Encouraging participation or restraining teasing? Teacher responses to uninvited students’ answers

Authors

  • Inkeri Lehtimaja University of Helsinki
  • Liisa Tainio University of Helsinki

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/jalpp.36883

Keywords:

classroom interaction, conversation analysis, moral order, student initiatives, teacher’s agenda, teasing, uninvited answer

Abstract

In a second-language classroom, it is beneficial for learning to encourage student participation. However, the teacher has to consider issues of equal participation and moral order. Drawing on a corpus of Finnish as a second language lessons for teenage students and adopting a conversation analytic approach, this article examines situations in which the students produce uninvited, teasing answers on behalf of other students. We focus especially on teacher responses: the teachers either ignore, ratify or sanction the uninvited answers. In our analysis, we show how the participants negotiate the right to answer, and how the teachers take into account the turn-taking rules of classroom interaction and the ongoing pedagogical activity, as well as moral considerations. In the article, ignoring the uninvited answer is treated as a default teacher response, since it corresponds to norms of prototypical classroom interaction. However, the teacher can ratify an uninvited answer if it is useful for pedagogical purposes, or s/he can sanction an uninvited answer if it is unacceptable for classroom talk or if the target of the teasing turn displays embarrassment. While participating in pedagogical activities, the students pursue their own social goals at the same time. This social dimension can promote learning but needs to be handled with care by the teacher.

Author Biographies

  • Inkeri Lehtimaja, University of Helsinki

    Inkeri Lehtimaja is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies at the University of Helsinki and Lecturer in Finnish Language at Aalto University, Helsinki. Her research interests cover classroom interaction, second language teaching and learning and professional language, and her main method is conversation analysis. She has also taught Finnish as a second language in basic education.

  • Liisa Tainio, University of Helsinki

    Liisa Tainio is a Professor of Finnish Language and Literature Education at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki (Finland). She has studied various aspects of Finnish language use, especially everyday conversations and classroom interaction as well as other learning environments. She has also analysed written text, such as textbooks. Her main research methods include conversation analysis and discourse analysis combined with gender and language studies.

References

Cromdal, J. and Tholander, M. (2012) Morality in professional practice. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 9 (2): 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v9i2.25734

Drew, P. (1987) Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics 25 (1): 219–253. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219

Gardner, R. (2013) Conversation analysis in the classroom. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (eds) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 593–611. Chichester,UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (2004) Participation. In A. Duranti (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, 222–244. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hazel, S. and Mortensen, K. (2017) The classroom moral compass – participation, engagement and transgression in classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse 8 (3): 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2017.1282881

Hellermann, J. (2003) The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society 32 (1): 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404503321049

Karlsson, F. (1999) Finnish: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.

Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C. and Heerey, E. A. (2001) Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin 127 (2): 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.229

Lehtimaja, I. (2011) Teacher-oriented address terms in reproach sequences. Linguistics and Education 22 (4): 348–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.02.008

McHoul, A. (1978) The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society 7 (2): 183–213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005522

Mehan, H. (1979) Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106

Sahlström, F. (1999) Up the Hill Backwards: On Interactional Constraints and Affordances for Equity-Constitution in the Classrooms of the Swedish Comprehensive School. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­versity Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208

Schwab, G. (2011) From dialogue to multilogue: A different view on participation in the English foreign-language classroom. Classroom Discourse 2 (1): 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2011.562654

Seedhouse, P. (2004) The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Con­versation Analysis Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds) (2013) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Tainio, L. (2011) Gendered address terms in reproach sequences in classroom interaction. Linguistics and Education 22 (4): 330–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2010.09.004

Tholander, M. and Aronsson, K. (2002) Teasing as serious business: Collaborative staging and response work. Text 22 (4): 559–595. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2002.022

Waring, H. Z. (2008) Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal 92 (4): 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00788.x

Waring, H. Z. (2011) Learner initiatives and learning opportunities in the language classroom. Classroom Discourse 2 (2): 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2011.614053

Published

2019-05-20

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Lehtimaja, I., & Tainio, L. (2019). Encouraging participation or restraining teasing? Teacher responses to uninvited students’ answers. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 12(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1558/jalpp.36883

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>