**Language Practices in English Classrooms—From Primary School to Higher Education**

Editors

**Pia Sundqvist Erica Sandlund Marie K ¨allkvist Henrik Gyllstad**

MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade • Manchester • Tokyo • Cluj • Tianjin

*Editors* Pia Sundqvist University of Oslo Norway

Erica Sandlund Karlstad University Sweden

Marie K¨allkvist Lund University and Linnæus University Sweden

Henrik Gyllstad Lund University Sweden

*Editorial Office* MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel, Switzerland

This is a reprint of articles from the Special Issue published online in the open access journal *Languages* (ISSN 2226-471X) (available at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages/special issues/language practices).

For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as indicated below:

LastName, A.A.; LastName, B.B.; LastName, C.C. Article Title. *Journal Name* **Year**, *Volume Number*, Page Range.

**ISBN 978-3-0365-5967-4 (Hbk) ISBN 978-3-0365-5968-1 (PDF)**

Cover image courtesy of Andy Lind.

© 2023 by the authors. Articles in this book are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications.

The book as a whole is distributed by MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND.

## **Contents**


## **About the Editors**

### **Pia Sundqvist**

Pia Sundqvist (PhD) is a Professor of English Language Education at the University of Oslo, Norway. Her research interests are in the field of applied linguistics and include informal language learning, in particular the relation between extramural English and gaming, English language teaching, and the assessment of L2 oral proficiency.

#### **Erica Sandlund**

Erica Sandlund (PhD) is an Associate Professor of English at Karlstad University, Sweden. Her research centers on social interaction in institutional settings, including language testing, language teaching, language teachers' professional development, performance appraisal interviews, and broadcast interaction. With a conversation analytic approach, special interests include reported speech, code-switching, assessments, and apologies and their receipt.

#### **Marie Kallkvist ¨**

Marie K¨allkvist (PhD) is an Associate Professor of English Linguistics at Lund University and Professor of English at Linnæus University, Sweden. Her research is in the areas of English language education, focusing on learning, multilingualism, language policy and planning and higher education pedagogy.

#### **Henrik Gyllstad**

Henrik Gyllstad (PhD) is an Associate Professor in English Language and Linguistics at the Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University, Sweden. His research interests include language testing and assessment, second language acquisition, and bilingualism and multilingualism. Predominantly, his focus is on vocabulary, phraseology and lexical processing.

## *Editorial* **Language Practices in English Classrooms: Guest Editors' Introduction to the Special Issue**

**Pia Sundqvist 1,\*, Erica Sandlund 2, Marie Källkvist 3,4 and Henrik Gyllstad <sup>3</sup>**


### **1. Introduction**

English is taught in classrooms across the globe to learners of all ages, from very young learners in primary school to older learners who have reached retirement and occupy their time in the so-called third age by studying English. Further, depending on the national and societal context, as well as researchers' preferred theoretical approaches to teaching and learning, English is described as a foreign language (EFL), a second language (ESL), or an additional language (EAL) in the literature. In this Special Issue, we present eleven papers on the topic of language practices in English classrooms, with language practices being the common core of all contributions. In our Call for Papers, we welcomed both empirical and conceptual papers with different theoretical frameworks and methodologies, as long as the focus was on language practices in the English classroom, regardless of preferred label for English. We were interested in studies on language practices in English classrooms with learners of different ages and in different contexts. Further, we invited studies investigating practices in classrooms at all levels of education, including those that are linguistically homogenous, as well as language practices in classrooms that are more linguistically diverse (multilingual English classrooms). Moreover, we encouraged the submission of papers that study the beliefs or ideologies underpinning the practices of teachers (or learners), as long these were discussed in relation to classroom practices. We took a broad approach to methods, including qualitative studies (e.g., linguistic ethnographies, conversation analysis, interviews, or video-based language research), quantitative studies (e.g., analyzing language practices using quantifiable measures, including classroom-based testing and assessment practices, and intervention studies), and mixed-methods studies (e.g., studies that draw on both survey data and qualitative classroom data). We also welcomed theoretically oriented papers offering a solid conceptual discussion targeting classroom practices and the teaching/learning of English, including language policy.

After initial editorial decisions on abstracts where authors were invited to submit full papers, and the subsequent peer review of submitted papers, a total of eleven contributions including ten empirical studies and one review article—were selected for the present Special Issue. The research detailed in these contributions spans national contexts, from Scandinavia to Central Europe and the United States, South America and Asia. In addition, and in line with our overall goal, contributions focus on a variety of educational levels, learner age groups, and educational contexts: from primary school to higher education; from formal instruction environments to language learning and use in tutoring; and study abroad experiences, as well as digitally mediated learning settings.

Focal areas examined in the different studies comprise *skills* (listening comprehension, comprehension of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) lectures, speaking

**Citation:** Sundqvist, Pia, Erica Sandlund, Marie Källkvist, and Henrik Gyllstad. 2022. Language Practices in English Classrooms: Guest Editors' Introduction to the Special Issue. *Languages* 7: 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages7040291

Received: 2 November 2022 Accepted: 8 November 2022 Published: 14 November 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

and social interaction, vocabulary, and formulaic language), *beliefs* (about teaching practices), *practices* (pedagogical translanguaging in education, grammar, language play, informal/formal/extramural language), *teaching* (literature/literary analysis), and *outcomes* (assessment). Together, the papers in this Special Issue document current practices, showcase innovative approaches to the study of English language teaching and learning, and highlight pathways forward. Below, we present each individual contribution briefly in relation to the overarching thematic areas that emerged.

#### **2. Contributions**

Teacher beliefs and teacher cognition emerged as a theme in some of the contributions. In France, EFL teaching has been a compulsory subject taught by primary school class teachers for two decades. Whyte et al. (2022) examined questionnaire data from teachers (*N* = 254), connecting participants' beliefs and reported practices. The study revealed a three-part division of teachers and teaching that could be tied to grammar-oriented teaching, communicative-language teaching, and teachers who were described as skeptical. While there was no correlation between the age of the participants and their teacher beliefs or teaching practices, those who offered a wider range of classroom activities tended to have more in-service training and higher English proficiency. In the context of Germany, Rovai and Pfingsthorn (2022) focused on pre-service EFL teachers (*N* = 40) and their conceptualizations of what it means to be a "good" or "bad" teacher. Further, they also explored the participants' evaluations of existing differentiation approaches designed for accommodating learner needs, e.g., anxiety and confusion about lexis and grammar. Their findings revealed general agreement amongst the participants regarding supporting the needs of individual learners, but the pre-service teachers' knowledge regarding how to do so was, not surprisingly, incomplete.

A similar theme relates to language use in the English classroom. In a study set in Iran, Gheitasi (2022) investigated a group of 11 primary school learners' (aged 9–11) use of language play, with a focus on formulaic sequences. Based on video recordings from 16 lessons, all episodes involving language play were analyzed qualitatively, and instances of formulaic sequences were identified. The results showed that despite the participants' young age, there were several examples of language play, e.g., playing with sounds. Language play served several purposes in the student group and offered opportunities for the participants to interact with English in a low-stress environment. Another study that also examined learners' oral language use was carried out by Kunitz et al. (2022) in Sweden. This study is unique in that it is a bottom-up approach to pedagogical research and a study in which researchers collaborated very closely with practitioners. The focus was on designing a speaking task for secondary-school students that would elicit meaningful, coconstructed talk. Oral interaction was analyzed using conversation analysis, and the results revealed that the problem-based task used was effective, and that the implementation of open-ended problem-based tasks could support the development of learners' interactional competence. The authors also found that the use of artifacts could help students make their reasoning "tangible and visually accessible" (p. 1).

Moving on from the theme of language use to the theme of accuracy and grammar in the classroom, in an interview study by Schurz et al. (2022), lower secondary English teachers from three countries—Austria, France, and Sweden (*N* = 20)—were asked about their students' engagement in extramural (out-of-school) English and the effect this appeared to have on teaching and learning in the classroom. The implicit learning environment that Swedish students encountered extramurally seemed to extend to the classroom, where explicit instruction was less common than in the Austrian and French samples. This finding appeared to go hand in hand with Swedish teachers reporting a more positive impact of extramural English on learning than Austrian and French participants, especially in terms of grammar. At the same time, gaps in language areas not (fully) developed through extramural English seemed to be more intentionally addressed in the classrooms in Sweden.

Remote teaching replaced classroom teaching during the pandemic, a phenomenon that deserves explicit attention in light of the challenges brought about by COVID-19. This timely topic in language education is addressed by Malabarba et al. (2022) in their study, which closely analyzed interactions between an English tutor and an adult learner, mediated via video conferencing. The authors examined so-called *simultaneous start-ups* and their interactional resolution. The findings showed how the tutor withdrew from overlapping talk to secure the learner's interactional space and opportunities for practicing English. Additionally, the study revealed the relevance of uncovering the fine-tuned detail of multimodal interactional practices in managing a learning space.

The theme of EMI appeared in two of our contributions, authored by A. Siegel (2022) and J. Siegel (2022). In the former study, A. Siegel (2022) took a closer look at the perspectives of 25 short-term exchange students from Japan who were enrolled in EMI courses at a university in Sweden, centering on their attitudes about language use practices in the classroom with the help of a questionnaire; a focus group interview was also conducted with four of the participants. The results showed that the rate of speech, turn-taking, and background knowledge hindered the participants' learning and participation. The study sought to raise the awareness of language practices in EMI courses to support the learning experiences of short-term exchange students. In the latter study, J. Siegel (2022) argues that key challenges in EMI in higher education involve the varying levels of second language (L2) speaking and listening abilities among both teachers and students. In an exploratory study, Siegel examined the relationship between, on the one hand, the main ideas of two EMI lecturers in Sweden over the course of six lectures (content intended to be taught and learned) and, on the other hand, the main ideas that EMI students reported learning in the same lectures. Among other things, so-called keyword analysis revealed that students in fact may not have taken in the teachers' intended main ideas.

One contribution to this Special Issue is linked to the specific theme of L2 English vocabulary instruction. In a qualitative observational study comprising 29 lessons from Norway, Granum Skarpaas and Rødnes (2022) targeted vocational L2 English classrooms specifically. Technical vocabulary is crucial for vocational students' language development, and this study found that vocabulary work in the classroom had a strong presence within vocational orientation (VO) instruction across whole-class instruction as well as group, pair, and individual work. As expected, most targeted words related to work practices and vocational content knowledge. While many instances of L1–L2 translation tasks were observed, target items were not practiced across the four language skills and rarely utilized in productive tasks.

While technical vocabulary is central for vocational students, developing disciplinary literacy in literature courses is central for novice EFL student teachers at the university level. This is addressed by Thyberg (2022), who investigated two oral exam formats used in higher education in Sweden. The data comprised observation notes from so-called *Socratic seminars* and *Thought–Question–Epiphany* (*TQE*) *seminars* and were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The findings revealed that most students used disciplinary conventions and displayed contextual awareness, and they could support claims with textual evidence. While the Socratic seminar format generated lively discussions, its sole focus on questions hindered students in preparing textual evidence for specific literary elements in the analysis. In the TQE seminar, some teachers reported disliking the forced inclusion of an epiphany, but the format did allow for them to identify significant quotes in advance and to expand on interpretative ideas.

Finally, Prilutskaya (2021) provides a timely systematic literature review of empirical studies of classroom applications of translanguaging across the world with a view of presenting the current state of the art regarding the affordances of translanguaging pedagogy and the contexts and research methodologies used. The review closes by identifying areas where pedagogical translanguaging in English language teaching remains unexplored.

#### **3. Final Words from the Guest Editors**

Little did we know that a pandemic would coincide with our original Call for Papers for this Special Issue. Considering the state of flux globally in education—at all levels—in 2020 and 2021, we were at first surprised at the large number of initial submissions, but relieved to witness the high-quality research that emerged thanks to the incredible efforts among scholars in those difficult times. All contributions that were ultimately accepted, after having undergone careful review processes, meet the high standards we set for this Special Issue on language practices in English classrooms—from primary school to higher education. We are greatly indebted to all our contributors and reviewers.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the Swedish Research Council, grant number 2016-03469 and the Research Council of Norway, grant number 314229.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

Gheitasi, Parvin. 2022. Language Play with Formulas in an EFL Classroom. *Languages* 7: 63. [CrossRef]


## *Review* **Examining Pedagogical Translanguaging: A Systematic Review of the Literature**

**Marina Prilutskaya**

Faculty of Education and Arts, Nord University, 8049 Bodø, Norway; marina.prilutskaya@nord.no

**Abstract:** In the past two decades translanguaging has proven to be a potent concept in applied linguistics, having generated a large amount of literature that explores theoretical and empirical dimensions of this linguistically inclusive pedagogical approach to language teaching and learning. This systematic literature review focuses on empirical studies that draw on the translanguaging framework in English language teaching (ELT) and beyond. Following PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews, this study aims to shed light on the current state of knowledge about the affordances of translanguaging pedagogies in a plethora of educational contexts worldwide and to highlight possible avenues for future research. Eleven databases were searched to obtain a dataset spanning from 2011 till February of 2021 and yielding nearly 3000 publications. After duplicate removal, abstract screening, and application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 233 studies were coded and analysed to address the research questions. As a result, this systematic review synthesizes the state of knowledge on pedagogical translanguaging, with the aim to inform educators about developments in this rapidly growing field and support researchers in identifying future research priorities on the subject of drawing on learners' full linguistic repertoires for linguistically inclusive education.

**Keywords:** pedagogical translanguaging; systematic literature review; ELT; empirical research

### **1. Introduction**

In the past two decades translanguaging has proven to be a potent concept in applied linguistics, and in multilingual contexts in particular. The concept has generated a large amount of literature that explores theoretical and empirical dimensions of translanguaging as a linguistically inclusive pedagogical approach to language teaching and learning, and as a transformative bilingual practice that entails "using ... one's linguistic repertoire without regard for socially and politically defined language labels or boundaries" (Otheguy et al. 2015, p. 297). This systematic literature review focuses on empirical studies that draw on the translanguaging framework in English language teaching (ELT) and beyond, i.e., the scope of this review includes but is not limited to the contexts where English is taught as a target or one of the target languages. Other contexts include using English in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and as a medium of instruction (EMI). The study aims to present the current state of knowledge concerning the affordances of translanguaging pedagogies in a plethora of educational contexts worldwide and to highlight possible avenues for future research.

Translanguaging in language teaching has played an important role in promoting the normalization of bilingual language practices and stimulating new pedagogical approaches based on a flexible use of languages in the language classroom (Prada and Turnbull 2018). The term *translanguaging* was conceived in an educational context by the Welsh educator Cen Williams (1994, 1996) to denote a planned teacher-initiated pedagogical activity based on a purposeful concurrent use of two languages within a lesson or task. For Williams, translanguaging is a valuable strategy that should be encouraged and utilized in bilingual language classrooms to promote children's development in both languages.

**Citation:** Prilutskaya, Marina. 2021. Examining Pedagogical Translanguaging: A Systematic Review of the Literature. *Languages* 6: 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages6040180

Academic Editors: Pia Sundqvist, Erica Sandlund, Marie Källkvist and Henrik Gyllstad

Received: 23 July 2021 Accepted: 24 October 2021 Published: 26 October 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

In the last two decades or so, the concept has gained a strong position within the field of multilingualism research as an umbrella term for various means of incorporating the entire linguistic repertoire of an individual language user to achieve communicative goals in varied communicative contexts and modalities (García 2012). In this review, I focus on research on translanguaging in its classroom application, where languages are used in a flexible and functional manner in order to further literacy in both or all languages (Lewis et al. 2012). Put differently, this research draws on translanguaging pedagogy understood as "the instructional mobilization of students' full linguistic repertoire and the promotion of productive contact across languages" (Cummins 2019, p. 21).

For the purposes of this review, it is worth highlighting the distinction between a pedagogical or classroom form of translanguaging and its spontaneous or universal manifestation (Lewis et al. 2012; Cenoz 2017; Cenoz and Gorter 2017). Pedagogical translanguaging is consistent with its original conceptualization by Williams (1994, 1996) as it refers to a specific pedagogical strategy planned or facilitated by teachers and based on the use of students' whole linguistic repertoire (Cenoz 2017). In contrast, spontaneous translanguaging, as Cenoz and Gorter (2017) explain, occurs inside and outside of educational settings and thus "refers to the reality of bi/multilingual usage in naturally occurring contexts where boundaries between languages are fluid and constantly shifting" (p. 904). In this research, I chose to focus my analysis on studies of the pedagogical form of translanguaging because of a gap in research on classroom application of translanguaging. The gap was outlined initially by Creese and Blackledge (2010) and Canagarajah (2011), and, more recently, by other researchers (Andrei et al. 2020; Cummins 2019; Galante 2020) who, despite a growing number of publications since 2010 onwards, call for more empirical research which can underpin the translation of translanguaging theory into practice. Hence, there appears to be a contradiction between a rapid growth in the amount of literature on translanguaging on the one hand, and continuing calls for more research on classroom translanguaging on the other hand. This indicates a need for a systemic literature review to be conducted with the aim to take stock of recent developments in the field and to flesh out those facets of translanguaging that call for more research in the future. Furthermore, a systematic literature review focusing on empirical studies that draw on the translanguaging framework seems to fill a gap in review studies in this area. To the best of my knowledge, the most recent literature review on translanguaging is Poza's (2017) study which examines 53 papers published between 1996 and 2014 and attends to the theory and exemplifications of translanguaging. It follows then that the present review offers an updated piece of research that extends the previous investigation to other areas of translanguaging research that might be of interest to researchers and practitioners alike. These areas concern first and foremost empirical aspects of translanguaging research in ELT and in other English-related educational settings, such as its context, methodology, and the issues of classroom application of translanguaging pedagogies.

Following PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews (Page et al. 2021), the present study sets out to answer the following research questions:


Eleven databases were searched to obtain a dataset spanning from 2011 till February of 2021 and yielding nearly 3000 publications, as shown in Table 1:


**Table 1.** Databases and search results.

As a result of duplicate removal, abstract screening, and application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 233 studies (Supplementary Material) were coded and analysed to address the research questions (The corpus of studies is available online at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/8fg5jhp9pc/2; accessed on 26 October 2022). This systematic review seeks to transparently and accurately synthesize the state of knowledge on translanguaging research, with the aim to inform educators about developments in this rapidly growing field and support researchers in identifying future research priorities regarding translanguaging pedagogies in a multitude of ELT contexts and beyond.

#### **2. Methodology**

In this paper, I carried out a multiphase review procedure of the literature in accordance with PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews (Page et al. 2021). Overall, the procedures included: (i) a systematic database search, (ii) initial title/abstract screening, (iii) full-text article screening, and (iv) full-text article coding using NVivo software for qualitative data analysis. Overall, this review is a mixed-methods research involving quantitative and qualitative approaches to data analysis. Figure 1 gives a summary of the search procedures step by step:

To begin with, I searched 11 databases using "translanguaging" as a stand-alone search item and in combination with "pedagogical" or "classroom translanguaging" to obtain the largest possible number of relevant citations irrespective of the scope of the database in question. The databases chosen for the review were accessible through my online university library and included both large multidisciplinary databases, such as Scopus or Wiley Online Library, and smaller, discipline specific ones, such as ERIC or Teacher Reference Center. The systematic search targeted all available online citations starting from 2011 up to 12 February 2021 since the number of publications on translanguaging seems to have been increasing incrementally from 2011 onwards, as shown in Figure 2 below. The apparent fall in the number of publications in 2021 reflects the status as of 12 February 2021 and does not automatically signify a decrease in a total number of publications that year.

Where possible, I set the search parameters to capture scholarly and peer-reviewed publications that were journal articles or book chapters because these made up most of the publications on translanguaging according to a document type, as illustrated in Figure 3:

Another reason for targeting peer-reviewed articles and book chapters was to make sure that the data for subsequent coding and qualitative analysis contained high quality scholarly works. The systematic database search resulted in 2976 citations in total. After automatic duplicate removal, I proceeded to the initial screening of 1628 non-duplicate abstracts.

First, I screened the abstracts to determine whether the paper reported on empirical or non-empirical research. By empirical research, I refer to papers that draw primarily on empirical data, either qualitative or quantitative, or a combination of those. Consequently, 176 abstracts were identified as non-empirical and excluded from further analysis. These were theoretical pieces, policy papers, reports, bibliographies, and program descriptions. Next, the empirical studies abstracts were examined across the following criteria for exclusion:


**Figure 2.** Publications on translanguaging by year (https://www.scopus.com/home.uri, accessed on 12 February 2021).

**Figure 3.** Publications on translanguaging by document type (https://www.scopus.com/home.uri, accessed on 12 February 2021).

In addition, the full-text screening revealed that another 103 articles failed to fully meet the main criteria for inclusion, i.e., articles must report on empirical research. In case of these 103 articles, the empirical data from the classroom were used as examples of pedagogical translanguaging. In other words, these were primarily theoretical pieces that drew on a limited number of examples of translanguaging as mere illustrations of the theoretical arguments discussed in the paper. Despite providing authentic examples of translanguaging practices, these papers lacked some of the essential elements of empirical papers, such as a detailed account of the educational settings, methodology, ethical considerations, discussion of validity issues or/and limitations and suggestions for further research. Therefore, these papers did not contain the information necessary for the coding procedure and thus could not contribute to answering the research questions of this systematic literature review. An additional 12 articles were excluded because translanguaging was not the main theoretical framework employed in these papers, despite mentioning translanguaging in the theory section and/or as one of the key words. Together, the described 115 articles were treated as a separate exclusion category labelled as "Other" in Figure 1. The relatively large number of articles that make up the "Other" exclusion category in this review supports the fact that translanguaging research is multifaceted and covers a wide range of topics, which necessitates the use of clearly defined criteria in order to examine certain aspects of translanguaging in depth.

