the base, turn taking is central to conversation analysis. According
to Wong and Waring (2010), turn taking practices “refer to the way of constructing
a turn and allocating a turn”. Liddicoat (2007) stated that there are three main
constructs of turn taking. The first component is turn-constructional units (TCU)
which may be words, phrases, clauses and sentences used to complete a

communicative act. The second component is transition relevance place (TRP). It is
possible completion point (PCP) at which speaker transition is made relevant and a
new turn could occur. TCUs have “the property of projectability” (Hutchby and
Wooffitt, 1998). By this, they mean that participants in conversations are able to
predict the PCP using grammatical, intonation, or pragmatic resources. The last
component is turn allocation. It is the way in which turns at talks are distributed.
According to Sacks et al. (1974), there are two fundamental ways to allocate the
next turn. It is decided by either the current speaker or the next speaker themselves.
Institutionalized turn taking
In most institutional contexts, question-answer exchanges are exploited to
construct turn taking system. Especially, in classrooms, questioning is among the
most widely used strategies to monitor classroom interaction. Therefore, in recent
years it has become a matter of concern to many researchers and a field that is
worth investigating.
According to Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, question is generally defined as
“a sentence, phrase or word that asks for information”. Kathleen narrowed down the

13


definition of question in classroom settings by stating that teacher questions are
“instructional cues or stimuli that convey to students the content elements to be
learned and directions for what they are to do and how they are to do it”. He also
mentioned the utmost importance of teachers’ questioning as follows:
 To develop interest and motivate students to become actively involved in lessons
 To evaluate students’ preparation and check on homework or seatwork
completion
 To develop critical thinking skills and inquiring attitudes
 To review and summarize previous lessons
 To nurture insights by exposing new relationships

 To assess achievement of instructional goals and objectives
 To stimulate students to pursue knowledge on their own
Morgan and Saxton (1991) added that the act of asking questions encourages
students’ participation in lessons, offers them opportunities to “openly express their
ideas and thoughts”. Additionally, teachers also benefit from using questions as a
way to assess students as well as keep them under control.
Many researchers distinguished between two types of questions namely
“known-information questions” and “information-seeking questions” which were
used in the classroom. Specifically, according to Long and Sato (1983), questions
are classified into two categories including “display” and “referential” questions.
Display questions are posed to require students to show information whereas
teachers often raise referential questions with a view to getting unknown
information.
Display questions do not have the quality of being communicative. However,
they are widely used in classroom context and seemingly dominate classroom
interaction because they play a pivotal role as a means to assess students’
knowledge and understanding. Therefore, students are expected to give correct
answers. These are some typical examples of a display question:

14


 What is the past simple form of leave?
 What is the reading text about?
 What is the synonym of “exciting”?
 How can you distinguish between “ go” and “ come”?
 How do you pronounce this word?
By contrast, referential questions are meaning-oriented not form-oriented ,
therefore, pervasive in daily conversation outside classrooms. Nevertherless, their
importance in language leanring classes are undeniable. They are helpful in

promoting language acquisition as teachers require learners to use language in order
to make comprehensible output.
Several classroom activities in which referential questions can be used
include quizzes (setting and answering questions), interviews, discussion of work.
 What did you do at the weekend?
 If you won a lottery ticket, what would you do?
 How are chores in your family divided?
 What can you benefit from travelling?
 How do you understand this saying?
In general, no matter what the questions are, Van Lier (1988) supposed that
both are made use of to produce chances for learners to produce language.
2.2.3.2. Sequencing practice
During the process of interaction, turns are ordered and arranged to form
sequencing practices which Wong and Waring (2010) refered to as “participants’
ways of connecting two or more turns, for example, in making and responding to a
request, telling a story or managing a topic”.
Adjacency pairs are the core of sequence organization. Schegloff (2007)
defined them as “units of two turns by different speakers that are placed next to
each other, are relatively ordered, and are of the same pair type”. That is, the second
turn, also called the “second pair part” will be produced corresponding to the first

15