To sum up, 233 articles met all the inclusion/exclusion criteria and served as the corpus for this review. These 233 articles were identified as being peer-reviewed, empirical, on topic and employing translanguaging as their primary theoretical framework. Further, they were in English and published between 1 January 2011 and 12 February 2021.

The main analysis that followed entailed full-text article coding using NVivo software for qualitative data analysis. The corpus of 233 articles was coded across the following categories:


Having given a detailed description of the methodology employed in the review, I now turn to the presentation of the results.

#### **3. Results**

I structure this section in accordance with the research questions.

#### *3.1. What Characterizes Empirical Studies on Translanguaging in Terms of Their Context (Educational Settings, Geography, Participants, Languages), Research Objectives, and Methodology?*

I start with the educational settings that the selected studies are placed in. Regarding level of education, the following levels were identified in the corpus: pre-school (age 3–5), primary/middle school (age 6–12), secondary (age 13–16), upper-secondary (age 17–18), and tertiary level (above 18). In addition, studies that had to do with teacher professional development courses were grouped into a separate category to distinguish them from the tertiary level. The raw frequencies and percentage frequency distribution of the levels of education are given in Figure 4:

When examining the educational settings, I also looked into the types of programs/courses. I found the following:


Next, I coded the papers with regard to the geographical settings. Figure 5 gives an overview of the geographical settings identified in the corpus:

**Figure 4.** Educational stages examined.

**Figure 5.** Geographical settings.

Some counties were represented to a larger degree than others. For instance, the majority of studies in North America examined translanguaging in the US context (the US-Mexico border and Puerto Rico included), while Sweden, the Basque Autonomous Community of Spain, Belgium, and Luxemburg were among those European counties/communities that had a larger presence in the corpus compared with other European territories. Further, South Africa, Japan, and China appeared in most of the studies placed in the African and Asian contexts respectively.

When coding across the participants subcategory, I distinguished between two dimensions. First, I examined whether a study had a primary focus on students, teachers, or both. Second, I looked into the participants characteristics that were outlined by the author(s), apart from age and/or level of education. With respect to the first dimension, 128 articles (55%) examined students' attitudes, language practices or/and behaviour, 64 articles (27%) focused on teachers, and 41 articles (18%) studied both learners and teachers. The participants' characteristics had a logical connection to the types of programs outlined earlier. For instance, researchers recruited heritage speakers, emergent and proficient bilinguals/multilinguals, non-native and native English-speaking professionals, newly arrived immigrants, and learners of English as a target language or one of the target languages.

Regarding languages, English dominated the corpus, both as a target language and as one of two languages in DL programs. The second most dominant language was Spanish, as a target language or learners' L1. Other languages in the corpus included Afrikaans, American Sign Language, Arabic, Basque, Bosnian, Chinese, Dari, Dutch, Farsi, Filipino, Finnish, Flemish, French, German, Hindi, Irish, IsiXhosa, IsiZulu, Japanese, Korean, Luxembourgish, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Samoan, Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, Sotho, Swedish, Tagalog, Tausug, Urdu, Vietnamese, Xitsonga, and others. In most cases, these languages were learners' L1.

Now I move on to the results of coding across the category of research objectives of the studies. The qualitative analysis yielded several themes or aspects of pedagogical translanguaging that researchers set to investigate in a multitude of English-affiliated contexts. These included:


The remaining part of the first research question concerns methodology employed in the studies. In this category, I first coded the studies on the basis of their methodological approach, i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research. I found that 194 studies (83%) employed qualitative methodology, 7 studies (3%) employed quantitative

methodology, and 32 (14%) were mixed methods studies. Further, when zooming in on the qualitative studies, I found that linguistic ethnographic methods were utilized in the majority of these studies. To be specific, almost all of the studies employed a combination of the following approaches to data collection: audio and/or video recordings, semi-structured or in-depth interviews, open-ended questionnaires, think-aloud protocols, field notes, participant observations, and collection of learners' work. These were predominantly case studies focusing on few or a single participant. The quantitative studies were quasi-experimental intervention studies that employed a survey or a group comparison design, including pre- and post-test designs. As for the mixed methods studies, these mainly involved a combination of a test or quantitative survey paired up with classroom observations and/or semi-structured interviews.

I now proceed to the next stage of the analysis to address the second research question.

#### *3.2. According to the Analyzed Corpus Studies, What Are the Factors Enabling and Constraining Classroom Application of Translanguaging?*

To answer this question, I carried out a thematic analysis of the papers to elicit information about the factors. Though most papers did not contain an explicit discussion of the factors enabling and constraining the classroom application of translanguaging, it was possible to infer the relevant information from the sections reporting findings or outlining possible implications of the research. Below I lay out three subsections pertaining to the main themes identified in the corpus, i.e., stakeholders, context, and activity type. Quotes from a number of selected papers are provided to illustrate the themes derived from the data.

#### 3.2.1. Stakeholders

The most salient theme that emerged from the analysis concerns teachers' perceptions of translanguaging practices and multilingualism in general as well as how these shape teaching practices and classroom ecology. To put it briefly, three distinct views on translanguaging could be identified: translanguaging as a problem and an obstacle in learning a target language; translanguaging as a natural linguistic practice and process; and translanguaging as a valuable resource in the classroom. As Axelrod (2017) demonstrates in her study, when teachers held a positive view on translanguaging, they "created an environment where children's language(s) usage was supported, encouraging children to explore and play with language(s) and allowing them to bring into the classroom the hybrid language practices that they were experiencing in their homes and communities" (p. 109). In addition to creating a linguistically inclusive learning environment to mediate language learning, teachers' views on bilingualism as a social and cognitive resource facilitated the implementation of translanguaging pedagogies as a purposeful strategy to recognize and utilize linguistic resources that students bring into the classroom. This idea is emphasized by Carroll et al. (2020) in their study of translanguaging-based practices in the context of an evolution course at a bilingual Puerto Rican university:

Viewing their students as successful bilinguals was essential in that, from the outset, students were not seen to have linguistic deficits, which could have resulted in the professors simply believing they would not be successful in the class based solely on their language proficiency and not on their understanding of course content. (Carroll et al. 2020, p. 13)

However, while teachers' attitudes tend to be powerful mediators of new pedagogical practices in the classroom, a positive view on translanguaging does not necessarily translate into rigorous learner-centred teaching practices, as noted in Mwinda and van der Walt (2015) and Yuvayapan (2019). Similarly, Ganuza and Hedman (2017) warn against "using the term pedagogical translanguaging in contexts where multilingual practices are used by teachers and students without reflection and/or without a deliberate aim to mediate learning" (p. 219). The authors stress the need to provide teachers with a thorough and explicit theoretical and instructional training on how to draw on students' linguistic repertoires. Likewise, in their study of translanguaging in CLIL, Nikula and Moore (2019) argue:

it would be helpful for teachers to have an overall understanding of translanguaging, not only as a pedagogic strategy to support learning but also as a feature of natural bilingual discourse, which they and their students can employ according to the situational demands (Nikula and Moore 2019, p. 245)

Several researchers have proposed a solution to the issue of teachers' self-reported, as well as observed, need for guidance when it comes to translanguaging pedagogies. The solution comes in the form of pre-service teacher education, in-service professional development courses, and researcher-teacher collaborations involving focus on translanguaging pedagogies in specific educational contexts. For instance, Gorter and Arocena (2020, p. 9) argue that "an in-service professional development course can change the beliefs of inservice teachers about insights into multilingualism and principles of translanguaging". In similar terms, according to Gynne (2019), "there are indicators that learning more about translanguaging pedagogies and employing translanguaging strategies has entailed a shift for the teachers, teacher practices and possibly even teacher identities" (p. 364). In a similar way, reporting on a study of language ideology shifts among Mexican American/Latinx pre-service bilingual teachers, Caldas (2019) concludes:

This study shows that providing participants with exposure to theory and research on different language ideologies in the field, paired with a first-hand experience of a translanguaging space in an academic setting, facilitates future teachers' willingness to engage and embrace the contradictions and complexities of their role(s) as bilingual teachers and the realities and demands of educating Mexican American/Latinx emergent bilingual students in the current socio-political climate. (Caldas 2019, p. 13)

Along the same lines, in the context of teaching English for academic purposes (EAP), Liu et al. (2020) show a shift towards a more sophisticated understanding of the potential advantages of translanguaging pedagogy in the given context. The shift in understanding and capacity to use translanguaging pedagogy is a result of a year-long researcher-teacher collaboration, suggesting that "researcher-teacher collaboration can be an effective strategy in helping in-service EAP teachers to reflect on and change their beliefs and practices while the process could be discursive" (p. 1).

Another theme frequently discussed alongside teacher training programs and researcher-teacher collaborations as factors enabling pedagogical translanguaging, deals with the issue of educational policies and ideologies at the level of school authorities. As Allard (2017) explains here:

translanguaging functioned as an important discursive tool that emergent bilingual teachers and students used to communicate across language differences in the beginner ESL classes. In spite of its apparent utility, however, it existed within an unhospitable ecology of policies, practices, ideologies, and relationships, which tempered its pedagogical and interpersonal power. (Allard 2017, p. 120)

In other words, school leaders' role is critical in shaping the environment, language policies and consequently teaching practices, and must be taken into account as another major factor determining whether translanguaging pedagogies take root in practice (Ascenzi-Moren et al. 2016). To exemplify this, Krause and Prinsloo (2016), in their ethnographic study of translanguaging practices in a township primary school in South Africa, describe a conflict between teachers and institutional policies that undermine teachers' efforts to create a learning environment in which students may draw on their entire linguistic repertoire in their learning process:

We find that teachers apply the language resources at their disposal with some skill to make learners engage with subject content. However, the institutional language ideologies that materialize in the school's language policy and in testing regimes, turn such skilful language practices from an asset into a relative disadvantage. While aware that they are transgressing the principal's language policy as well as knowing that their students are struggling with monoglossic examination requirements, teachers continue to translanguage for the pedagogic advantages this brings, despite the rigid, separatist language ideologies that inform school management. (Krause and Prinsloo 2016, p. 347)

Perhaps, the most notable example of the sort of impediment that the lack of sustained educational policy and curriculum support may have to the implementation of translanguaging practices in EFL classrooms, comes from Costley and Leung's study (2020) which examines the challenges of enacting translanguaging pedagogy in mainstream statefunded schools in England. After examining policy documents and classroom data as well as conducting interviews with experienced language educators, the authors conclude:

There is rhetorical celebration of multilingualism in the policy documents and this is reflected in the interviewees favourable attitudes towards multilingualism themselves. However; at the same time because of the lack of positive engagement and encouragement at the policy level there is no real culture or widespread practice in schools of using languages as flexible resources that can be meaningfully deployed for learning and assessment purposes . . .

Rather than being regarded as a resource for classroom learning and assessment, multilingualism can be seen as more of a classroom management issue (Costley and Leung 2020, p. 10).

Furthermore, learner characteristics and beliefs constitute another important factor that influences the way translanguaging may be construed, negotiated, and enacted. As a case in point, Afitska (2020) argues that for translanguaging-based approaches to succeed, "learners need to have: (1) good, or at least adequate, literacy skills in their home language(s), (2) sufficient understanding of the subject matter under discussion and, preferably, the lexis needed for it, (3) well-developed, general study skills ... " (p. 176). Next, with respect to learners' beliefs, Beiler (2021) brings attention to the fact that not only teachers but also students may need "to interrogate the language ideologies that push them to perceive majoritized language practices as appropriate in school and minoritized translanguaging—their own or others'—as antisocial, suspicious, or perhaps valuable only for communication within linguistically minoritized homes and social arenas" (p. 27). However, in a language inclusive learning environment, students are shown to be an important resource in enacting translanguaging (Hansen-Thomas et al. 2020) and creating "translanguaging spaces for meaning making in collaboration with peers and institutional actors" (Kaufhold 2018, p. 1). Another aspect of student translanguaging that is worth highlighting is addressed by Mendoza (2020) who points to the fact that students may choose to use their linguistic resources in the classroom both to include and exclude others, thus opening up or closing down opportunities for others. The author argues that more attention should be given to the way(s) languages are employed to index inclusivity and social responsibility.

To round off the stakeholders theme, I turn to Zapata and Laman's (2016) study of translingual writing instructions in predominantly Latino ESL classrooms placed in the US. The authors examined children's language and literacy practices within writing workshops and how teachers developed translingual approaches to writing. The study showed that because teachers themselves did not possess all the linguistic resources available in the classrooms, they engaged children's family and community members in their workshops. As Zapata and Laman explain:

If we desire to build classrooms where children develop metalinguistic awareness that can serve their writing, then we must welcome family and community members, lift their ways with words for children to appreciate, and elevate the dynamic and ever-changing nature of languages as resources for writing. (Zapata and Laman 2016, p. 376)

#### 3.2.2. Context

The context theme involves certain contextual factors that researchers found to be enabling or constraining in terms of the classroom application of translanguaging. These factors relate to contextual aspects in a narrower sense, such as a program type or design, languages involved, and the availability of learning materials. For example, Adamson and Yamauchi (2020) explored translanguaging perceptions and practices among tertiary-level practitioners of CLIL and EMI courses in Japan and found that translanguaging seemed to be favoured in CLIL and EMI instructional contexts. The authors argue that in these types of programs, there is a shift in emphasis "from language proficiency development to a more inclusive and 'safe' content-based assessment of students, giving more agency, especially to linguistically lower proficiency, yet content-wise highly proficient, students. This acts to destigmatize feelings of linguistic incompetence by decentring monolingual interaction policy "(p. 111). In addition, Adamson and Yamauchi found that university EMI instructors "encouraged CLIL instructors to equip students with translanguaging skills in preparation for future EMI instruction" (p. 111).

Another contextual factor, this time a constraining one, is related to an organizational or design aspect of a particular program or course. This is exemplified by Lang (2019) in her study of structural features of a newcomer program in an American comprehensive high school. Lang found that newcomer students were provided with "safe spaces" for translanguaging practices by physically separating them from their classmates to reduce language anxiety. The author's critique of such conceptualization of a "safe space" is summed up as follows: "Ultimately, by interpreting translanguaging as a way to avoid discomfort rather than to leverage newcomers' dynamic bilingualism, this particular conceptualization of safe space afforded limited opportunities for the development of English language and literacy practices" (p. 73).

Further, in the context of trilingual schools in the Basque Country, several researchers (Cenoz and Gorter 2017; Cenoz and Santos 2020; Leonet et al. 2017) address the compatibility issue between pedagogical translanguaging and the need to protect, maintain, and revitalize minority languages, in this case, the Basque language. In Cenoz and Gorter's paper (2017) the authors point out that there is a policy of strict language separation in Basque-medium schools, with the aim to protect and develop proficiency in Basque. Hence, a novel translanguaging approach is often met with scepticism or even a blunt rejection among community members, policy makers, and teachers. However, as exemplified through classroom data analysis by Cenoz and Gorter (2017) and by Cenoz and Santos (2020), pedagogical translanguaging can and should be viewed as compatible with the need to protect and sustain regional minority languages in the context where English is one of the target languages.

Next, the analysis of the enabling or constraining factors regarding the implementation of pedagogical translanguaging revealed that certain characteristics of languages themselves could create obstacles for learner translanguaging. This has been reported by speakers of certain African languages in Carstens' (2016) study that explored the use of translanguaging as a strategy to support tertiary level bi-/multilingual students in South Africa in acquiring academic literacy in English. In particular, IsiXhosa, Tshivenda, and Sepedi L1 speakers reported that utilizing their L1 knowledge through translanguaging-based activities complicated their understanding of conceptual content in English due to either much internal variation in their L1, its complexity or the lack of specialized vocabulary.

Finally, studies placed in the African context (Charamba 2020a, 2020b; Omidire and Ayob 2020) also discussed the importance of instructional materials in students' home languages not only for translanguaging-informed interventions involving English and one of the African languages to be successful, but also for providing students with "a reflective space to think about how language stratification has excluded African languages that are deemed inferior from the classroom, hence from accessing scientific knowledge" (Charamba 2020a, p. 655).

#### 3.2.3. Activity Type

Perhaps not surprising, considering the collaborative nature of translanguaging as a feature of bi-/multilingual discourse, researchers highlight collaborative learning through group activities as a factor that facilitates pedagogical translanguaging (Martin-Beltrán 2014). For instance, Ramchander (2020) observed tertiary-level students in South Africa working on assignments in English and concluded that "when multilingual students engaged in group work, there was a tendency of gravitation towards translanguaging which resulted in students having a better understanding of assignment questions" (p. 74). Similarly, Banda (2018) showed that group discussions in English, Xhosa and both languages allowed all learners to participate and translanguage in order to find the solution to a task. Importantly, the author points out that such translanguaging-based group work has another advantage, i.e., it "provides peer-learning opportunity as the less proficient in English learn from the more proficient learners" (p. 213).

This concludes the analysis of the factors enabling and constraining the classroom application of translanguaging and brings us to the next subsection that attends to the third research question.

#### *3.3. Based on the Analyzed Corpus of Studies, What Specific Avenues for Future Research on Pedagogical Translanguaging Can Be Proposed?*

The answer to the final research question sheds light on the future of research on pedagogical translanguaging. It is worth noting that not all researchers voiced their ideas with regard to future research. Among the proposed possible future research directions, I was able to extract the following endemic themes (example studies are referenced in brackets):


In sum, several areas where future research is timely and warranted have been highlighted by a number of authors.

#### **4. Discussion and Concluding Remarks**

As explained in the introduction, I conducted the present literature review with the aim to take stock of recent developments in research on translanguaging pedagogies in English-affiliated settings and to identify possible avenues for future research. In the initial stage of this investigation, I carried out a multiphase review procedure of the literature in accordance with PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews (Page et al. 2021). As a result of the screening procedures described in detail in the methodology section, I focused my analysis on the corpus of 233 empirical studies that drew on the translanguaging framework and met all the inclusion criteria that were set up for this investigation in order to address its research questions.

The first question in this study sought to determine the characteristics of empirical studies on translanguaging regarding the context, research objectives, and methodology. With respect to this research question, I found that the selected studies represented a plethora of English-related contexts in terms of educational and geographical settings, as well as languages involved. However, the results indicate that translanguaging have been studied more frequently in primary/middle and tertiary educational contexts, and that North America and Europe were represented to a larger degree than other geographical areas (see Figures 4 and 5). A possible explanation for this might be that translanguaging has been popularized by García and other researchers working in the context of bilingual or dual language classrooms in the US. Another reason might be an increase in the number of English as a medium of instruction programs at tertiary level worldwide due to the internationalization of education.

Next, regarding the participants category, I found that researchers focused more on students (55% of the studies) than on teachers (27%), and only a small proportion of the studies recruited both students and teachers (18%). As for the languages, apart from English dominating as a target and as one of two languages in dual language programs, Spanish was found to be the second most represented language, both as a target language and learners' L1. Again, this might be connected to the US context factor. In addition, it is important to note that current research on translanguaging is found to depict a multitude of learners' L1s.

Concerning the research objectives, I identified a range of aspects of pedagogical translanguaging that researchers found worth examining, such as language use in peer and teacher-learner interactions, learners' and teachers' perceptions of translanguaging practices and pedagogies, teachers' language ideologies and their interaction with language policies and students' translanguaging in the classroom, affordances of translanguaging in relation to assessment practices, content and language learning. Other researched facets of translanguaging included its role in mediating learners' emotional well-being, alleviating language learning anxiety, reducing negative behaviour, and, importantly, co-construction of emergent bilingual students' identities and promoting social justice through equity in education. Such a wide spectrum of topics indicates a rich potential for research on translanguaging in language education.

Finally, with regard to the methodology, a disproportionally large number of studies (83%) employed qualitative methodology, whereas quantitative studies amounted to only 3% of the corpus, and 14% were mixed-method studies. One interesting finding was that almost all of the qualitative research identified as linguistic ethnographic case studies that focused on few or a single participant. The reason for this might be that linguistic ethnography as a methodology is a good fit for the very nature of translanguaging as an individual and communicative practice since linguistic ethnography is " ... an interpretive approach which studies the local and immediate actions of actors from their point of view and considers how these interactions are embedded in wider social contexts and structures" (Copland and Creese 2015, p. 13).

Based on the results obtained to answer the first research question, it can be assumed that a typical study on pedagogical translanguaging in English-related contexts would be a small-scale case study that is placed in the North American or European context, that focuses on students' language practices or/and perceptions and employs methods of linguistic ethnography to collect and analyse qualitative data. This raises concerns regarding the potential generalizability of translanguaging pedagogies, given the geographical and methodological disproportionality identified in the corpus of studies examined. In particular, a predominance of small-scale qualitative studies needs to be addressed by researchers by conducting more controlled intervention and/or mixed-method studies in order to make more substantiated claims regarding the affordances of classroom translanguaging beyond the studied contexts. It follows than that to develop a more comprehensive picture of the classroom application of translanguaging pedagogies in English-affiliated educational contexts across the world, particularly in terms of its transferability and long-term effects, additional studies may be needed to make sure a broader range of educational and geographical settings are studied, and multifarious methodological approaches are employed to do so.

The second question in this research concerned the enabling and constraining factors with respect to classroom application of translanguaging. The thematic analysis revealed several factors related to three main themes: stakeholders, context, and activity type. In sum, teachers', students', and school leaders' positive perceptions of translanguaging pedagogies in conjunction with a thorough and explicit theoretical and instructional training on *why* and *how* to draw on learners' entire linguistic repertoire in ELT and other settings are shown to act as powerful facilitators of successful and sustainable implementation of translanguaging-based practices. Regarding the context theme, I found that translanguaging seemed to be favoured in CLIL and EMI instructional contexts. This might be explained by the emphasis on content-based learning rather than language proficiency, which is intrinsic to these programs and which may help mitigate strict monolingual interactional policy that is often in place (Adamson and Yamauchi 2020). Another enabling factor was identified in connection with the activity type theme and involved the facilitating role of collaborative leaning activities in promoting translanguaging in the classroom. As far as constraining factors are concerned, apart from what has been discussed in relation to the stakeholders, these had to do with obstacles related to the complexity and certain structural characteristics of learners' L1, some organizational aspects of a program or course, a perceived conflict between translanguaging and the need to protect and maintain minority languages, and the lack of instructional materials in learners' L1.

To answer the final research question, I looked into possible avenues for future research on pedagogical translanguaging as proposed by the authors of the analysed studies. First, the proposed directions related to the methodological aspects of research, which has been partially discussed earlier in this section in connection to the first research question. Specifically, researchers call for more rigorous, longitudinal studies to explore the long-term impact of translanguaging pedagogies on learning outcomes across the developmental spectrum and in a variety of contexts (e.g., Axelrod and Cole 2018; Back 2020). However, there were also calls for more small-scale investigations and ethnographic studies, particularly with respect to research on the development of students' hybrid identities and language ideologies (e.g., Abourehab and Azaz 2020; Adamson and Yamauchi 2020). This is somewhat surprising in light of the fact that such types of studies have been found to be overrepresented in the corpus in this review.

Second, researchers stressed the need for more research in teacher education and continuous professional development courses for teachers, school leaders, and policy makers for sustainable translanguaging practices to go beyond a single intervention (e.g., Aitken and Robinson 2020; Deroo et al. 2020). This corroborates the findings reported in this review, namely a paucity of studies in teacher education (Figure 4), and the fact that collaborations involving researchers and stakeholders are shown to be an effective strategy if we want translanguaging pedagogies to take hold and develop.

To conclude, this review has its limitations. These are related, for instance, to its focus on Anglophone literature, its search procedures, the choice and application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the time frame. Notwithstanding possible limitations, the findings of this systematic literature review of empirical studies on pedagogical translanguaging provide insight into the current state of knowledge on translanguaging with respect to its classroom application across a spectrum of English-affiliated contexts worldwide. Further, since this review examined the characteristics of current studies regarding their context, methodology, and research design, it contributes to our understanding of the *source* of our knowledge on pedagogical translanguaging in terms of the strengths and limitations of current research, as defined by the scope of the review. Lastly, this review may help lay the groundwork for future studies on translanguaging in ELT and beyond by pointing to the future avenues for research needed to move the field forward.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10 .3390/languages6040180/s1.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** Many thanks to the reviewers for their very useful comments.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


## *Article* **Study Abroad in Sweden: Japanese Exchange Students' Perspectives of Language Use in University EMI Courses**

**Aki Siegel 1,2**

<sup>1</sup> Department of English, Uppsala University, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden; aki.siegel@engelska.uu.se

<sup>2</sup> Department of Languages, Linnaeus University, 351 95 Växjö, Sweden

**Abstract:** With the availability of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) courses, an increasing number of international students have been joining Swedish universities. However, the language use in Swedish EMI courses may display unique features; while many Swedish students have high English language proficiency, code-switching between Swedish and English is reported as a common practice by both lecturers and students, even when international students are present. Moreover, the term "international students" is often used to include students of various statuses and linguistic abilities, and the experiences and perspectives of short-term exchange students towards the language use in Swedish EMI courses are rarely documented. The current study investigates the perspectives of short-term exchange students from Japan enrolled in EMI courses at a university in Sweden. Questionnaire and focus group interview confirmed previous studies regarding the language-use practices in the classrooms. Moreover, the rate of speech, turn-taking, and background knowledge were found to hinder the learning and participation of the exchange students. The findings suggest the need to raise awareness of the language practices in Swedish EMI courses to students, lecturers, and other universities in order to support the learning experience of short-term exchange students.

**Keywords:** English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI); English as a Medium of Education (EME); study abroad; English as a Lingua Franca (ELF); multilingual classroom

### **1. Introduction**

Before 2019, study abroad had been steadily increasing over the years and around the world. According to the International Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the number of international students in higher education worldwide was 5.6 million in 2018, double the number for 2005 (OECD 2021). Sweden is not an exception. In 2019, there were approximately 40,000 students studying abroad in Swedish universities, a 3% increase from the year before (SCB 2020). Students coming from Japan to Sweden, who are the target group of investigation for this study, were also on a steady increase with 348 students in 2019, of which 277 were identified as exchange students (SCB 2020). Although currently a small group of students, an increase can be expected in the number students from Japan in Sweden due to the increasing interest in studying abroad and more universities in Japan making overseas study a requirement for a bachelor's degree (Take and Shoraku 2018).

The increase in the number of students studying abroad in Sweden could partly be attributed to the internationalization efforts made by the universities to increase the number of international lecturers and students (Government Offices of Sweden 2018). Some of the motivation to internationalize universities stems from universities' strategies in increasing international visibility through university rankings and improving the education and quality of learning at the university level (Government Offices of Sweden 2018). In addition, attracting international students, especially from outside the EU/EEA system, has economic benefits that cannot be ignored. According to the Swedish Higher Education

**Citation:** Siegel, Aki. 2022. Study Abroad in Sweden: Japanese Exchange Students' Perspectives of Language Use in University EMI Courses. *Languages* 7: 3. https:// doi.org/10.3390/languages7010003

Academic Editors: Pia Sundqvist, Erica Sandlund, Marie Källkvist and Henrik Gyllstad

Received: 7 September 2021 Accepted: 21 December 2021 Published: 28 December 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

Authority (2018), there have been yearly increases in tuition fee revenues paid by students outside of the EU/EEA and Switzerland, totaling 687 million Swedish krona (SEK) in 2017.

One of the internationalization efforts that universities around the globe have undertaken is to offer more English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) courses (Murata 2018). EMI refers to "the use of English language to teach academic subjects other than English itself in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English" (Macaro 2018, p. 19). Moreover, I use EMI to include not only lectures, but also other classroom-related activities such as presentations and group discussions. In theory, EMI courses provide not only contents of subjects, but also opportunities to improve the students' English language abilities (Galloway 2020).

EMI courses have existed in Sweden for over 20 years (Kuteeva 2018), and in recent years, almost a third of lectures at Swedish universities are now conducted in English (Forsberg 2018). These EMI courses bring more opportunities for students outside of Sweden to join Swedish university programs, which aligns with internationalization plans that many universities have presented and are implementing (Government Offices of Sweden 2018).

However, studies of EMI courses in Swedish higher education have dismissed the perspective of short-term exchange students, who study abroad for one year or less, and their experience of this unique language-use environment. The term "international students" is often used in the EMI literature, but it is used as an umbrella term to include students of various statuses and linguistic abilities (e.g., Kuteeva et al. 2015). For instance, short-term exchange students will have limited Swedish abilities and limited time to adapt to the learning context compared to full-time degree students from abroad or non-Swedish students who have been living in Sweden for several years. Moreover, Danish or German speaking exchange students will have a relative ease of learning and understanding Swedish compared to students from Asia (e.g., Kuteeva 2020). Combining students with different linguistic and educational backgrounds into one umbrella term of "international students" limits our understanding of the issues various groups face, especially short-term exchange students with relatively low language proficiency in English and Swedish.

The study therefore aims to deepen our understanding of the linguistic experience of short-term exchange students attending EMI courses at a university in Sweden, and considers the ways in which programs can enhance the learning experience of these students. In particular, the study focuses on exchange students from Japan, who are increasingly interested in studying abroad in Scandinavia (SCB 2020). The study, therefore, poses the following research questions:


#### **2. Literature Review**

#### *2.1. English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) in Sweden*

As mentioned above, EMI courses are educational contexts in higher education where English language is used to teach and learn academic subjects in countries where English is not the first language (L1) of the community (Macaro 2018). In EMI courses, lectures, student presentations, and peer interactions are conducted or encouraged to be conducted in English. Course materials including reading assignments and lecture slides also are often in English. The expectation that many students have towards EMI courses is that they will be able to learn the content of a subject while improving their English language proficiency (Rose and Galloway 2019).

EMI in Sweden, however, may display different features compared to other countries due to its "parallel language use" (Nordic Council of Ministers 2007) policy in the classrooms. Parallel language use refers to the policy presented in the Declaration on a Nordic Language Policy (Nordic Council of Ministers 2007, p. 13) developed by ministers for

education and culture and other governmental representatives from the Nordic countries (e.g., Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden). The policy states that both Nordic languages and English should be used as languages of science, thus, the teaching of science should be offered in both English and in Nordic languages. In other words, students and lecturers in Nordic universities have the right to use the local Nordic language in the classroom regardless of it being an EMI course. As a result, EMI studies in the Nordic countries have frequently found code-switching between English and the local Nordic language by teachers and students (e.g., Ljosland 2014 in Norway; Söderlundh 2013b, 2014 in Sweden; Mortensen 2014 in Denmark).

At universities in Sweden, Söderlundh (2014) argues that Swedish is often used as the "default language" inside and outside of the EMI classroom, during group discussions and questions to teachers in front of the class. Ethnographic studies of Swedish EMI courses have also found teachers and students displaying preference towards Swedish in the EMI courses (e.g., Airey 2011; Kuteeva 2014; Airey and Linder 2006), and using Swedish even when "international students" were present (Söderlundh 2014). This is not to say that all Swedish students' English language proficiency is low. Swedish speakers are known to have overall high English language proficiency (Education First 2020), and some Swedish university students' reading comprehension abilities are found to be even better than L1 English users (Shaw and McMillion 2008). Rather, some studies report that English is often positioned as "the language of exchange students" by the Swedish students and lecturers (e.g., Söderlundh 2013a, 2013b, 2014). What this means is that Swedish students and lecturers do not see the need to speak English between Swedish speakers, and see English as a tool for communicating between speakers who do not speak Swedish. In turn, exchange students are "treated as English speaking students" (Söderlundh 2013b, p. 96) regardless of their L1s and English language proficiency.

However, as it will be discussed below, it is too simplistic to categorize international students as all the same "English speaking students", as there exist differences among the international students in terms of their English language proficiency that may cause friction among them.

#### *2.2. Student Challenges in EMI*

Despite the positive outcomes and potentials of EMI courses (Galloway 2020), there are challenges that students face in the classroom. These challenges are often regarding, but not limited to, students' language proficiency in English (e.g., Airey 2011; Airey and Linder 2006; Wilkinson and Yasuda 2013; Tsuneyoshi 2005) and content knowledge (Pessoa et al. 2014). For instance, Airey and his colleague found Swedish students being hesitant to ask and answer questions in English in front of the class, and displaying difficulty taking and reviewing notes when lectures were conducted in English (Airey 2011; Airey and Linder 2006). Moreover, Pessoa et al. (2014) reported on students having difficulties with reading comprehension not only due to a lack of vocabulary and reading stamina, but also background knowledge.

Student challenges could also be attributed to the English language proficiency of the lecturer and peers. Studies reported on students' difficulties in understanding lecturers' accents (Evans and Morrison 2011). There are also reports of lecturers providing less content when switching to English due to their lack of English language fluency (Tatzl 2011), such as students commenting that "everything is a bit slower" (p. 259) and the content is "reduced to 60–80% instead of 100%" (p. 259). However, the slower pace of lectures and reduced content could also be the teacher's intentional teaching strategy to avoid non-understanding and support the less proficient students (Galloway et al. 2017; Tatzl 2011).

International students who join EMI courses have their own challenges, such as the lack of the local language and low English language proficiency of the lecturers and peers. Code-switching to the local language is often reported in EMI courses (e.g., Galloway et al. 2017), but this can lead to the dissatisfaction of international students. For instance, Galloway et al. (2017) report an anecdote of an international student withdrawing from courses because the lecturer had low English language proficiency and spoke in the local language too frequently.

#### *2.3. Challenges of International Students in Swedish EMI*

The challenges that international students face in EMI courses are, in general, similar to what non-international students experience. However, international students who join Swedish universities have additional issues of the parallel language policy and the frequent use of the local language. EMI courses with parallel language use are not easy to navigate for students with limited Swedish ability.

Söderlundh (2013a), in her study examining six EMI courses, exemplified a situation where the lecturer responds to a student's request to translate a word into Swedish, but he continues talking in Swedish. When an exchange student coughs loudly to capture the lecturer's attention, the lecturer realizes that he needs to speak in English and switches back to English. However, not all exchange students have the courage to take such action in front of a class and to do "language-policing" (Amir and Musk 2013) of the lecturer. Not all exchange students may even have the language proficiency to follow the dialogue and know when and how to intervene.

Kuteeva (2020) investigated student attitudes towards English use in EMI courses and code-switching practices at a Swedish university through interviews. Although this was a small-scale study with only two local students and three international students, she similarly found that code-switching between Swedish and English was a common practice in student interactions. Moreover, she found that being able to speak Swedish granted the international students access to different student groups, including the "elite" Swedish student group, which was advantageous when completing group tasks. This finding resonates with other studies that find students having high proficiency in English and Swedish holds prestige in the university context (Hult 2012; Söderlundh 2013a). Söderlundh (2013a) writes, "native knowledge of English, or *almost* native knowledge, appears as the only truly, non-negotiable mobile linguistic resource at the international university" (p. 129). In other words, students who do *not* speak Swedish or English at a very high level of proficiency will struggle to join mainstream student groups and perhaps struggle to complete group tasks.

Kuteeva's (2020) study also touched upon a case where an international student shared her frustration towards another international student with lower English language proficiency who did not complete the group task due to non-understanding or misunderstanding. However, as Kuteeva (2020) admits, these international students with lower English language proficiency were not included in the study.

This is true with other EMI studies in Sweden. Frequently, "international students" in these EMI studies conducted in Sweden would often be multilingual students who speak both Swedish and English or be L1 or highly proficient English speakers from the US, India, or Germany (e.g., Kuteeva et al. 2015; Kuteeva 2020). The voices of international students with relatively low Swedish and English language proficiency are rarely heard in the EMI literature in Sweden. What are the attitudes and experiences of these students with the Swedish EMI courses? With an increasing number of students from Asia and the Middle East joining Swedish EMI programs, the perspectives of students with relatively low English language proficiency are becoming increasingly important.

The current study therefore aims to shed light on these unheard voices of international exchange students, who have relatively lower English and Swedish language proficiency, and examine what their experiences and attitudes are towards the EMI courses in Sweden.

#### **3. Methods**

The data collection took place at a university in southern Sweden. At the time of the data collection, the university had agreements with multiple Japanese universities, and approximately 40 exchange students were coming from Japan every year. In order to

identify the language use and attitudes of Japanese exchange students towards the EMI courses at the university in Sweden, two methods were employed: student questionnaires and a focus group interview with students.

#### *3.1. Student Questionnaire*

A questionnaire was created based on the findings of studies mentioned above (e.g., Airey 2011; Evans and Morrison 2011; Galloway et al. 2017; Hult 2012; Söderlundh 2013a) to seek the perspectives of the Japanese students in terms of language use in the EMI classrooms. For example, the questions focused on seeking whether students had difficulty with the accents and code-switching by the lecturer and peers, as well as other difficulties they had experienced in the EMI classroom in terms of language use. The questions also aimed to highlight the needs the exchange students may have that may be particular to this group. The questions included a 4-point Likert scale question, a question that allowed multiple answers, and open-ended questions.

The questionnaire was distributed to the Japanese student groups through an online form. A total of 25 students completed the questionnaire: 11 students studying during the Spring term of 2019 and 14 students from the Fall term of 2019. No noticeable differences were found between the two groups in terms of their backgrounds. Therefore, the answers were combined. All participants were exchange students based on agreements between universities. Their self-reported English language proficiency test scores were between IELTS 5 and 6.5, with the mode being band score 6. At the time of the data collection, all exchange students were taking face-to-face classroom courses. For a quantitative study, 25 responses is a relatively low sample size. However, considering the total number of Japanese exchange students attending this university, I argue that the sample is a sufficient representation of this target population.

#### *3.2. Focus Group Interview*

After the questionnaire, a focus group interview was conducted with four students to gather in-depth experiences based on the responses from the questionnaire. Interviewees were recruited through an online message board for Japanese exchange students at the university, and the four students volunteered to participate in the interview. The researcher did not know these students prior to the interview. The questions focused on their language use in and outside the classroom, life on and off campus, and preparation before their study abroad. The interview was semi-structured with set questions that were then followed up with additional questions. The researcher had no contact with or knowledge of any of the lecturers or courses the participants were taking. Therefore, the participants may have felt more comfortable to share their honest perspectives on the EMI courses they were taking.

The interview lasted for approximately two hours. During the interview, I made sure that all students were given equal opportunities to express their opinions. The interview was transcribed and analyzed to seek connections to the findings from the questionnaire results and to identify new themes, if any.

Both the questionnaire and interview were conducted in Japanese in order to secure clarity. Therefore, the tables and quotes shown below are based on translations made by the author. The translated questionnaire questions are presented in Appendix A, and the translated interview questions can be found in Appendix B.

#### **4. Results**

The questionnaire and interview data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively, seeking patterns that arise from the data. I first begin by analyzing the findings from the questionnaire, focusing on the closed questions while using the answers from the open-ended questions to better understand the responses. I then moved on to analyze the findings from the focus group interview in the two major areas of EMI courses: group discussions and lectures.

#### *4.1. Questionnaire*

Table 1 displays student responses on their attitudes of language use in Swedish classrooms. The statements students were asked to respond to are displayed on the left side of the table. Responses were on a four-point Likert scale as follows: 4—"strongly agree"; 3—"agree"; 2—"disagree"; 1—"strongly disagree". The mean and standard deviation for each selected question is shown in the table.

**Table 1.** Language use in the Swedish EMI classroom.


As it can be seen, overall, the Japanese exchange students view English as a universal language in the university. Many students agree that English is enough when communicating with lecturers and non-Swedish students, with a mean of 3.32 for Q1 and 3.2 for Q2. Moreover, in general, the students do not see Swedish necessary when studying and communicating with students (Q9–10). However, what is interesting is that not all students agree that English is enough when studying at a Swedish university (Q5, mean 2.8). The reason for this is perhaps found in Q6 (mean 2.76) where students do not necessarily see that English is enough when communicating with Swedish students, thus implying the need for Swedish when communicating with the Swedish students.

The majority of the students indicate that they understand English during the lecture (Q3), with a mean of 3.0 points and a relatively low standard deviation of 0.58. Moreover, there is a certain degree of agreement that the students believe their English improved through the EMI courses and study abroad (Q4, mean 2.92). Therefore, just from Table 1, it seems that, overall, the Japanese exchange students are engaged and learning through the EMI courses at the Swedish university.

However, the question focusing on the language issues paints a different picture of the experiences of these Japanese exchange students, and highlights the struggles the students experienced in the EMI courses. Table 2 summarizes the multiple answer question where students were asked which of the listed issues they had experienced during the EMI courses. A total of 15 items were presented as options, which were based on the findings from previous studies discussed in the literature review.


**Table 2.** Language issues in Swedish EMI lectures.

What can be found from Table 2 is that the majority of the issues the Japanese exchange students experienced in the EMI courses could be attributed to their lack of English language proficiency. Overall, 56% of the respondents answered that they struggled with technical English words used by the lecturer (Q1), and 52% answered that the lecturer spoke too fast (Q2). One student commented that their lecturer had been teaching at a university in the US, and "the lecturer's English was very fast and it was very difficult to catch what was being said" (S17). This corresponds with what Macaro (2018) calls the "ostrich model" EMI course, where the instructor does not incorporate any language support into the teaching.

This lack of English language proficiency could be related to the responses for Q3 as well. It was found that 44% of the students indicated that there was too much writing on the PowerPoint slides, which caused issues for them during the EMI courses. Some students commented, "The lecturer just read out the PowerPoint and I did not feel the need to be in class" (S14) or "The teachers put as much information as possible into the PowerPoint and I was bewildered" (S6). This practice could have been undertaken to support the understanding of students in class, or even to support the lecturer with their English. Nevertheless, many of the exchange students saw this practice as problematic. One reason for the problem could be because of the difficulty of reading and listening at the same time, which has a higher cognitive demand. Moreover, if the student cannot understand a technical English word used in the PowerPoint, as indicated in Q1, this would also slow down their reading speed and comprehension. This is similar to what Airey and Linder (2006) reported with students expressing their difficulties listening to lectures and taking notes at the same time in EMI lectures, which is also a high-cognitive-demand activity.

In the open-ended question that asked what kind of study abroad preparations the participants were glad they did or they wished they had done, three students commented they were glad they had studied the subject in Japan. Two students, in contrast, commented that they wished they had studied technical words in their area of study in Swedish or English before the study abroad program. In other words, when a new concept and a new word were introduced at the same time, with a high rate of speech in the second language (L2), the exchange students demonstrated issues with understanding and learning. Thus, having some background knowledge to understand the concept or key terms in the L2

would have reduced the cognitive load of the students, and supported the classroom learning experience of the students.

Several students commented that they appreciated lecturers who were supportive towards students with low English language proficiency, such as themselves. One student commented, "All the teachers were very proficient in their English, and they were kind enough to support students' English language mistakes. They would say 'ask me if you don't understand', recommended essay editing websites, or didn't force Japanese students who are not willing to speak English to answer questions" (S6). The teaching practice by this particular lecturer seems to follow the EMI model that sees language support as necessary and incorporates it into the course instruction (Airey and Linder 2006).

Unlike previous studies (e.g., Söderlundh 2013a, 2014), the use of Swedish was not raised as a substantial language issue in the EMI courses for the Japanese exchange students. There were only a handful of cases where students reported on the use of Swedish by the lecturer and teaching material as issues. However, as shown in Q9, Q13, and Q14, there were a few reports of lecturers using Swedish in the EMI course (4–12%), and sometimes not providing translations after using Swedish (Q10, 4%). One student commented, "In classes where there were a lot of Swedish students, the teacher used Swedish words and it made it difficult to understand" (S9). Another student commented, "I want all the Swedish in the slides to be translated into English" (S8). This is interesting since in Kuteeva (2014), she reports on a student complaining about having slides in English and the lecture in Swedish, as this was confusing for the Swedish students. Here, we find the opposite where the slides were partially in Swedish and the lecture was in English, and it was confusing for the exchange students. Perhaps the use of Swedish in the slides was meant to support the understanding of the Swedish students. Nevertheless, it caused issues with the non-Swedish-speaking exchange students.

What was reported to be a bigger issue in terms of language use was the variety of Englishes used in the classroom. In Q4, Q5, and Q6, we see that students (20–36%) had issues with accents and the use of grammar of the lecturers. Some students commented in the questionnaire that, "The teacher had a strong accent that it was difficult to understand" (S9) or "The Swedish lectures did not have a strong accent and was easy to understand, but lecturers from other countries had a strong accent and it was sometimes difficult to understand" (S10). This is similar to the findings from Evans and Morrison (2011) where students expressed trouble understanding the lecturer's English because of the unfamiliar accents. One student even commented, "People have different accents" (S7), as if the student did not know this before coming to Sweden. From the questionnaire, it is difficult to know what type of accent caused students to have difficulty understanding the lectures. What can be said, however, is that some students were unfamiliar with the different variety of accents used by the lectures.

In connection to teaching style, Q7 and Q8 present conflicting results where some students feel the lecturer's explanation is too long while others feel it is not enough. There was not much more information that could be found regarding this point in the comments and nothing conclusive could be said. However, reviewing what was reported above, there seems to be a wide range of practices by lecturers in the EMI courses: (a) some lecturers show more support and understanding towards EFL exchange students than others, (b) some lecturers use non-inner circle accents and others do not, and (c) some lecturers use Swedish and others do not. The responses from the questionnaire highlight the different learning situations the exchange students are required to adapt to in a short given time using their limited L2 English abilities.

What I had not anticipated that emerged from the questionnaire responses were the challenges the exchange students faced during the group discussions. Previous research on Swedish EMI courses also investigated the language use during group discussions, but often emphasized the mutual intelligibility of the speakers (e.g., Björkman 2008). In the open-ended questions where participants were asked to share any issues they had in class, including lectures, group discussions, and assignments, seven out of the 25 respondents

(28%) commented on struggles they had during group work or group discussions. All seven of them indicated their surprise with the high English language proficiency of other students, despite them also being L2 speakers, and their struggles of not being able to contribute to the discussion despite wanting to. Student comments include: "The group discussion went forward without me saying anything. It's not that I don't have an opinion but I couldn't say it. I felt inferior" (S15), and "It's a challenge for me to keep up with the discussion with Swedish and German students. Even though they are also L2 speakers they speak almost as fluently as native speakers, and while I'm thinking what to say, the topic moves on to the next point" (S21). Other comments were similar, where students expressed their shock with the advanced level of English of the L2-speaking students in the Swedish EMI courses and the large discrepancy from their English language proficiencies.

Another issue that emerged through the open-ended questions, which is not frequently discussed in EMI research in Sweden, is the students' struggles with the reading materials. Although a minority, two students commented on the heavy reading load and their struggles. One student commented, "I have lessons for this course everyday. But I have two or more readings I have to do (everyday). It's a challenge" (S23). This aligns with findings from Pecorari et al. (2011) where the majority of the Swedish students taking EMI courses in Sweden also expressed struggles with textbooks written in English. These students expressed that it takes longer for them to read the English textbook than it would if it were written in Swedish. Thus, reading academic texts in English is an issue even for high English proficiency students in Sweden, and reading assignments need to be considered carefully by the EMI lecturers.

#### *4.2. Focus Group Interview*

In order to gather deeper insights into the experiences of these Japanese exchange students and to confirm the findings from the questionnaire, a focus group interview was conducted. Interviewees included the following four students: Ami, Ben, Chika, and Dai (all pseudonyms). Ami and Chika attended the same university in Japan, which was known for its EMI-oriented program. Therefore, the two students had been exposed to EMI courses before arriving in Sweden and had some confidence in their English language ability. Ben, in contrast, majored in Sports education in Japan and had not taken any English language courses at the university level before arriving in Sweden. He had low English language proficiency and low self-confidence in terms of English language use. Dai majored in English literature and had taken multiple English language proficiency courses in Japan. Therefore, although not being exposed to EMI courses before coming to Sweden, he had a moderate level of English language proficiency and confidence. The interviewees' information is summarized below in Table 3.


**Table 3.** Interviewees.

The aim of the focus group interview was to confirm the answers from the questionnaire and to seek a more detailed description of the students' experiences in Sweden. Therefore, the interview questions were not limited to questions about language use in the classroom, but also included questions regarding communication outside the classroom. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will focus on the responses related to classroom language use during group discussions and lectures.

#### 4.2.1. Group Discussions

When I asked the interviewees about what they felt, in general, about EMI courses in Sweden, the topic of group discussion came up immediately and throughout the whole interview. Some of the themes that were raised repeatedly by multiple interviewees regarding group discussions were their issues with: (a) the rate of speech, (b) turn-taking, and (c) background knowledge.

Ami and Chika both attended a university in Japan that was EMI program oriented. Therefore, they mentioned that EMI lectures in Sweden did not feel any different from the courses they had taken in Japan. However, the rate of speech by their peers was much faster than expected. Ami said, "They can say what they think in English directly. I have to think first and then make it into English. So I can't keep up with the conversation".

This rate of speech seemed to have also affected the turn-taking during group discussions. Even Ami and Chika, who had previous experience with group discussions, had trouble with turn-taking. Ami said, "There was this Swedish student in my group who was really into it, and we couldn't even slip a word in. The person, like, said everything". Chika agreed and said, "I tried to say something, but when I paused, the person next to me said everything (what I was going to say)". Ami and Chika mentioned that the group discussions they had participated in Japan were in English, but were at the pace of Japanese L2 English speakers; thus, these did not fully prepare them for such fast-paced group discussions.

Ben, who had little English language training before coming to Sweden, however, found his own strategy to cope with this high rate of speech and fast pace of turn taking. He mentioned that he would always prepare notes on what to say before class. Furthermore, he mentioned that Ami and Chika would help him find the right moment to say his prepared opinion during the group discussion. Ben said, "I had a cheat sheet", and "(Ami and Chika would tell me) Read this! Go!" Therefore, knowing the discussion questions and having ample time to prepare allowed Ben to participate in the group discussion despite his low language proficiency. What is interesting here is that, even if the students prepared for the group discussions with opinions to share and had some experience in conducting group discussions, they needed to know "when" and "how" to join a discussion at a fast speech rate. In other words, the interviewees were displaying trouble with *turn-taking* during multi-party talk, which has yet to be discussed as an academic skill that can be introduced in the language classroom (e.g., Ryan and Forrest 2021; Wong and Waring 2010).

Another point that affected the interviewee's participation seems to stem from differences in background knowledge. Ami said, "I didn't feel excluded because of my English, but I felt excluded because of my background knowledge". She continued to explain that most of the students in her class were from the EU, and thus, had plentiful knowledge regarding EU politics and history. However, as someone who was educated in Asia, there was a lot she did not know, and thus, she could not easily join the discussion. Dai also mentioned that sometimes the conversation would move on to discuss differences in education systems, scholarships, health insurance, and gender equality between countries, and that the topics were "difficult". This could be due to the lack of exposure to various topics through their English education in Japan (see Siegel 2014). However, Ami mentioned that, although feeling excluded, she was able to share her knowledge about Japan. Dai also mentioned that the more background knowledge he had, even if it was about Japan, the more he could talk and contribute to the discussion. Therefore, similar to the findings from the questionnaire, background knowledge seems to affect the engagement of the exchange students in the discussion, as well as their mental state of being "included" in the group.

Swedish use during group discussions was not raised as a major issue, but the interviewees reported that there was use of Swedish. Chika mentioned that, one time, everyone in the group was Swedish besides her. They were initially speaking English, but "when it got into more complex content and the discussion got heated up they went on speaking in Swedish. But if I asked, they would translate everything into English for me". Therefore, Swedish existed in the EMI group discussions, but the interviewees did not see it as a

critical issue. Rather, being "included" in the group or not seemed to be a more important issue.

Ben mentioned that the Swedish students were "kind", but he was not confident about how they saw him as a group member when undertaking group work. Ben mentioned, "I didn't know what they thought of Japanese people. I felt I had to say something. Or else they won't know what I'm thinking or if I really understood what they were saying". Ami followed up and shared an episode; "I would ask what they just said, and they would say 'what?' and that facial expression is scary and I would feel 'I don't want to talk any more'". Ben agreed with this statement. Although this incident may be due to individual or cultural differences, it suggests the sensitive state the exchange students are in. That is, the exchange students are lacking the background knowledge and language ability (English and Swedish) to feel "included", and small misunderstandings with peers could affect their confidence and emotional state.

#### 4.2.2. Lectures

With regard to lectures, all interviewees agreed that they understood the lectures (some more than others) and the lecturers' language was comprehensible. In terms of the use of Swedish, Dai mentioned that his lecturer almost exclusively spoke in English, probably because it was a course that many exchange students were taking. He also mentioned that the lecturer would sometimes fall back on Swedish, but would translate it into English. Ami and Ben also mentioned that in a course that was aimed at exchange students, the teacher was trying very hard to speak in English all the time, even using Google translate to find words in English. This aligns with studies that highlight lack of confidence and English proficiency of EMI lecturers (e.g., Dang et al. 2021; Galloway et al. 2017; Kim et al. 2018). However, the interviewees did not see the use of the translation device as negative; rather, took it as a positive action that the lecturer was doing their best to communicate in English.

None of the interviewees mentioned issues regarding reading assignments or having too much writing in the lecture slides. However, they appreciated having the lecture slides uploaded to an online platform after the lectures. Ben, in particular, mentioned how he would review the lecture using the uploaded slides and handouts and use them to complete his writing assignments. What we see here is that language use, teaching, and learning goes beyond the face-to-face lecture, and having materials available that students can refer to outside the classroom supports the students' learning process.

#### **5. Discussion**

#### *5.1. Summary of Findings*

The questionnaire and focus group interview helped address the questions related to the Japanese exchange students' attitudes (i.e., RQ1) and the issues (i.e., RQ2) regarding language use in the Swedish EMI courses.

In terms of student attitudes, the findings indicate that the exchange students, overall, understood the lectures and the lecturers' use of English. However, they had negative attitudes towards the overuse of technical words, fast rates of speech by lecturers and classmates, and dense writing on the lecture slides. The advanced English language proficiency of the Swedes and other European classmates and differences in background knowledge in some subject areas were a surprise to many of the participants. Due to these points, some felt "excluded" from the non-exchange student group, despite their efforts in terms of studying hard and attempting to communicate their ideas to others.

The issues the students faced in the classroom regarding language practices were connected with the negative attitudes raised above. The high rate of speech and the use of technical words was the most commonly mentioned issue. However, the interview result suggested that the issue is not necessarily the speed of comprehension, but the speed required to jump into the conversation to take their turn or to keep their turn during group discussions. Moreover, the issue with technical words was found to be connected to the lack of background knowledge and English language proficiency. Swedish use by lectures and peers was reported, similar to previous studies; however, it was not as frequently reported as in other studies. One reason for this could be because exchange students were taking some courses that were exclusively for exchange students. Nevertheless, the few who did report on Swedish use by the lecturer expressed issues with it.

#### *5.2. Voices of the Japanese Exchange Students*

Previous EMI studies in Sweden have displayed exchange students as being positioned as "problematic" by other students due to their low English language proficiency (e.g., Kuteeva 2020). The findings from the current study confirmed this, and the overall low language proficiency was found to hinder the exchange students' performance in the classroom and reduce their opportunities to become members of the university community (Wenger 1998). Looking at the relatively low IELTS scores of the Japanese exchange students (i.e., Band score 5–6.5), it is speculated that students with higher English language proficiencies usually go to the L1-English-speaking countries such as the US, the UK, and Australia for their exchange programs, and the relatively lower-proficiency students are coming to Sweden because it is an EFL country. What the students and universities in Japan are not aware of, before arriving, is the high English language proficiency of Swedes and the high expectations of the Swedish EMI courses. Moreover, it was reported that, in general, the Japanese education system is not preparing their students for EMI (Taguchi and Naganuma 2006).

However, as seen from the answers from the questionnaire, the Japanese exchange students have their own story. There are students who have EMI experience before arriving in Sweden, and have trained themselves for lectures and group discussions in English. There are students who, although trying their best, have limited English and academic capacity in what they can achieve and are struggling to keep up with lectures, discussions, and reading assignments. A student in the questionnaire summed up the situation of the Japanese exchange students: "I took EMI courses in Japan. I did discussions only in English. I read English articles and critically analyzed them. But after coming here, I can't participate in the discussion. I can't keep up with the heavy reading load. I can't understand what the teacher is saying. This situation is really shocking for me" (S21).

The blame cannot be placed just on the Japanese exchange students for their low performance. One student commented, "I didn't have much experience with discussion, and initially, I was worried and startled. But the lecturer instructed me step by step, and I got used to it". (S16). Therefore, as mentioned previously, there seems to be a range of practices employed by the EMI lecturers: those who acknowledge the linguistic support some students require and are able to provide it, and those who conduct EMI courses as if they are teaching L1 English students and/or students with high academic competence. Having EMI courses that employ the former approach, that is, with more linguistic support, the Japanese exchange students could possibly participate more and perform better in the EMI courses.

#### *5.3. Systemic Issues of Study Abroad in Sweden*

When considering how one can support exchange students to perform better in the Swedish EMI courses, there seem to be two systemic issues that are beyond the individual students' efforts that need to be addressed. The first issue is related to the ways in which Swedish universities are perceived by university administrators in Japan. Since Sweden is an EFL context, the language proficiency threshold for students to join the exchange program is apparently lower than going to L1-English-speaking countries. As a result, students with relatively lower English language proficiencies are accepted into Swedish universities, and they struggle to keep up with the advanced English language proficiency of their peers. Although the exchange program brings valuable experience to the exchange students in terms of being able to engage with students with higher levels of language and academic performance, universities may want to reassess the threshold of the English

language proficiency requirements of students to avoid any false understanding of the expectations of the students. More awareness-raising of the Swedish learning context (i.e., highly proficient English speakers, European background knowledge) would benefit the exchange students as well.

The second issue is related to the ways in which educators perceive "EMI". There are various models of EMI and what it entails in terms of teaching practices, including language support (Galloway 2020). On one hand, the data illustrated that some lectures take the "concurrent support system" (Galloway 2020) where language support is provided in class, such as supporting group discussion skills, uploading materials online for review, and being available for questions. On the other hand, the findings demonstrated the "ostrich model" (Macaro 2018) being used, where there is no grading of language use by the lecturer (and peers), and there is no language support. The data also showed that the Japanese exchange students appreciated the former EMI model where language support was provided by lectures. This is not to say that all lecturers need to become language teachers, speak very slowly, and disregard the advanced level students who are capable of following the course. Instead, it indicates that lectures need to be aware of the various student backgrounds and proficiency levels, and if necessary, have a pre-requisite English language proficiency level, provide some form of learning support (e.g., provide the lecture slides before the lectures), and adjust their language as needed (e.g., avoid the overuse of technical words). This finding is consistent with a recent meta-analysis of studies on EMI educators in higher education where Dang et al. (2021) found most EMI educators did not perceive it as being their role to support the development of the students' English language abilities. The authors suggest that there is a need to "provide clarity and adequate support in negotiating the tensions from perceived roles and expectations of EMI educators" (p. 14).

The internationalization of universities brings together lecturers and students with various backgrounds, and creates opportunities for a rich learning experience. However, it also brings cases where a certain group of students cannot reach their full potential due to language-related issues. By bringing more awareness to systemic issues, as mentioned above, more exchange students could feel like and become members of the university learning community (Wenger 1998).

#### *5.4. Limitations of the Study*

The study, however, has its limitations. In particular, the questionnaire questions may have been unclear or phrased in a biased way. For example, a "strong accent" may have been interpreted or experienced in different ways, and some participants may have wished to choose an "unsure" option for the Likert scale question. Moreover, the phrasing of the question "What issues have you had with the lecturers' language use" presupposes existing issues and may have been a leading question, although there is a "no problem" option. Different phrasing of the questions may have led to slightly different outcomes of the questionnaire.

#### **6. Conclusions**

The current study problematized the lack of representation of short-term exchange students with limited English language ability in Swedish EMI literature, and brought to light the perspectives and experiences of Japanese exchange students attending EMI courses at a Swedish university. The questionnaire and focus group interview confirmed previous studies regarding the classroom practices of using Swedish and students with lower English language proficiency being excluded at times. More importantly, the study was able to highlight the strategies and efforts being made by the Japanese exchange students in order to contribute to the classroom discussions and complete the courses. Moreover, EMI course lecturers' teaching practices affected the confidence and self-reported performance of the exchange students. Although this study was small in its scale and limited in scope, it was able to exemplify research focusing on an under-represented group at the tertiary education level and their language practices in the classroom. With the increasing number of students with various learning backgrounds and language abilities joining higher education in Sweden, more investigations that have participants with a focused demographic can be beneficial in understanding what is actually happening in the classrooms and how learning can be maximized among the members of certain groups.

**Funding:** This study was supported by the Scandinavia-Japan Sasakawa Foundation: GA19-0413.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

#### **Appendix A. Questionnaire Questions**

Q1. Select the answer that best fits your views.


Q2. What issues have you had with the lecturers' language use (select all that apply).

Has a strong English accent Uses an unfamiliar English accent Speaking English too fast Uses a lot of technical English words Uses Swedish Does not translate after using Swedish Uses Swedish for technical words English vocabulary is different from what I learned English vocabulary is sometimes incorrect English grammar is sometimes incorrect

Uses Swedish in power points Writes too much on the PowerPoint (in English) Explanations are long Does not explain a lot No problems Other (please specify)

Q3. What preparations did you do before studying abroad to Sweden that you found useful?

Q4. What preparations do you wish you had done before studying abroad to Sweden? Q5. Describe in detail what you noticed about the language use in the classroom (lectures, discussions, etc.).

#### **Appendix B. Core Interview Questions**


#### **References**


## *Article* **Accuracy and Fluency Teaching and the Role of Extramural English: A Tale of Three Countries**

**Alexandra Schurz 1,\*, Marion Coumel <sup>2</sup> and Julia Hüttner <sup>1</sup>**


**\*** Correspondence: alexandra.schurz@univie.ac.at

**Abstract:** European learners of English are increasingly using this language recreationally, which is referred to as Extramural English (henceforth EE). The level of EE use in a given country might be reflected in English Language Teaching (ELT) practices. Yet, no research so far has examined crossnationally what potential for language learning teachers perceive in their learners' EE engagement and how this relates to ELT practices. To address this gap, the present study draws on interview data from lower secondary English teachers from Austria, France, and Sweden (*n* = 20). They were enquired about (1) their students' EE engagement and its effects on learning, (2) their accuracy and fluency teaching methods, and (3) the perceived link between EE and ELT. Swedish teachers seemed to have a more positive and fine-grained conceptualization of the impact of EE on learning than Austrian and French participants, especially in terms of grammar acquisition. The implicit learning environment that Swedish students encounter extramurally might extend to the classroom, where the use of explicit grammar rules occurs less dominantly than in the Austrian and French samples. The countries converged in the type of fluency-based instruction they reported. Gaps in language areas not (fully) developed through EE seem to be more intentionally addressed in ELT in Sweden.

**Keywords:** English language teaching; accuracy teaching; implicit vs. explicit instruction; inductive vs. deductive instruction; fluency teaching; extramural English

### **1. Introduction**

In Europe and beyond, English has spread into learners' spare time language practices, which Sundqvist (2009) coined as Extramural English (henceforth EE). Until recently, the onset and intensity of learners' EE use in a given country was determined by whether English-language films and series were subtitled, i.e., supplemented by subtitles in the country's majority language, or dubbed, i.e., with original soundtracks being replaced by translated soundtracks. Unsurprisingly, EE engagement happened, and partly still happens, much sooner and more widely in subtitling countries, like Finland, Norway, and Sweden, than in dubbing countries, like Austria, France, and Spain. However, with the surge in online services, including on-demand platforms for music, series, and films, content is more easily available in original language globally. As such, EE is now becoming an increasingly important factor in students' language learning trajectories across countries, and such informal language use may in fact provide a key support for language learning and teaching (Pujadas and Muñoz 2020). However, the relationship between students' engagement in EE and English Language Teaching (henceforth ELT) practices remains under-investigated.

The level of EE use in a given context is likely to be reflected in teaching practices. For instance, previous research has shown that ELT in Sweden seems to rely more strongly on implicit fluency-based instruction than in Austria and in France, where, in contrast, teachers appear to provide more explicit grammar instruction (Schurz and Coumel 2020).

**Citation:** Schurz, Alexandra, Marion Coumel, and Julia Hüttner. 2022. Accuracy and Fluency Teaching and the Role of Extramural English: A Tale of Three Countries. *Languages* 7: 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages7010035

Academic Editors: Pia Sundqvist, Erica Sandlund, Marie Källkvist and Henrik Gyllstad

Received: 26 October 2021 Accepted: 5 February 2022 Published: 14 February 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

However, given the current stark increase in the use of EE also in dubbing countries, crossnational differences in the way English is learned are partly being neutralized. This might call for the need to find teaching methods that would be most fitting in contexts of high EE usage as well as with increasingly diverse learner groups, owing to different levels and types of EE engagement. In this endeavor, it is especially pertinent to explore what learners already bring to the classroom through EE and in what way ELT can complement those experiences. An exploration of these aspects is particularly informative if done comparatively across countries with varying levels of EE engagement. This study is the first to examine cross-nationally (i.e., in Austria, France, and Sweden) what potential for English language learning teachers perceive in their learners' EE engagement, and how this might relate to ELT practices—notably in terms of grammatical accuracy and fluency teaching.

In the following Section 1.1, we outline the key constructs of extramural English, accuracy, and fluency teaching, while Section 1.2 provides an overview of EE and ELT in Austria, France, and Sweden.

#### *1.1. Key Constructs*

#### 1.1.1. Extramural English (EE)

Extramural English designates English students' contact with English outside of the classroom (Sundqvist 2009, p. 25). This concept has been further defined as learners' primarily voluntary engagement in English activities with the goal of entertainment, with learning happening primarily incidentally rather than intentionally (Sundqvist and Sylvén 2016). The EE research in Europe has been carried out primarily in subtitling countries but is currently also emerging in dubbing countries. These studies clearly show the positive effect of such engagement on language learning, in terms of vocabulary knowledge (e.g., Peters and Webb 2018; Schwarz 2020), listening (e.g., Kuppens 2010; Lefever 2010), reading (e.g., Lefever 2010; Verspoor et al. 2011), and speaking skills (e.g., Lyrigkou 2019; Sundqvist 2009), grammar acquisition (e.g., Muñoz et al. 2021; Pattemore and Muñoz 2020), and learner motivation and/or confidence (e.g., Hannibal Jensen 2019; Sundqvist and Sylvén 2014).

Recently there has been an emerging interest in the effect of EE on ELT. Such research has shown that integrating EE-like material in class, i.e., authentic material that students might also use extramurally, can raise language awareness (e.g., of different registers) (Thorne and Reinhardt 2008) and increase learner motivation (Henry et al. 2018). In Toffoli and Sockett (2015), only about half of the 30 French EFL university professors included in the study felt their learners' EE use influenced their teaching practices. Yet, the vast majority of professors perceived their learners' EE use as beneficial for learning, in particular for their listening skills. Besides these studies, the connection between EE and ELT has received little attention in research.

#### 1.1.2. A Categorization of the Type of Instruction

ELT tasks can be subdivided into accuracy-oriented and fluency-oriented activities (e.g., Brumfit 1984). While the former are dedicated to teaching accurate, norm-conforming language forms, such as in terms of orthography, phonology, or morphosyntax, the latter focus on improving spontaneous and seemingly effortless, fluent L2 production. In Communicative Language Teaching (henceforth CLT), i.e., the approach underlying ELT curricula and syllabi across Europe and beyond, accuracy is generally conceptualized in terms of grammar. According to CLT, accuracy and fluency teaching should ideally be combined in a balanced and meaningful way. This section provides the definition of the most important constructs within accuracy and fluency teaching, though we acknowledge that such categorizations may over-simplify actual teaching practices. Note that in this study, we focused on spoken rather than written fluency.

#### 1.1.2.1. Accuracy Teaching

In order to investigate the relative effectiveness of specific methodological choices to support the acquisition of grammatical accuracy, researchers have typically classified teaching approaches in terms of explicit vs. implicit and inductive vs. deductive instruction (e.g., Ellis 2001, 2016; Richards 2006).

In the case of explicit grammar teaching, teachers themselves bring the rules underlying target grammatical features to students' awareness. They may do so with or without using metalinguistic terminology. By contrast, in implicit instruction, learners are expected to grasp and acquire structures subconsciously. Within explicit instruction, teachers may present grammar inductively or deductively. The first technique implies that learners infer grammatical rules from text, which typically is enriched with the target feature, thus increasing its saliency. In deductive instruction, teachers present grammatical rules and in turn ask students to practice and produce applications thereof ('PPP' method). Involving students in working out rules themselves is more in line with the learner-centred approach of CLT and may increase learning outcomes (Richards 2006).

#### 1.1.2.2. Fluency Teaching

While (grammatical) accuracy is a fairly well-defined construct, the complementary concept of fluency is much less clearly described. Lennon (1990) distinguishes between fluency in a broad sense, i.e., as a near-synonym to proficiency, and in a narrow sense, as referring to "the psycholinguistic processes of speech planning and speech production ( ... ) functioning easily and efficiently" (Lennon 1990, p. 391). Research on fluency has mostly focused on the narrow view of fluency. Key predictors of proficient fluency are speakers' speech rate (usually measured in syllables per minute), mean length of runs (i.e., syllables produced between pauses), and numbers of dysfluencies and (filled and unfilled) pauses (Lennon 1990; Préfontaine and Kormos 2015). In terms of teaching practice, this body of research suggests positive effects of explicit instructions in the use of formulaic sequences (Wray 2008), increased planning time for tasks (e.g., Tavakoli and Skehan 2005), and repetition, possibly with increased time pressure (e.g., Sample and Michel 2014).

Tavakoli and Hunter (2018) established, however, that teachers in the UK, firstly, generally interpret fluency in the broad sense, with a focus on speaking only and additionally on conveying clear meaning. Secondly, these research-based suggestions found hardly any uptake in teachers, whereas communicative free production activities and general language proficiency activities (e.g., listening to Native Speakers, vocabulary work, etc.) were mentioned by 53.6% and 13.5% of respondents, respectively (ibid., p. 339). This is in line with experiences in other countries, like Austria (Hüttner 2013), and with teacher guidance found in popular resources (e.g., Richards 2015; Hedge 2008) as well as in the descriptors of the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe 2009).

### *1.2. EE and ELT in Austria, France, and Sweden* 1.2.1. Extramural English

Through today's broad access to online games, social media apps, and streaming platforms, EE use is skyrocketing globally. In Sweden, 10- to 11-year-olds (*n* = 76) were found to spend a weekly average of about 7 h on EE activities (Sundqvist and Sylvén 2014), compared to 35 h among 16- to 19-year-olds (*n* = 230) (Olsson and Sylvén 2015). These numbers are expected to be even higher today, but no recent data are available. In Austria, about 40% of 13- to 14-year-old students watch films and series in English at least multiple times a month (Federal Institute for Education Research, Innovation and Development 2020), and in the capital city of Vienna, 15- to 16-year-olds reported a weekly average of 28 h of EE use (Schwarz 2020). Although no report on weekly hours are available for France, 34% of 14-year-olds reported watching subtitled English-language audio-visuals at least *once a week*, and 50% of students responded using English on the internet or in video games *often* or *very often* (National Research Center of School Systems 2019). Unfortunately, the available data do not allow for a direct comparison between

countries. However, despite the global surge in EE, we expect differences in levels of EE use between subtitling and dubbing countries to subsist. For instance, on streaming platforms such as Amazon Prime and Netflix, speakers of languages that are not as widely spoken (e.g., Finnish, Norwegian, and Swedish) generally do not have access to dubbed foreignlanguage content, whereas speakers of more widely spoken languages (e.g., German, French, and Spanish) do. Likewise, the opportunity to engage in social media content and co-gaming practices in one's first language may be more available to speakers of languages with a larger speech community.

#### 1.2.2. English Language Teaching

It is worth reviewing previous research on the type of instruction in ELT in Austria, France, and Sweden against the background of the countries' national ELT curricula. Since this study focuses on ELT in lower secondary education, we first need to briefly describe each country's school system. At the beginning of lower secondary education in Austria, the student population is split into Middle School (Ger.: *Mittelschule*) and the more selective Academic High School (Ger.: *Allgemeinbildende Höhere Schule*) at the age of 10–11 years (Austrian Federal Ministry of Education (AME) 2018a). Comparatively, in France, students follow the same educational trajectory and enter Middle School (Fr.: *Collège*) at the age of 11 (Ministère de l'Education Nationale (MEN) 2020). In Sweden, the comprehensive school system encompasses years 1–9 (Swedish National Agency for Education 2020).

Even though the countries' respective ELT curricula all purport CLT, there exist some differences in their references to grammar teaching or the lack thereof. The Middle School curricula of Austria (Austrian Federal Ministry of Education (AME) 2018b) and France (Ministère de l'Education Nationale (MEN) 2015, 2016) seem prescriptive in specifying which grammar features teachers should introduce in each grade level. Such references are absent in the curricula of the Swedish Comprehensive School (Swedish National Agency for Education 2017) and the Austrian Academic High School (Austrian Federal Ministry of Education (AME) 2020). The Austrian Middle School and Academic High School curricula (Austrian Federal Ministry of Education (AME) 2018b, 2020) additionally recommend specific grammar teaching methods, namely the use of implicit and inductive techniques. The French curriculum (Ministère de l'Education Nationale (MEN) 2015) very vaguely refers to implicit instruction when listing possible activities in reading tasks, namely the memorization and transfer of occurring structures. Such more or less specific methodological recommendations are absent in the Swedish curriculum (Swedish National Agency for Education 2017). Whereas neither the Austrian nor the French curricula refer to the students' spare time use of English, the Swedish curriculum proposes considering learners' interests, experiences, and needs in instruction (Swedish National Agency for Education 2017), which arguably includes the consideration of students' EE. Overall, these data suggest that in Sweden, teachers may have greater leeway as to what to teach, when, and how.

Focussing on teacher-reported practices, Schurz and Coumel (2020) found that lower secondary school teachers (*n* = 615) in Sweden provide significantly more implicit-fluencybased and significantly less explicit instruction than practitioners in Austria and France. These findings were corroborated by a qualitative follow-up study using teacher interviews (*n* = 20) (Schurz and Coumel 2021). The two studies further revealed that incidental (rather than systematic) grammar teaching, as based on current student needs and interests, was particularly dominant in Sweden. The authors hypothesized that this might be due to the greater proficiency diversity in Swedish classrooms, given the rare occurrence of grade repetition and a school system that is comprehensive rather than selective up to grade 9. Finally, Schurz and Coumel (2020) found that French teachers agreed more strongly to introduce grammar rules inductively (vs. deductively) than teachers from the other countries.

#### **2. Research Questions and Hypotheses**

Although the above-mentioned research suggests that ELT varies between Austria, France, and Sweden (Schurz and Coumel 2020, 2021), no study, to the best of our knowledge, has cross-nationally investigated teachers' perceptions of their learners' EE use, and how this might explain apparent differences in the type of instruction they apply. We addressed these research gaps with five research questions. We first examined lower secondary school learners' EE use (RQ1) and the impact their teachers thought such EE use had on the students' learning (RQ2). Then, to be able to assess the link between EE and ELT, we first deemed necessary to investigate which teaching practices the teachers would report using: specifically, we focused on accuracy (RQ3) and fluency teaching (RQ4). Finally, to better understand the relationship between the learners' EE engagement and English instruction, we analyzed data in which teachers themselves drew explicit links between EE and ELT (RQ5).


In response to these research questions, we formulated five hypotheses. First, we assumed that lower secondary school students in Sweden would engage more extensively in EE than students in Austria and France (H1). This was because we expected countries with subtitling practices and with a majority language that counts relatively few speakers to show higher levels of EE (see Section 1.2.1). Second, given this pattern, we also expected teachers in Sweden, a country with a longer experience in considerable EE use, to believe more strongly in the acquisitional benefits of EE as compared to teachers in Austria and France (H2). Third, based on Schurz and Coumel (2020), we hypothesized that teaching would be more explicit and rule-based in Austria and France than in Sweden (H3.1), and more inductive in France than in the other countries (H3.2). Fourth, we predicted that instruction targeting the promotion of fluency rather than accuracy would prevail in Swedish rather than Austrian and French classrooms (H4) (Schurz and Coumel 2020). Finally, while acknowledging that the data of this study would not be sufficient evidence to determine a causal relationship, we expected the teachers' methodological choices to reflect their learners' level of engagement in EE to some extent (H5), since traces thereof had previously been observed (Schurz and Coumel 2020, 2021).

#### **3. Materials and Methods**

#### *3.1. Participants*

The data collected for the present study originate from the same interviews as reported in Schurz and Coumel (2021). A total of 20 English teachers—six from Austria, seven from France, and seven from Sweden—were interviewed in November 2019–2020. We used a convenience sample and recruited teachers via the researchers' existing social and professional networks. Invitations to participate were also posted on social media, i.e., Facebook, and participants took part voluntarily. All of them teach at lower secondary level and more specifically in Austrian Middle School and Academic High School, French Middle School, and Swedish Comprehensive School. While the interviews conducted with teachers from Austria and France focused on students at the age of 13–14 years, teachers from France responded more broadly in terms of learners aged 11–15 years. The mean age of participants was 40.2, 48.4, and 43.7 years and the mean experience in teaching 16.8, 22.7, and 14.9 years for Austria, France, and Sweden, respectively. The majority of teachers taught in a public school. For the teachers' pseudonyms and their age, number of years

of teaching experience, the age group they reported on, and class sizes, see Table 1. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Vienna and the teachers provided informed consent prior to participation.


**Table 1.** Overview of the teacher sample, adapted from Schurz and Coumel (2021).

Notes. NA = Not Available.

#### *3.2. The Interviews*

The semi-structured interviews (see Table 2) contained full-length overarching questions as well as prompts for sub-topics (cf. bullet points); the former were used as such during the interviews, while the latter were used as starting points or examples to extend the discussion. The questions targeted (1) the learners' level and type of EE engagement; methods applied in (2) accuracy teaching and (3) fluency teaching and the estimated impact of EE on learners' accuracy and fluency, and (4) the link between EE and ELT, e.g., as seen in the teachers' encouragement of learner engagement in EE, the teachers' perceived impact of EE on learning, and teachers' adaptations of ELT based on the learners' EE use. Authors 1 and 2 conducted the interviews, which took place on-site (for Austria and Sweden) or online (for France), and in the participant's first language. The 10–25-min interviews were audio recorded.

**Table 2.** Outline of the teacher interviews.

	- Frequency
		- Types of activities
	- Typical ways of introducing and practicing
	- Rules and technical terminology
	- Spare time English
	- Types of activities in class
	- Spare time English
	- Encouraging use
	- Effect on grammar, speaking, etc.
	- Effect on instruction

#### *3.3. Data Analysis*

Following orthographic interview transcription, we first used MAXQDA to code the data according to the broad categories (1)–(4) listed in the previous paragraph for each teacher. We then refined our analysis with a more specific coding system. For instance, we examined the specific EE activities that the teachers reported their students to engage in (e.g., blogging, reading books, gaming, travelling, watching TV/series/films, using video apps, listening to music); teachers' use of implicit, explicit, inductive, and deductive grammar instruction; monologic and dialogic fluency-based activities and learner difficulties in such practice; the language areas that teachers believed EE would benefit; and the extent to which teachers reported accounting for EE in their language teaching practices. Finally, we summarized the findings per country, e.g., by assessing the number of teachers describing a given practice in each country.

#### **4. Results and Discussion**

#### *4.1. EE Practices (RQ1)*

As predicted (H1), based on teachers' reports, lower secondary students appear to use EE most extensively in Sweden. There, students seem to "*have English around themselves everywhere*" (Christine), "*all the time*" (Pia), and already early on (Sara). It seems to be used recreationally by all students, albeit to different degrees (Magnus). In contrast, in Austria and in France, regular EE use at that age—apart from listening to music—seems to be the exception rather than the rule. It typically concerns just a few individuals per class, as expressed by two Middle School and two Academic High School teachers. Elena pointed out that in her class, EE is used

#### *"not so much* ... *of the 16 people* ... *of [two] I can say with certainty that they definitely do something in their free time".*

While the French teachers did not quantify the amount of EE users per class, their illustrations evoked the same picture as in Austria.

The types of EE activities seemed comparable across countries, with series, videos, and gaming being favored—disregarding today's omnipresence of anglophone music. Each Austrian teacher reported there to be gamers among their eighth graders, many of whom use English to communicate with co-players. Only very few children read books in English, while three teachers affirmed that in each of their 4th grade classes some students regularly watch audio-visuals or use TikTok. Likewise, in France, series and gaming emerged as the most frequent EE activities, pointed out by four teachers. Other types of activities were conversing with others when travelling and communicating with pen pals, listed by

one French teacher each. Swedish students are also reported to most heavily engage in audiovisual media and gaming, though other EE activities, like blogging (Pia) and karaoke (Karin), were mentioned as well. Gaming and the oral or written interactions it often entails can happen quite extensively, with Pia reporting a striking 4–5 h a day for some students. Previous research, too, has shown watching audiovisuals, and, among boys, gaming to be the most popular EE activities across countries (e.g., Hahn 2018; National Research Center of School Systems 2019; Olsson and Sylvén 2015; Sundqvist and Sylvén 2012).

While in Sweden, students are to a certain degree necessarily immersed in English due to the country's subtitling practices, three Austrian and two French teachers reported that students mainly used this language recreationally out of personal interest. For instance, bloggers (or, rather, vloggers), described as "*ultra-trendy*" (Julia), often create their content in English, which leaves students with little alternatives than to use this language. Yet, one Austrian teacher, Elena, said that EE is mostly used by upper secondary students, to improve their language skills for tests.

In sum, the data allowed us to confirm H1, according to which students would engage in EE most extensively in Sweden (see Section 1.2.1). Nevertheless, EE undoubtedly has reached the dubbing countries, where sometimes already pre-teenage learners start engaging in it regularly. In general, however, the lower levels of EE reported in our Austrian sample may illustrate that countries with a majority language that is more globally used, such as German in Austria and French in France, have greater access to original or dubbed content in the given language; in contrast, countries with a majority language that counts relatively few speakers, such as Sweden, show higher levels of EE (see Section 1.2.1).

#### *4.2. The Effect of EE on Learning (RQ2)*

While the general attitude of lower secondary teachers towards the effect of EE on learning was rather positive across the three groups, the starkest cross-country differences emerged in terms of whether teachers thought that EE supported grammar learning. The Swedish teachers indeed believed more strongly in the benefits of EE on grammar learning than teachers from the other countries, which provides partial support for H2 (see below).

First of all, the teachers from the three countries most often reported that EE could benefit vocabulary learning. This is also the prime area of language learning targeted in EE research (see Schwarz 2020), which could have influenced teachers' perceptions. Other language areas addressed were improved speaking skills in general and pronunciation and fluency in particular, enhanced receptive skills, and increased learner self-confidence and motivation. Likewise, as discussed in Section 1.1.1, substantial research has demonstrated the very positive effects EE has on vocabulary learning, aural and written comprehension, speaking skills, and learner confidence and motivation (e.g., Hannibal Jensen 2019; Kuppens 2010; Schwarz 2020; Sundqvist 2009).

In contrast, only Swedish teachers and one French teacher mentioned the effect of EE on language registers and writing. Three Swedish teachers stated that EE did not help students improve their writing and/or spelling skills, with autocorrect seeming a major issue (Eva). Another Swedish teacher pointed to the fact that in EE use, students are almost exclusively exposed to informal language. Only according to one teacher are writing skills being developed through EE, though they did not specify which language registers students would acquire this way. Among Austrian and French teachers, only Anne from France referred to registers and indicated that EE increases learners' awareness of different accents and registers. The otherwise suggested lack of support of EE in the development of writing skills and formal language might call for a focus on these aspects with learner groups where EE engagement is high (Thorne and Reinhardt 2008; see 'bridging activities', Section 4.5).

Importantly, the countries mostly differed in the extent to which the teachers believed EE could benefit grammar acquisition. In Austria, the three Academic High School teachers generally believed in grammar being acquired through EE, although Andrea conceded that in series, for instance, conditionals and passive voice are not always used "*correctly*". This comment aside, Julia described a student who uses EE extensively as producing very native-like English. In contrast, two Middle School teachers were less optimistic. For example, Barbara felt that the speed of fluent speech in authentic input did not give learners the opportunity to use language accurately, thereby disregarding the possibility of learning through receptive language use. Similarly, Lukas excluded the possibility of learners at that level acquiring grammar through EE use and notably gaming. He explained that

*"when you work on TeamSpeak with other gamers that's—it's about very fast reactions, not only in playing but also in speaking. And for that they are not experienced enough with the language."*

Likewise, in France, Lucie excluded the possibility of grammar being learned extramurally, with the remainder of French teachers not referring to this possibility at all.

In Sweden, in contrast, all teachers indicated that at least to some extent, EE supports grammar acquisition. Yet, the degree to which this is possible may hinge on the type and intensity of EE use and on learner talent (Eva). Other research similarly suggests that learner talent, or more specifically, implicit aptitude, could determine levels of uptake through implicit learning conditions (e.g., Godfroid and Kim 2021)—although more research is needed to better understand the nature of this relationship. Sara contended quite illustratively that grammar acquisition through EE

*"can work to a certain level, and then one could start learning the rules. Like why should it say this and why not that* ... *But I think you can learn it quite well like for example with irregular verbs."*

In this statement, Sara makes explicit the relative support provided by EE and ELT in constructing grammatical knowledge. Another aspect emanating from the quote is the target feature's saliency. Salient and high frequency features, such as irregular verbs, might be acquired relatively easily implicitly and thus through EE; in contrast, low-saliency features, such as third person -s, perhaps require more explicit teaching (e.g., Kang et al. 2019).

Overall, we found stark cross-national differences in teachers' perceptions of the effect of EE only in terms of grammar acquisition: Swedish teachers were more positive in that regard than teachers from the other countries. Since teacher perceptions otherwise did not differ greatly across countries, we can only partly confirm H2 (see Section 1.1.1).

#### *4.3. Accuracy Teaching (RQ3)*

As concluded above, lower secondary teachers in Sweden seem to believe more strongly that EE supports grammar acquisition than the other teacher groups. This may explain why, as predicted in H3.1, Austrian and French teachers teach grammar more explicitly than Swedish teachers.

Indeed, our results suggest that in Austria, the presentation of grammar features typically happens explicitly, either inductively or deductively. Julia and Lukas report using an inductive approach, first exposing students to a text or sentences and guiding them towards constructing the underlying rule. Others contended that the inductive approach only works well with certain features, such as regular past (Elena), indefinite articles, and plurals with -*ies* (Barbara). Such references to the inductive approach in the Austrian sample may reflect the recommendation to resort to inductive teaching in the Austrian curricula (Austrian Federal Ministry of Education (AME) 2018b, 2020) (see Section 1.2.2).

Similarly, all teachers in France prefer an explicit approach and provide students with grammar rules. Three teachers reported introducing grammatical features through an inductive approach. For example, Lucie explained having her students

*"discover [a grammar feature] with sentences written on the blackboard, from a previously studied text. Students then think, I help them think* ... *and then give them the grammar rule".*

Likewise, three teachers preceded the presentation of a new grammatical rule with elements of what can be referred to as 'discovery learning' (see Gollin 1998). For example, Laure makes use of situations in which students themselves direct attention to form based on their immediate need of a specific structure to perform a task. This allows her to subsequently introduce the new form.

Following the introduction of a grammatical feature, teachers in Austria and France reported having their students practice it, with many participants referring to traditional gap-fill activities. Three Austrian and five French teachers illustrated having students practice grammar in spoken and/or written production. The production tasks thus seem to be implemented to practice grammar rather than skills (e.g., 'writing to learn', (Manchón and de Larios 2011), although in a more implicit than explicit way. Implicit grammar practice is another suggestion put forward by the Austrian (Austrian Federal Ministry of Education (AME) 2018b, 2020) and vaguely also in the French (Ministère de l'Education Nationale (MEN) 2015) curricula (see Section 1.2.2). The otherwise apparent important role teachers attributed to explicit instruction is, however, not a reflection of curricular recommendations. The overall pattern of grammar teaching in Austria and France reported here neatly follows the traditional presentation, practice, and production formula (PPP method, Ellis 2001; Hedge 2008, see Section 1.1.2.1).

In Sweden, as discussed in Section 4.2, all teachers believe that grammar is acquired implicitly. One teacher, for instance, believed more in learning grammar through listening and reading rather than through explicit instruction. In contrast to the other two contexts, students usually encounter grammatical features extramurally first. Only after such encounters do students seem to be receptive to and interested in learning the corresponding underlying rules. Like Sara (see quote in Section 4.2), Karin affirmed that

*"letting them* ... *speak and* ... *when they have reached a certain language level this is when grammar becomes interesting. Because this is when they realize that there has to be a rule".*

Yet, two Swedish teachers emphasized that it is not important for learners to know the rules. Eva points to individual differences in whether rule-based learning is beneficial, with some students already having a feeling for how a structure should sound. Similarly, Christine argued that it is students with a lower language aptitude who require more explicit instruction. Teachers also mentioned the idea of directing attention to form in response to learner interests or needs. Three Swedish teachers for instance draw on learners' mistakes in class based on their written production and have them discuss possible corrections in groups (Pia). This learner-centered approach is also reflected in the common procedure of individualized grammar practice, as for example hinted at by Emma:

#### *"If you haven't understood at all, then you should practice on kids' level but if you understood a lot, why practice grammar if you master it already?"*

To summarize, teachers from all three countries at least partly rely on explicit teaching. However, Austrian and French teachers seem to apply the PPP method more consistently and might attach a greater role to rule-based knowledge. Thus, our results confirm H3.1, according to which Austrian and French teachers resort more to explicit instruction than Swedish teachers. Swedish teachers appear more open to cater to individual needs for instance in terms of whether grammar rules aid learning, and grammar practice perhaps happens on a more learner-centered, individual basis. This is in line with previous reports (Schurz and Coumel 2020, 2021) and reflects CLT (see Section 1.1.2). The cross-national differences might be linked to specific educational traditions, such as ideologies of education and resulting selection policies. As reported in Schurz and Coumel (2021), the Swedish Comprehensive School necessitates greater individualized instruction, whereas the more selective school systems of Austria and France allow for highly teacher-led instruction. Likewise, while the Swedish curriculum (Swedish National Agency for Education 2017) provides teachers with considerable leeway as to what to teach and when, the Austrian and French curricula (Austrian Federal Ministry of Education (AME) 2018b, 2020; Ministère de l'Education Nationale (MEN) 2015, 2016) appear more prescriptive. Yet, the Austrian and French curricula do not advocate explicit instruction, although this appeared to be

so commonly used by our participants. Another important factor determining didactic choices seems to be learners' EE practices. Learners' amount of and type of EE use is highly individual, enhancing proficiency diversity within classes. In Austria and in France, learning English still takes place primarily in the classroom, allowing for all students in a given class to move on simultaneously and as determined by the teacher. As the distinction of inductive vs. deductive instruction presupposes a teacher-centered introduction of a new target feature, such a categorization seems not applicable to the Swedish context, where high EE use typically implies incidental encounters with a given grammatical feature already *before* it is referred to in class. Therefore, our results can support H3.2 only for Austria and France, with French teachers indeed apparently teaching grammar more often inductively than Austrian teachers.

#### *4.4. Fluency Teaching (RQ4)*

Our results do not clearly support H4, as we found fewer cross-national differences in terms of fluency instruction. In all countries, lower secondary teachers appear to engage students in both monologic and interactive tasks, with pair or group work being a very common interaction format. Across countries, teachers mostly listed activities such as summarizing a text, presenting a book, and discussing random topics. While teachers from all samples referred to learner difficulties in fluency and speaking, the examples teachers gave were very diverse.

The Austrian Middle School teachers reported difficulties students face in speaking even for a short amount of time, such as three minutes (Veronika). This is why the teachers often let learners prepare speaking tasks in advance at home. Academic High school teachers, on the other hand, did not mention learner difficulties in speaking, with Julia pointing out that her students are very much used to talking in pairs.

In France, according to three teachers, students' main difficulty in fluency tasks arises from a lack of confidence, while Lucie stated that learners try to rely on word-by-word translation from French. Teachers report using scaffolding to help students prepare for fluency-based tasks, which can consist of basic structures, such as for instance question types (Laure), vocabulary or keywords (Laure, Sophie), or short scripts with underlined words that students need to change later (Anne). Other techniques were making sure that her students know that they are allowed to make mistakes (Sophie) and giving students activities that are adapted to their abilities (Anne).

Similarly, three Swedish teachers reported that their learners often felt uncomfortable to speak in class. Another issue raised was the one of students switching back to Swedish during English speaking tasks (Sara). Related to the proficiency diversity observed in Section 4.3, Eva pointed to great differences in the learners' perceived difficulty of such activities. To give students the opportunity to speak English in a comfortable environment, Christine reported frequently having students talk and record their speech in small groups in class, in a 'group room' attached to the classroom, or at home. Giving students the chance to practice speaking at home also occurred in the Austrian Middle School sample.

Finally, and perhaps very much illustrating the Swedish context, Eva and Magnus explained the issue of the learners' lack of motivation in class, which may be related to extramural English. According to Magnus, students often *"feel that [speaking in class] is just another task and that it is just school, and that this is why they do it."* This is a straightforward manifestation of what Henry (2013) termed the 'authenticity-gap' between students' high engagement in 'real' language through EE and in comparatively 'inauthentic' and 'boring' lessons. To try to keep up the learners' motivation and fill this gap, Magnus suggested engaging learners in activities and topics they can relate to, while Eva likes resorting to speaking games. Similarly, a study conducted in Sweden showed that teachers who successfully connect students' EE with ELT often integrate authentic materials and digital technologies in class (Henry et al. 2018).

In sum, in line with the findings of Tavakoli and Hunter (2018), teachers generally interpreted fluency in the broad sense, with a focus on speaking (see Section 1.1.2.2). Both monologic and dialogic speaking activities occurred in all countries, and teachers in France, Sweden, and Austrian Middle School reported that their students often struggled when performing speaking tasks. Therefore, it was not possible to confirm H4, which proposed that English classrooms would be more fluency-based in Swedish rather than Austrian and French lower secondary school (e.g., Schurz and Coumel 2020). Yet, peculiarities found in the Swedish sample were individual references to the previously observed great ability diversity in classes and the importance attributed to the incorporation of (authentic) tasks that students find interesting and 'real'. Especially the last observation was found to be quite clearly linked to learners' extramural English.

#### *4.5. Linking EE and ELT (RQ5)*

After these tentative evaluations of the relationship between the learners' EE engagement and accuracy and fluency teaching, we here look at data in which teachers themselves explicitly drew the link between EE and ELT. To do so, we asked the teachers to report whether they encouraged their learners to use EE and whether they adapted their classroom practices to better complement EE use. Teachers from all samples affirmed that they recommend learners to engage in EE. However, as expected in H5, it emanated from the reports that learners' level of EE use in a given country impacts teaching practices.

In the Austrian and French samples, the teachers generally did not appear to take EE greatly into account in their teaching practices. Three teachers in Austria and five teachers in France said that they do not purposely consider their learners' EE use in their pedagogical choices, likely owing to the limited EE use in this context. For instance, Charlotte reported

#### *"if I had students who were not exposed [to EE], I would use the same teaching material".*

As to the remaining teachers, Veronika in Austria explained that she had her students sometimes analyze song texts, and further recalled having tried watching films in English with her fourth graders in class, which turned out too difficult for them without German subtitles. Andrea, on the other hand, was convinced that EE use nowadays forms an intricate component of learning the language, being equally important as instructed learning. In France, only Lise exemplified that she asks high EE users to do presentations on specific topics or explain grammar rules to their peers.

In contrast to Austria and France, the overall higher EE use among Swedish learners seems to affect classroom practices to a greater extent. For this phenomenon, different teachers provided different examples. Emma and Karin referred to major proficiency differences within classrooms emerging because of the varying levels of EE engagement. As discussed in Schurz and Coumel (2021), proficiency gaps within classes could make teachers opt for incidental rather than systematic grammar teaching. In line with the finding of Swedish teachers generally believing in EE aiding grammar acquisition, Emma also reported that in her class, since many students do not use English at home, grammar required more work. However, as previously discussed, grammar learning is perceived to be promoted through EE up to a certain point, after which teaching rules becomes necessary (see Section 4.3). Regarding the issue of EE involving primarily informal, both aural and oral language use, Magnus mentioned the idea of having students write about their EE activities in order for them to practice writing. In an attempt to raise learners' awareness of different registers, Christine explained that

*"you have to show them different levels-like the language they use with their friends at home, that is very good, but then one needs to give them the other side as well".*

For instance, she reported drawing learners' attention to the difference between formal and informal letters. This represents another manifestation of 'bridging activities' (Thorne and Reinhardt 2008), used to complement for areas of language competence that are not promoted through recreational engagement (see also Section 4.2 and Henry et al. 2018). The observation of four Swedish teachers readily illustrating examples of where the connection between EE and ELT becomes visible may reflect the Swedish curriculum

and its recommendation to take into account learners' own experiences in the classroom (Swedish National Agency for Education 2017) (see Section 1.2.2).

Taking the findings from Sections 4.3–4.5 together, we can confirm H5, suggesting that teaching practices in the three countries would reflect the learners' level of EE engagement. While this conclusion must be more tentative in terms of the reported pedagogical choices in accuracy and fluency teaching, we could spot a number of instances where teachers themselves drew a direct link between ELT and EE. Such a link emerged primarily in the case of Sweden—as hypothesized, the country with the longest experience in learners' EE usage.

#### **5. Conclusions**

Today's lifeworlds of young people integrate an online, typically English-speaking, element. This revolves heavily around watching series and videos in the English original, as well as gaming with other users, frequently employing English as a lingua franca. The challenge for English teachers is now to ensure that their classrooms relate in a positive way with these lifeworlds.

This study addressed lower secondary school teachers' responses to this challenge in three European countries with diverse profiles of EE: Sweden, with a long tradition of using recreational resources in English directly or only with subtitles, and Austria and France, both countries where films and series are traditionally dubbed into the national languages, but where the rise of Netflix and Gaming has increased the use of EE over the last few years.

Findings suggest a growing awareness among teachers in all countries of the role played by EE in students' lives and on the potential positive benefits of EE on general English language proficiency. Teachers from all samples see benefits for receptive skills, learners' vocabulary range, as well as self-confidence and motivation. Interesting differences exist with regard to grammar, where teachers in Sweden view EE as having a clearly positive learning effect on grammar; a view not shared by French teachers and seemingly under debate among Austrian teachers. These differences seem to correlate with grammar teaching practices, where Swedish teachers more heavily rely on implicit grammar learning, but French and Austrian teachers consider explicit teaching (whether deductive or inductive) essential for their learners. Whether this is a direct effect of high EE use, or an inter-relation of high levels of EE and specific educational traditions cannot be unambiguously answered. Moreover, given that we only assessed these issues indirectly, via teacher reports, further research ideally should integrate student reports and classroom observations.

Overall, however, we can observe that the rise of EE challenges the role of English as a purely foreign language for school learners. English increasingly takes on the status of a second language, present in the young learners' digital lifeworlds (see Andersson 2013). In order to keep ELT relevant and not just "another task" to be done at school, teachers in these three European countries are responding to varying degrees to the more complex learning environment of their students. The future will show when and how educational policies will more uniformly seek to adapt ELT to the changing environment.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, methodology, data analysis, writing—review and editing and original draft preparation: authors A.S., M.C. and J.H. (to varying degrees); Data curation, project administration: authors A.S. and M.C.; Funding acquisition: A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the *uni:docs* fellowship that the first author was awarded by the University of Vienna for the period of October 2019 to September 2022.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because it did not involve minors nor interview questions about sensitive topics.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The interview transcripts of Austrian and Swedish teachers will appear in the first author's dissertation in Fall 2021. The interview transcripts of French teachers are not available because per-mission to publish them in their entirety was not obtained from the teachers.

**Acknowledgments:** We would like to thank the teachers who took part in this study, the anonymous reviewers and guest editors for their valuable feedback, and the University of Vienna for funding author 1.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


## *Article* **Comparing Teacher Priorities and Student Uptake in EMI Lectures: An Exploratory Study**

**Joseph Siegel 1,2**

<sup>1</sup> Department of English, Stockholm University, 114 19 Stockholm, Sweden; joseph.siegel@english.su.se

<sup>2</sup> School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University, 702 81 Örebro, Sweden

**Abstract:** English medium instruction (EMI) has been increasing in higher education with broad intentions of stimulating internationalization and cross-cultural learning experiences. This form of education presents opportunities and challenges for teachers and students alike. Key challenges involve various levels of second language (L2) speaking and listening abilities among teachers and students operating in EMI contexts. This exploratory study therefore examines the relationship between the main ideas two EMI lecturers in Sweden intended for their students to learn during lectures and the main ideas that EMI students report learning in the same lectures. Prior to six lectures, the teachers summarized to the researcher the main ideas to be included in the respective lecture. Immediately following the lecture, students provided their own summaries of the main ideas. A keyword analysis comparing the teachers' intended messages and students' reports shows that students may not be recognizing and acquiring the main ideas that the teacher intends. Further analysis distinguished two sub-groups of students: those with self-reported Swedish as a first language (L1) and those with self-reported L1s other than Swedish. A binomial proportion test showed that L1 impacted the amount of lecture main idea key words reported by the students in this study. The paper closes with a pedagogic perspective encouraging EMI lecturers to monitor student uptake on a regular basis and adjust their lecture delivery to support better learning and retention of content delivered via EMI.

**Keywords:** English medium instruction; listening comprehension; lectures; main ideas

### **1. Introduction**

As institutions of higher education continue drives for globalization and internationalization, so too has English medium instruction (EMI) maintained a high rate of influence, development, and demand worldwide. EMI, defined as "The use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions in which the majority of the population's first language is not English" (Macaro 2018, p. 15), has become established on several continents and within a number of national contexts (see Ozer 2020 for a summary). With increasing numbers of university faculty and students engaging in EMI to deliver and learn course content, this manner of education has received research attention at several levels, including broad language policies, stakeholder perceptions, and contextual comparisons. Attitudes of lecturers, challenges facing students, and potential strategies adapted by both groups have been surveyed and reported.

However, despite their appeal and popularity, the quality of EMI programs and the learning they might facilitate has often been overlooked (e.g., Aguilar 2017; He and Chiang 2016). Furthermore, global inconsistencies in relation to EMI pre- and in-service linguistic and pedagogic support exist (e.g., Macaro 2018), perhaps due to financial benefits and/or reaching self-proclaimed internationalization goals. In other words, universities may need to take more responsibility for training, supporting and monitoring the quality of EMI lecturing and the learning it stimulates (Ozer 2020).

**Citation:** Siegel, Joseph. 2022. Comparing Teacher Priorities and Student Uptake in EMI Lectures: An Exploratory Study. *Languages* 7: 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages7010039

Academic Editors: Marie Källkvist, Pia Sundqvist, Erica Sandlund, Henrik Gyllstad, Juana M. Liceras and Raquel Fernández Fuertes

Received: 15 October 2021 Accepted: 14 February 2022 Published: 17 February 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

At the individual course level, EMI typically involves the integration of several second language (L2) English language skills, including reading (through course literature), speaking (while engaged in seminars, group work, etc.), and writing (via the production of term papers, essays, and examinations). Listening comprehension is also a vital component of EMI, as students are often required to attend lectures, listen to instructors for extended periods of time, maintain their attention, take notes, and learn the lecture content. That content may be delivered by lecturers whose first language (L1) is not English to a student group with wide-ranging L2 English listening proficiency levels. These realizations have led to investigations and descriptions of challenges faced by students when listening to EMI lectures and to the strategies they use to cope with and learn from lecture content. In addition, the role of the lecturer and the obstacles they sometimes face, such as being forced to teach in a non-native language, has attracted research interest. To offset these challenges and better prepare EMI lecturers for this task, some form of linguistic and pedagogic training specifically for those teaching in EMI contexts has been recommended (e.g., Morell Moll et al. 2020). Given the variations in EMI lecturer and student English abilities, coupled with viewpoints that indicate L2 listening as the most challenging of the four skills in another language (e.g., Field 2008), specific research attention on the relationship between lecturer output and student learning at the individual lecture level is urgently needed in order to provide a localized and contextualized experiential understanding of the extent to which learning is taking place within EMI lectures.

Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore the premise that the content delivered by EMI lecturers is learned by students attending the respective lectures. While student learning can be measured in a number of ways, this paper focuses on the fundamental relationship between content the teacher intends for the students to learn and what the students actually report learning. To do so, it reports on a study from two EMI courses at a Swedish university. The study compares the main points of lectures as described by the teachers who planned and delivered the lectures with descriptions of main ideas elicited from students immediately following those lectures. The study aims to explore the extent to which the intended main ideas and the received content are the same and considers whether students' self-reported L1s influence the amount of corresponding main ideas they report.

The paper begins with an overview of EMI lectures with a particular focus on the roles of the students and teachers who engage in the learning and teaching. A description of EMI in the Swedish context is also provided, leading to relevant research questions. The research design is next described, which is followed by a quantitative and qualitative illustration of the data. Comparisons of pre-lecture teacher interviews and brief post-lecture student reports help to shed light on how much of the intended content is being recognized and retained with an emphasis on main ideas expressed in lectures. The findings, in turn, lead to some tentative conclusions about the relationship between teaching and learning in "the trenches" of EMI.

#### **2. Background**

#### *2.1. Second Language Listening*

Listening involves an interplay of both bottom-up and top-down processing. The former involves analyzing and generating meaning from the actual acoustic input to which the listener attends. Individual phonetic sounds combine to form syllables, which form words, clusters, and utterances. These utterances eventually form larger stretches of discourse. The processing essentially begins at the "bottom", with perceiving at the phoneme level before moving "upward" to parsing the speech stream into meaningful chunks, and so on (e.g., Lynch and Mendelsohn 2002). The latter, top-down processing, involves experiences, perceptions, and characteristics that each person brings to the listening event. These elements include background knowledge on the topic, understanding of genre conventions, expectations, and predictions about what they will hear, and previous interactions with the speaker(s) (Vandergrift 2004). When L2 learners are listening to the L2, challenges with

either type of processing, or both, can lead to misunderstandings or lack of comprehension in terms of the content as well as potential negative affective factors such as listening anxiety, lack of motivation, and frustration. All of these various components of listening may bear on listening performance in EMI lectures.

L2 listening proficiency is particularly relevant in EMI lectures, where students need to potentially deal with, among other factors, high-stakes evaluation based on lecture content, unfamiliarity with both the lecture genre and content, and idiosyncratic English use by individual lecturers. Academic lecture listening is typically viewed as one-way listening, where the student does not have the opportunity to interrupt the lecturer and ask for clarification, although this more traditional perception is gradually changing (e.g., Siegel and Wang forthcoming). As such, listeners' phonemic perception and utterance parsing skills are needed to access the meaning contained in individual sounds and words, which also trigger previous knowledge and contextual expectations (e.g., Clark and Clark 1977; Lynch and Mendelsohn 2002). One study of listener experiences in L2 academic lectures reveal challenges both in bottom-up processing (e.g., understanding blended phonemes and elisions) as well as top-down aspects such as unfamiliar cultural references and missed transitional markers (Sheppard et al. 2015). To help develop their English listening abilities, many students will have taken English for academic purposes (EAP) courses, which often feature lecture-listening and notetaking activities to practice and prepare for EMI situations (e.g., Aizawa and Rose 2020). These preparation courses are typically taken either prior to entering university (i.e., high school or upper secondary school) or during the first year of university (e.g., an academic English bridge course) with the purpose of preparing students for EMI in their major subjects later.

#### *2.2. EMI Lecture Listening*

The academic lecture within EMI has been an object of investigation for decades and previous research has provided ample information about various structural components of lectures, which Young (1994) outlines as macro- and micro-elements. At the macro-level are typical lecture structures such as moving from theory to applied examples; comparisons and contrasts; and argument-refutation (e.g., Dudley-Evans 1994). Recognizing these different lecture organization patterns and drawing on previous experiences in attending lectures (whether in the L1 or the L2) indicates the use of top-down listening processes and can help prepare EMI students for listening success in lectures.

At the more micro-level, lectures may consist of announcements, definitions, theoretical explanations, practical examples, descriptions of processes and/or concepts, asides, anecdotes, reminders, and so on (e.g., Young 1994), although not every lecture will include each of these elements. While these various components of lectures can be identified and defined, it is important to note that lectures "usually have no distinctly recognizable sections, but instead contain a series of interweaving phases that do not appear in a particular order and can resurface throughout a lecture at any time" (Crawford Camiciottoli and Querol-Julián 2016, p. 312). To indicate shifts between different parts of a lecture, speakers usually employ transition signals, which help listeners attend to these shifts. Identification of "topic-shift markers should provide a structural basis for dividing up a lecture into smaller units" (Hansen 1994, p. 133). This observation implies that L2 listeners need to be aware of and able to recognize these markers, which play a more prominent role in lectures than in other spoken interactions (Rodgers and Webb 2016).

Each of these micro-elements offers the lecturer a variety of linguistic and pragmatic options. Here, bottom-up listening is relevant since the student needs to decode the incoming input by first processing the sounds, chunks, and so on. Teachers make quick (often unconscious) decisions about how to express ideas and concepts, how to define terms, which examples to use to illustrate points, and which parts of their lecture to paraphrase, simplify and reiterate to encourage student learning. Decisions and patterns related to rate of speech, pace of pedagogic delivery, use of multimodal avenues, and pausing, among

others, certainly influence the listening comprehension, comfort, and content uptake on the part of students.

#### *2.3. Challenges in Learning in EMI Lectures*

As suggested above, students listening to EMI lectures face a number of possible challenges in their efforts to understand and learn from their respective content teachers. Low levels of student listening proficiency represent a major hurdle, one that can only be exacerbated by EMI teachers who might be unaware of or who do not fully account for L2 development and the L2 English proficiency levels of their student groups (Siegel 2020a). Among the aspects of listening related to understanding lecture delivery are dealing with high and varying rates of speech, attempting to understand unfamiliar accents, and recognizing technical and subject-specific vocabulary. To illustrate the listening comprehension struggles of some EMI students, one interviewee in Yeh (2012) estimated that only one-third of students could follow and comprehend their lecture (p. 219), likely due to lower than desirable L2 listening proficiency.

The content of EMI lectures, which typically includes advanced and abstract concepts and discipline-specific jargon, can present comprehension-related challenges even in L1 contexts; therefore, it should be no surprise that learning this type of content in an L2 is even more difficult. The type of English students are expected to understand goes well beyond the more common everyday topics that are usually covered in general English classes. Cultural differences between students and the lecturer in terms of, for example, the role the lecturer is expected to play and varying views of the lecture genre only add to the potential layers of complexity in attaining sufficient comprehension (e.g., Aguilar 2016; Flowerdew and Miller 1995).

Several recent studies provide a generally unified perspective on the aspects of EMI lecture comprehension that students perceive to be challenging. Ali (2020) reports that Omani students studying engineering via EMI have difficulty with teacher accents, speed of input, and notetaking. The act of simultaneously listening, prioritizing information, and deciding when, where and how to take notes is a particularly sophisticated activity (e.g., Piolat et al. 2005), particularly when operating in an L2 (e.g., Siegel 2020b). Understanding technical vocabulary is another obstacle students report facing across different disciplines (e.g., Blackwell 2017; Jarvis et al. 2020). Others have found that teacher accent (e.g., Bolton and Kuteeva 2012; Ali 2020) and rate of speech (e.g., Blackwell 2017) are often problematic. Siegel's (2020a) study on estimated comprehension of EMI lectures and their understanding of their teachers' English use showed wide variations. Many of these issues relate to challenges that L2 English listeners face even when operating in relation to more common everyday instances; that is, L2 English listeners often report problems in recognizing words in speech that they know in print, inability to parse the speech stream into meaningful chunks, and comprehending spoken input at high rates of speech (e.g., Goh 2000; Field 2008). However, the majority of these studies are based on self-report data from students and few, if any, studies in the field focus on the uptake of specific items of information. Instead, they focus on general impressions of comprehension.

In order to cope with and learn from content delivered in EMI lectures, students have adopted a range of strategies. Students may, for example, support their learning by completing pre- and post-lecture reading tasks, which would allow them to preview and/or review key vocabulary and concepts. They also avail themselves to technology in the form of translation software and bilingual dictionaries to access meaning (e.g., Ali 2020). Social strategies such as group work and asking classmates or family members for help are also options (e.g., Ali 2020). Taking notes is another common approach to help listeners maintain their attention, prioritize information from lectures, and store it for later use. While taking notes might seem an obvious and expected student action in lectures, this complicated academic activity becomes more challenging when listening to a lecture in an L2 (e.g., Siegel 2020b). When possible, students may interrupt to ask for clarification and/or do so after a lecture has concluded or during office hours; however, these opportunities are not

always guaranteed. Moreover, teachers may expect that students are able to comprehend the majority if not all of the lecture content, especially if there is reading assigned.

Pedagogic support in EAP courses can also work to offset the numerous challenges and prepare students for listening success in EMI. Pedagogic attention to academic listening received an initial boost in Richards (1983) seminal work on listening, which provided an extensive list of academic listening sub-skills. Among them are identifying topic, following topic development, recognizing discourse markers, attending to multimodal input, and being familiar with various organizational styles of lecture (Richards 1983, pp. 228–29). This initial venture into detailing academic listening combined with the notion of language learning strategies has generated strategy instruction for academic listening (e.g., Graham and Santos 2015; Siegel 2015). Such instruction aims to increase student awareness and use of strategies such as recognizing transition markers, predicting upcoming input, and identifying rhetorical devices.

Another common pedagogic approach to supporting EAP students' future EMI lecture comprehension involves developing effective and efficient notetaking skills. A range of studies has detailed gains in notetaking performance and lecture-content test performance following intensive periods of notetaking instruction (e.g., Dunkel et al. 1989; Hayati and Jalilifar 2009). Techniques from corpus linguistics have also generated pedagogic options for helping EMI lecture comprehension. Zare et al. (2021) conducted research that tested whether data-driven discovery learning that focuses on concordance lines including "importance markers" yielded better lecture comprehension than explicit instruction. Test results showed a statistically significant advantage for those learning via the data-driven method.

This range of pedagogic approaches and tools aims to prepare students to comprehend EMI lectures and other forms of academic listening that may strain students' L2 listening comprehension skills. At the same time, on the opposite side of the learning-teaching relationship, EMI lecturers face challenges of their own.

#### *2.4. Challenges in Teaching in EMI Lectures*

While students may feel some trepidation when entering a lecture hall to attend an EMI lecture, lecturers themselves may also experience feelings of hesitation. They may, for example, be compelled by broader educational policies to teach in their non-native language even though they prefer to teach in the L1 (e.g., Yeh 2012). Also related to policies, teachers may be unaware of the L2 English language requirements their programs or universities have in place for matriculation. Awareness of such policies as well as knowledge of language proficiency descriptors (e.g., CEFR) would provide lecturers with at least basic information with which to inform their pedagogic and linguistic choices. Furthermore, though qualified experts in their respective content fields, some EMI teachers may lack familiarity with theories related to L2 development and/or overlook the notion that their linguistic and pragmatic choices affect student comprehension a great deal (Björkman 2010; Flowerdew and Miller 1996; Siegel 2020a). Teachers have also reported, among other hurdles, that it can be difficult to simplify complex content, encourage participation, access accurate L2 English terminology, and provide spontaneous meaningful output in EMI lectures (Ozer 2020, p. 622).

Despite these challenges, teachers have developed coping strategies to facilitate student understanding. These unsurprisingly include code-switching between the L1 and L2 English (assuming there is a shared L1), simplifying language, and using visual aids to reinforce content (e.g., Yeh 2012). Ozer (2020) reports teacher strategies such as "using analogies or real-life examples" and "re-explaining the content more slowly" (p. 621) as additional options. These strategies seem to suggest that EMI lecturers are aware of the impact their use of English has on student comprehension; that is, they are aware that adjustments in rate of speech, employing simpler language, and repetition can increase learner understanding.

Training specifically designed for EMI lecturers has been emphasized as support lecturers themselves view as valuable. Teachers have indicated that they would welcome professional development in both linguistic (e.g., speaking, pronunciation) and pedagogic competence (Ozer 2020, p. 622). Björkman (2010) also suggests that language training, pragmatic strategies, and lecturing patterns in particular could lead to improvements in the quality of EMI lecturing. Morell Moll et al. (2020) emphasize the valuable role that multimodality plays in communication in EMI. Their analysis of EMI teaching samples shows that a combination of verbal and non-verbal factors (e.g., gaze, gesture, and written language) results in improved comprehension. However, as O'Dowd (2018) states, such training does not always receive the financial backing and prioritization that it likely deserves, given the potential loss of learning and the undue stress placed on both lecturers and students.

#### *2.5. The Swedish EMI Context*

The present study took place at a university in Sweden, a country that has a more than two decades of experience with EMI (Kuteeva 2018). As Björkman (2018) points out, EMI needs to be interpreted and set within the educational context of the respective country in focus. The use of English in higher education in Sweden has been the topic of much debate in recent years, particularly in relation to broader sociolinguistic questions of the status afforded to Swedish and English within education, language policies such as teaching through parallel languages, and whether students and teachers have sufficient language abilities to be effective in EMI (Kuteeva 2018). The present study places this latest issue in focus by examining the learning, the actual transfer of information, from teacher to students in specific classroom instances. Even the use of the term EMI within research conducted within Sweden is somewhat contentious, as some courses taught in Swedish have course literature in English and code-switching, either through speaking or in writing (e.g., on Powerpoint slides) blurs the lines as to what is EMI. Policies developed to improve EMI in the Swedish context have often been top-down and problematic to implement (e.g., Björkman 2014; Kuteeva and Airey 2014). These broad strategies "tend to be detached from individuals' linguistic practices and the reality of specific disciplines" (Kuteeva 2018, p. 48). As such, the present study aims to understand the extent to which individual EMI students are able to process lecture content in English and report the main ideas contained therein.

According to enrollment policies at the university where the study took place, to be eligible for an EMI course, students must have completed one of the following, per the university admissions office: (a) if the student comes from Sweden, they are required to pass two mandatory English courses at upper secondary school (with the expectation that their L2 English proficiency level is approximately B2); (b) if the student comes from outside of Sweden as an exchange student, the sending institution sets the L2 language proficiency requirements. Examples of the latter could include a strong score on IELTS or TOEFL or previous credits and/or graduation from another institution where English is used. Since the students involved in this small-scale study were enrolled in EMI courses at this university, those with Swedish as an L1 likely met the requirements outlined in (a) and those with other L1 backgrounds satisfied the criteria listed under (b).

#### *2.6. Research Questions*

As noted by Zare et al. (2021), noticing relevant information in English academic lectures is a prerequisite for learning that information (p. 2). In order to investigate the relationship between teachers' intended learning uptake and students' perceived and reported learning uptake in university EMI courses, this study addresses the following two research questions:

1. To what extent do teachers and students in EMI agree on the main ideas expressed in lectures?

2. To what extent does self-reported native language (i.e., L1) affect recognition of main idea key words in EMI?

#### **3. Methods**

#### *3.1. Participants*

Two types of participants were involved in the study: (a) two lecturers who teach EMI courses at a Swedish university and (b) students attending those respective lectures. The teachers taught courses on sociology (Lecturer A) and robotics/artificial intelligence (Lecturer B). Both teachers used English as an L2 for instructional purposes and had been doing so for more than five years at the time of the study. Both described their L2 English abilities as sufficient for teaching at tertiary level; however, more specifics about the lecturers' L2 English proficiency were not available. Two lectures given by Lecturer A and four lectures given by Lecturer B were included in the study. Despite this slight imbalance in the number of lectures, this exploratory study aims to illustrate student recognition of main idea key words in multiple courses.

The number of students attending the lectures ranged from eight to 14 (Despite the small number of students, these sessions are considered "lectures"). Per university enrollment regulations, students either had completed requisite English classes in Sweden in upper secondary school or satisfied the basic English proficiency requirement in another way (e.g., previous university study in English or an internationally recognized test). Individual measurements of L2 English proficiency, beyond the university requirements, were not used. The following L1s were reported by students: Croatian, French, German, Hungarian, Korean, Kurdish, Persian, and Swedish, the last of which was reported the most often (as to be expected, since the study was conducted in Sweden).

#### *3.2. Data Collection and Analysis Procedures*

Participating lecturers responded to an open call for participants at the university and signed letters of consent. Prior to each lecture, the researcher briefly met with the lecturers and asked them to summarize the three-to-five main ideas that they planned for and expected students to learn and take away from the respective lecture. At the conclusion of each lecture, students anonymously responded to an online survey in which they were asked to type out the three-to-five main ideas from the day's lecture. The survey also consisted of a closed item where students reported their native language (Swedish, English or Other). This question was then used to separate an L1 Swedish group and an Other L1 group (no students reported English as their L1) in comparison with the open question that reported main ideas. This rudimentary grouping system was used in order to distinguish those students with the community language as an L1 (i.e., Swedish) from those with less common L1s in this context. It must be acknowledged that some of the reported L1s are linguistically similar to Swedish (e.g., German) while others are more dissimilar, including typologically, such as Korean.

The goal of the data analysis was to better understand the relationship between the teachers' intended messages and students' reported learning and uptake. The data collection generated from six lectures (two by Lecturer A and four by Lecturer B) consisted a total of 19 distinct main ideas that contained 35 respective key words, as described by the lecturers (note "organization", "sustainability", and "rule-based" are listed multiple times as main idea key words). These key words were identified by the lecturers themselves; as such, these decisions were made by experts in the disciplines rather than by the researcher. In consultation with the participating lecturers, synonyms were not recognized, as the lecturers felt the terms they wanted students to learn should be clear enough to uptake.

A total of 66 unique student reports were collected from the set of six lectures, 42 of which were given by L1 Swedish students and 24 by students with L1s other than Swedish. This study aimed to focus on the immediate recall and reformulation of main lecture points as expressed by students. To confirm that these key words were used in lectures and were not simply lecturer self-reports, all lectures were digitally recorded and transcribed. A cross-analysis of lecture-identified key words with the transcripts confirmed that all key words were part of the lecturers' spoken delivery. Visual aids such as Powerpoint slides were not collected as part of this study.

In order to understand the calibration between these two sides of the teaching-learning relationship, key words in the lecturers' set of intended main ideas were identified and confirmed with the lecturers themselves, similar to "keyword analysis" as outlined by Groom and Littlemore (2011, p. 162). The focus of keyword analysis is often on nouns (Groom and Littlemore 2011, p. 163), which constitute the majority of key words identified by the lecturers. Using frequency of key words as a measurement, searches for these key words were made within the students' set of reported main ideas. The frequency of the key word tokens, as well as the co-text of those tokens, was examined in order to better understand the proximity between what the teacher thought they were teaching and what the students thought they had learned in terms of main ideas from the respective lectures (i.e., RQ1). It must be emphasized that this analysis focused on student ability to recognize main idea key words rather than to display understanding of the relevant concepts and ideas themselves. Table 1 below provides an illustration of this process. Further analysis using the binomial test of proportions in R (Crawley 2013) was then used to ascertain the role that students' self-reported L1s played in their ability to report key words (i.e., RQ2).

**Table 1.** Illustration of key word identification.


The following excerpts from the transcript of Lecturer A's session referred to in Table 1 illustrate the presence of these key words in the lecture:

**Lecturer A:** "so organizational social structure that would be relationship among people who assume the roles of the organisation. And the organisational groups or units to which they belong, like departments, divisions, etc."

**Lecturer A:** "So ... and there can be ... core technology, there can be service technology, there can be different types of technologies and you ... you will see in the chapter there are different ways to conceptualize it."

Some data from the student surveys included irrelevant information. Such responses were not included in further analysis.

#### **4. Findings**

Tables 2–7 compare the lecturers' intended main ideas with those reported by students immediately following the respective lectures. Of particular interest are the ratios presented towards the right sides of the tables, where the total number of reported key words as well as a break-down between L1 Swedish users and those with L1s other than Swedish is presented. Overall ratios for each lecture, based on the total possible key word recording opportunities is displayed at the bottom of each table. The data in these tables addresses RQ1 regarding the amount of agreement between the lecturers' intended main ideas and the students reporting thereof.


**Table 2.** Lecture 1 main idea key words comparison.

**Table 3.** Lecture 2 main idea key words comparison.


**Table 4.** Lecture 3 main idea key words comparison.



**Table 5.** Lecture 4 main idea key words comparison.

**Table 6.** Lecture 5 main idea key words comparison.


**Table 7.** Lecture 6 main idea key words comparison.


Based on the overall ratios for possible key word reporting in Table 2, both the L1 Swedish and the Other L1 group included roughly 50% of the main idea key words. However, some discrepancies exist, such as 100% (3/3) for "theory" by the Swedish users compared to 29% (2/7) by the Other L1 group. In contrast, nearly all of the Other L1 group members (6/7) recognized "sustainability" as a core concept from the lecture while none of the three Swedish users did so.

Table 3 shows a broader contrast in reported uptake between the two groups, with the L1 Swedish users reporting 27% of the key words and the Other L1 group 70%. In comparison to the findings in Table 2, however, the number of Other L1 group members is noticeably fewer at *n* = 4. At the same time, the group sizes are more equal in Table 3.

Whereas in Lectures 1 and 2, both groups of students combined for approximately 50% of reported key words, Table 4 shows students reporting far fewer key concepts after Lecture 3. The L1 Swedish group had more success in reporting key words (20%) than their Other L1 counterparts; however, the combined 16% suggests that several key words (and thus main ideas) may have been overlooked, as they were not even partially reported. There are also several instances where students from neither group included a key word in their reports ("define", "input", "output", "space"). In particular, main ideas two and four appear to have eluded both groups of listeners, at least in relation to their reports.

Table 5 shows a higher percentage of key word reporting (23%) by L1 Swedish students than by the Other L1 group (14%). The most-frequently reported key word was "rulebased", which registered on 86% of reports, the second-highest result of any key word (see Table 6, "fuzzy" below). This strong recognition was consistent between both groups: L1 Swedish at 82% and Other L1 at 100%. However, the Other L1 group struggled to report any other key words for the entire lecture, including no key words for either the second or third main idea expressed by the lecturer. The L1 Swedish group also struggled to report any key words for the second main idea.

Table 7 shows another high recognition rate for both groups, this time the word "fuzzy" from the first main idea. All students in both groups reported this in their main idea summaries. Interestingly, no other key words were reported by either group in relation to the first main idea. Students in both groups struggled to express key words from the other main ideas, with "rule-based" (4/11) and "control" (2/11) registering as the next highest. Still, at this point, relatively low numbers (23% in total) of key words from the main ideas were reported, both for the L1 Swedish and the Other L1 groups. It is worth notetaking that "fuzzy" is a key concept for the lecture as a whole, since it appears in all three main ideas. While students have registered that "fuzzy" is crucial, they seem to be unable to report subtle differences in how the concept has been explained and used in the lecture, as evidenced by the lack of accompanying key words in the student reports.

The highest scores among Lecturer B's sessions are shown in Table 7, where 35% of key words were reported overall. There is a stark distinction, however, between the L1 Swedish group (43%) and the Other L1 group (17%). In relation to the second and third main ideas, the L2 Swedish group reported the two different types of searches (namely, breadth-first and heuristic) whereas only one student in the Other L1 group was able to report one of those respective terms.

#### *Overview of Lectures*

In order to determine the overall performance of both groups throughout all six lectures, a binomial test was run in R version 3.2.1 (2015). The results of this test address RQ2, which considers the role that students' L1s play in their ability to report key words. When combined, the L1 Swedish group reported 72 key words out of a possible 288; the Other L1s group reported 44 out of 117, respectively. Thus, the formula run in R was prop.test (*c* (72, 44), *c* (288, 117)). Table 8 displays the results of this test, which indicate a statistical difference between the L1 Swedish and Other L1s groups.

The *p*-value (0.01) is less than 0.05; thus, the null hypothesis that the two proportions are equal is rejected. Further, since 0 does not lie between the two confidence intervals, the proportions are not equal. Based on this result, the two proportions (0.37 and 0.25, respectively) are statistically different; thus, the L1 Swedish group produced a statistically signficantly higher propotion of key words than the Other L1s group.


**Table 8.** Results of binomial test in R.

\* Statistically significant at *p* < 0.05.

Moreover, while a comprehensive qualitative analysis of the student reports is beyond the scope of the present paper, an initial holistic inspection of unaltered individual student main idea summaries demonstrates wide variation in students' apparent understanding of EMI lecture content. Focusing on three student responses from Lecture 2, a wide discrepancy in terms of fully articulation of the ideas is evident:

Student 7 (Other L1 group): "incorporation of technologies within an organization and reflecting on it from positive and negative perspectives how an organization can be organized (flat, steep hierarchy etc.) where to put the sustainability administration body."

Student 3 (Other L1): "different types of structure within organizations (social, physical...) webers bureaucratical view (pros and cons) technology impact on society (pros and cons)."

Student 4 (L1 Swedish): "A more in depth view in how organization might work and what potential future they may behold."

Student 7 has reported several key words and provided a main idea summary that comes closest to the lecturer's intended learning outcomes. Student 3 provides some details and specific examples (e.g., social and physical as different types of structures within organizations). Student 4 gives a very general summary of the lecture that lacks specific information and may be able to summarize multiple lectures on the same course. In other words, while key words may appear in all of three reports, some are clearly more extensive and nuanced while others are expressed rather vaguely.

A similar situation is evident in reports from Lecture 6, where various search algorithms were in focus, per Lecturer B's main points. Students were able to articulate these different formulas to varying extents, as displayed below.

Student 10 (L1 Swedish): "Different heuristics searches, Breadth first search, Depth first search, greedy search. Manhattan distance. We ended with slightly go through A\* search."

Student 5 (L1 Swedish): "Basis uninformed search; BFS, DFS, Iterative serpentins search. Informed search; Greedy, A\*."

Student 4 (L1 Swedish): "Path planning, BFS and DFS algorithms, Heuristic search algorithms."

Student 9 (Other L1s): "different algorithms."

The four student responses above are loosely ranked in order by the amount of specific information about the various algorithms they contain. Student 10 named several specific types of searches as well as other related concepts. Students 4 and 5 both also specified different types of searches by name. In contrast, Student 9 expressed the comparatively general "different algorithms" without specifying any particular type or expanding on what content was covered in relation to the algorithms. Based on this comparison, Student 10 would seem to have comprehended the specific information in the lecture to a higher extent than Student 9, with Students 4 and 5 in middle positions.

Likewise, in Lecture 5, where the term "fuzzy logic" was emphasized, several students recorded this key term but to varying degrees. In a similarly vague way to the "different algorithms" report discussed above, three students only included the term "fuzzy logic" in their reports without any other details or expansion. Others reported with more detail:

Student 2 (L1 Swedish): "Fuzzy rules compared to standard rules -fuzzy sets and -Fuzzy stimulus."

Student 9 (L1 Swedish): "We talked about fuzzy-stimuli and how to calculate different values depending on what kind of statement the exercise was."

Student 10: (L1 Swedish): "Fuzzy logic not being much different from other logic in a purely mathematical view. IR Sensors on the epuck robots are bad."

Students 2, 9, and 10 all included the concept of "fuzzy" in their reports but also provided additional details and context, suggesting that they gained more knowledge from the lecture than those who only reported the term itself. Since the term "fuzzy" is used in all three main ideas expressed by the teacher, the general use and lack of distinction by some students suggests that while they recognize this as an important concept, they are not able to express the main ideas related to the concept with precision.

When viewed from a presumptive perspective of the EMI lecturer, whose main purpose is the transference of knowledge to students through the lecture format, these qualitative examples may be encouraging on one hand and disappointing on the other. Those students who were able to report and provide relevant details related to core concepts and main ideas from the lectures have demonstrated their learning. However, for those who only reported a bare minimum in relation to key terms and who failed to provide more refined demonstrations of their understanding of how the key terms had been used, teachers may be less pleased that their intended learning points were not consistently acknowledged among the student population. In other words, at least in some cases, what was intended to be taught was apparently not learned.

#### **5. Discussion**

The data generated by the comparisons of teachers' intended main ideas and students' reporting of the received main ideas have been presented above via a quantitative perspective in relation to key word analysis. The ratios of intended-to-received key words address RQ1 which investigates the extent to which the lecturers and students agree on the main ideas from each respective lecture. Statistical analysis in the form of a binomial test of proportions was made to determine any differences between two groups of students who attended the lectures: self-reported L1 Swedish and self-reported Other L1s.

Regarding RQ1, the data suggest that there is a noticeable difference between what the teacher intends to communicate as main ideas and what the students report to recognize as main ideas. In Lectures 1 and 2 (from sociology), students seemed to be more capable of reporting main ideas using the same key words as stated by the teacher than the students in Lectures 3–6 (from robotics) did. The overall ratio of actual to possible key words recorded was around 50% in the former but averaged just under 25% for the latter. These differences could be related to student background knowledge (potentially more familiar with terms and concepts from sociology than with robotics), individual L2 listening proficiency, lecturer style (e.g., Flowerdew and Miller 1995, 1996), lecturer use of English (e.g., Siegel 2020a), and/or ability to express the main ideas in writing (i.e., a student may have understood the main idea but not expressed it in the written report). Still, the findings tentatively indicate that students in EMI lectures may take away only 25–50% of what the teacher considers main ideas and key words. Thus, the data suggest that students are not necessarily learning what teachers intend, an issue that some institutions around the world have begun to address through recommended training for EMI lecturers (e.g., Morell Moll et al. 2020; Ozer 2020).

When it comes to the role the L1 may play in EMI lecture comprehension, there was a clear statistically significant difference between the self-reported L1 Swedish users and the self-reported Other L1 group. That is, the L1 Swedish users, as a group, reported more main idea key words than their counterparts whose L1s were other than Swedish. Interestingly, in the sociology lectures, the Other L1 group typically recorded more key words than

the L1 Swedish group, but the reverse was true for the robotics lectures, where the L1 Swedish group registered higher ratios. Given that the sub-group sizes ranged between 3–14 students, these findings are suggestive but far from conclusive. Again, individual student proficiency and previous topic knowledge played a role, and these variables were not controlled for in this study apart from the relevant university enrollment policies. At the same time, the results raise the issue of how much EMI lecturers know about and account for the L1s of their student groups when crafting and delivering lectures (e.g., He and Chiang 2016).

In addition to addressing RQs 1 and 2, the quantitative findings for Lecturer B's four lectures on robotics are indicative of a potential accent awareness effect. Lecture 6 represents the fourth lecture in a sequence given by Lecturer B and the generally higher results suggest that students may have become familiar with this lecturer's EMI teaching and lecture style and/or with the course content. This tentative conclusion is supported by the gradual increase in key word reporting from the first lecture (Lecture 3) to the final lecture (Lecture 6) in the sequence; the percentages of reported key words rose from 16% to 21% to 23% to 35% combined. This progression is suggestive of accent familiarity, although this is only speculation, as accent familiarity was not in focus in the study. In theory, the more familiar the listener is with the speaker's idiosyncratic patterns, the easier aural comprehension is likely to be; thus, the first time one hears an unfamiliar accent, it may be more difficult to understand compared to after attending five previous lectures given by the same speaker. Such a view is supported by research that suggests that a listener has an easier time understanding familiar accents and may struggle with unfamiliar accents and/or those different from their own (e.g., Tauroza and Luk 1997; Ockey and French 2016). Furthermore, background knowledge, motivation, and attention on that day could have led to this gradual increase. Another possibility could be differing difficulties of the lecture content.

Another point to consider within the data set are words that consistently appeared on the students' reports of main ideas but which were *not* expressed by the teachers prior to the lectures. In some cases, several students included what they viewed as key words and main ideas but that did not align with the teachers' intentions. For example, in Lecture 3, 4/14 students used the word "position" and 5/14 wrote "PID controller" (PID stands for "Proportional-Integral-Derivative", a term used in robotics); however, the instructor included neither in their main idea summary (although PID is included in the Lecture 4 key words; see Table 5). Likewise, in Lecture 6, "algorithms" appeared in 5/10 reports and "Depth-first search" (or the abbreviation "DFS") was written on 6/10 despite these key words not being used in the lecturer's own summaries. The relatively consistent appearance of such words in the student reports but not in the teacher's main idea summaries suggests that students may be recognizing different items of information as primary even though these may not be outcomes necessarily intended by teachers.

#### *Limitations*

At a broad level, EMI lecture listening is not a wholly isolated part of the EMI experience. Learning in EMI is a broad concept that includes a student's background knowledge of the subject, motivation for learning on the course, and general orientation towards academic success. Reading course literature also contributes greatly to the learning on such courses. This present study has deemphasized these aspects of EMI learning in order to focus on aural recognition of main ideas in lectures, which itself is part of the broader concept of education via EMI. In addition, the data rely on student reports of the main ideas from lectures. It is possible that students actually had a better understanding of the main ideas than is reflected in their written reports. Moreover, on the student survey, participants were given a broad prompt to write between 3–5 main points, which may have led to students possibly combining or amalgamating discreet ideas. Further drawbacks include the small number of participants (both lecturers and students), the imbalance in the data sets (i.e., two and four lectures, respectively), and the loose key-word analysis method.

To expand on the findings reported in this paper, future research may apply a similarly simple design of asking teachers about intended learning and comparing these with post-instruction student reports with more students and teachers, across a wider array of disciplines, and in other national and educational contexts. This study has provided a brief insight into students' reported learning but does not go beyond these comparisons to examine the teaching that took place and led students to these conclusions. Therefore, examination of data such as that presented here could take place in relation to transcripts and/or recordings of lectures so that the relation between EMI lecturers' output (e.g., repetition, signposting, sentence structure, intonation, gestures, pausing, etc.) might lead students to report or overlook certain main ideas.

#### **6. Implications and Conclusions**

This study set out to investigate a fundamental relationship between teaching and learning: that students leave a lecture with the same main ideas that the lecturer intends to deliver. The complexity of this relationship likely increases when teachers and students are operating in higher education EMI contexts. To examine this complexity, a comparison was made between the main ideas expressed by two EMI lecturers in Sweden and the main ideas their students reported learning. Results showed that students were only able to report corresponding key words to relatively low levels overall. When students' self-reported L1s were factored into the analysis, a significant difference was identified between the L1 Swedish group and the Other L1s group; at the same time, these groups, especially the latter, were quite small and thus no generalizations can be made based on these data. On the whole, these results may suggest that student learning in EMI be more closely monitored, perhaps on the individual lecture basis, in order to ensure that students are learning the intended material.

Since EMI involves a wide range of language skills and proficiencies in these respective skills, lecturers in such contexts may want to include low-stakes lecture follow-up activities similar to that used in the data collection for this study. Doing so would allow lecturers to: (a) confirm that students learned and can report the main ideas; (b) determine what material needs to be reviewed in subsequent lectures; (c) assign relevant readings to reinforce the concepts in another mode (i.e., rather than only through English speaking and listening). In other words, teachers would get valuable feedback that would enhance future teaching. Students could also receive formative feedback on their summaries. Teachers may also consider periodically recording and analyzing their spoken output in EMI lectures so they can monitor linguistic aspects such as articulation, rate of speech, lexical selection, and grammatical formulations (e.g., Siegel 2020a). By doing so, they can raise their awareness of their own output and make modifications to support student learning (e.g., simplifying and/or repeating ideas, clearly signaling primary versus less relevant information, etc.). Institutions can also support EMI teachers and students by providing systematic and structured pre- and in-service training and support for EMI teachers in relation to linguistic and pedagogic aspects with an emphasis on teaching students who are learning in an L2, as promoted by Ozer (2020) and Morell Moll et al. (2020). The findings from this smallscale study confirm that more attention needs to be paid to the quality of teaching and learning happening "in the EMI trenches" and not only at broader national and institutional policy levels.

**Funding:** This work was supported by funding from Riksbankens Jubileumsfond [SAB20-0054].

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to its alignment with regular teaching and learning activities (i.e., teachers' planning and monitoring student uptake; students reviewing lecture content in a classroom setting) in intact classrooms.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data presented in this study are publically available in FigShare at 10.17045/sthlmuni.19175264, 19175264.

**Acknowledgments:** Special thanks to the lecturers and students who participated.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


Graham, Suzanne, and Denise Santos. 2015. *Strategies for Second Language Listening: Current Scenarios and Improved Pedagogy*. Basingstoke: Palgrave.


## *Article* **Vocabulary Teaching Practices of L2 English in Upper Secondary Vocational Classrooms**

**Kaja Granum Skarpaas \* and Kari Anne Rødnes**

Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, 0315 Oslo, Norway; k.a.rodnes@ils.uio.no

**\*** Correspondence: k.g.skarpaas@ils.uio.no

**Abstract:** This qualitative study investigates language teaching practices relating to L2 English vocabulary instruction in upper secondary school vocational classrooms in Norway. It builds on previous research describing technical vocabulary as an area of particular importance for vocational students' English language development and relies on observation data from eight vocational classrooms. The study found that vocabulary work has a strong presence within vocational orientation (VO) instruction, across whole-class instruction, group or pair work, and individual work. Most target vocabulary could be classified as words relating to work practices and vocational content knowledge. Many instances of L1–L2 translation tasks were observed. Target words were not practiced across the four language skills and were rarely utilized in productive tasks. The study concludes that observed practices can be improved by prioritizing ways of combining target vocabulary with students' language production and by including more opportunities to practice independent language strategies.

**Keywords:** vocabulary; L2 English; vocational students; vocational orientation approach

**Citation:** Skarpaas, Kaja Granum, and Kari Anne Rødnes. 2022. Vocabulary Teaching Practices of L2 English in Upper Secondary Vocational Classrooms. *Languages* 7: 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages7010055

Academic Editors: Pia Sundqvist, Erica Sandlund, Marie Källkvist and Henrik Gyllstad

Received: 30 October 2021 Accepted: 21 February 2022 Published: 1 March 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

#### **1. Introduction**

In this study, we examine language practices relating to English vocabulary instruction in a context rarely encountered in the research literature: the upper secondary vocational classroom. The study was conducted in Norway, where English is a de facto, but not a de jure, second language (L2) taught from the very first school year (see Rindal and Brevik 2019 for a discussion on the status of English in Norway). In year eleven, approximately half the students enter a vocational upper secondary program, where they study both vocationspecific subjects and general subjects. In addition to English (L2), the general subjects comprise Norwegian (L1), mathematics, natural science, physical education, and social science) (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training [UDIR] 2020).

Language competence, including L2 English, is important in all sectors in today's global society (Hellne-Halvorsen et al. 2021), and English is, therefore, an essential part of the general knowledge that vocational students need to complement their domain-specific learning (Brewer and Comyn 2015; Hiim 2014; Mouzakitis 2010; Sweet 2010). Still, some have argued that general subjects have little relevance for vocational students' educational needs and interests (Abbott 1997; European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (2019); Grubb 2006; Hiim 2017) and, for this reason, that they become a main source of demotivation. To make general subjects more appealing to vocational students, stakeholders within educational research and policy call for more relevant instruction that is contextualized within a vocational frame (Conroy and Walker 2000; European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (2019); Hoachlander 1999; NOU 2008:18 2008; Quinn 2013; Roberts et al. 2005; Vogt and Kantelinen 2012). In Norway, this is achieved through what is known as a vocational orientation (VO) to teaching. It denotes a teaching practice within upper secondary school where general subjects are adapted to vocational programs in terms of content and methods while building on a generalized curriculum that is common to all programs (Norwegian Directorate for Education and

Training [UDIR] 2019; Regulations of the Education Act 2006). As the upper secondary vocational programs in Norway are quite broad (even in year 12) and may qualify for higher education, VO teaching must extend the needs of specific occupations. Therefore, VO is not as targeted as English for specific purposes (ESP), where the focus on a particular group is much more distinct (Hyland 2007). It is also distinct from content- and language-integrated teaching (CLIL), where the English language is the medium of instruction and not, as such, the object of study (see, for example, Coyle 2010).

A previous interview study from Norway (*N* = 10) found that English teachers viewed VO teaching as a tool to increase vocational students' engagement with L2 English (Skarpaas and Hellekjær 2021). The teachers explained the success of VO by saying that the method draws on student interest, promotes subject relevance, and scaffolds learning. According to the teachers, vocabulary has an important role to play in the success of VO because the technical words become testimonies of relevant instruction. That study did not, however, explore instruction. Therefore, in the current study, we investigate how English vocabulary is taught under a VO heading to better understand the role it plays in this teaching approach. To that end, the study uses observations from eight classrooms in a Norwegian upper secondary school.

#### *1.1. Background*

Words are the building blocks of language, and vocabulary knowledge is thus a crucial part of language learning. Vocabulary size is positively associated with learners' reading, writing, and listening proficiency (Chung and Nation 2003; Cobb 2007; Laufer and Ravenhorst-Kalovski 2010; Shi and Qian 2012; Stæhr 2008), while vocabulary errors can bring about misunderstandings that interrupt the flow of communication (Johansson 1978; Llach 2011; Qian and Lin 2020). Vocabulary knowledge includes both receptive and productive abilities, and to know a word learners must become familiar with its form, meaning, and use (Nation 2001, p. 27). A common suggestion is to learn words according to their frequency in the initial phase of language learning, prioritizing the more common, and thus more useful, words first. Later, when every new addition is a word that is infrequently spoken or written, it makes more sense to learn according to need (Schmitt and Schmitt 2020).

For vocational students in upper secondary education, it is important to develop a repertoire of words related to work, referred to as *technical vocabulary*. Technical vocabulary, or words and phrases that are mainly used in a specific profession, trade, or subject area (Chung and Nation 2003, 2004; Liu and Lei 2020; Nation 2001), is an essential part of the language of work and an important tool for workers' professional communication (Knoch 2014). Technical vocabulary accounts for up to thirty percent of word tokens in technical texts (Chung and Nation 2003) and is thus indispensable for comprehension (Woodward-Kron 2008). However, it denotes more than "just words," as it represents the concepts and ideas specific to a particular domain (Chung and Nation 2004; Schmitt and Schmitt 2020) and provides the language needed to express key practices within a particular field (Chung and Nation 2003).

Teaching vocational topics and vocabulary may pose a challenge for language teachers, who generally lack vocational insight (Widodo 2016). However, since technical vocabulary has a limited range of use (Liu and Lei 2020), students are unlikely to acquire this L2 repertoire incidentally (Coxhead 2018), and language teachers have an important role to play.

#### 1.1.1. Principles for Teaching Vocabulary

Two major learning conditions for vocabulary teaching are *number of encounters* and *quality of attention* (Webb and Nation 2017): words have a greater likelihood of being learned after multiple encounters (Webb and Chang 2015)—preferably in a variety of contexts (Nation 2017)—and when students actively engage in accompanying learning activities (Hulstijn and Laufer 2001; Laufer and Hulstijn 2001). It is also important for retention that words are re-encountered quickly (Webb and Chang 2015), preferably during the same lesson (Schmitt 2017). Furthermore, to facilitate optimal learning conditions, Nation (2001, 2007, 2020a) suggests that teachers make sure their students encounter target vocabulary across the four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing) as well as the four strands of language learning (meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, language-focused learning and fluency development) that typically make up a well-balanced language course.

Much of the research on L2 vocabulary comes from the English as a foreign language (EFL) context, where students have limited target language contact outside of school. However, in Norway, English is everywhere (Cabau 2009; Rindal 2014) and central to people's life worlds (Brevik and Holm, forthcoming; Sundqvist and Sylvén 2016). This matters because Norwegian children, as children in several other European countries (De Wilde and Eyckmans 2017; Jensen 2017; Kuppens 2010; Lindgren and Muñoz 2013), start school already knowing substantial amounts of English. Their vocabulary size quickly exceeds that of students in EFL contexts with years of schooling behind them (Laufer 2010). Webb and Nation (2017) argue that in contexts where English is ubiquitous, and learners have many opportunities to learn independently, it is imperative that they become capable of using this favorable circumstance to their advantage. Thus, an important goal of classroom instruction must be to teach vocabulary learning strategies and to support students as autonomous language learners both inside and outside the classroom (Nation 2001; Schmitt 2017).

English teachers in vocational programs must take into consideration the vocational aspect of their students' educational choices. However, historically, it has been argued that language teachers are unprepared for the teaching of technical vocabulary (e.g., Cowan 1974). One reason is that language teachers' lack of domain knowledge impedes their ability to comprehend technical terms (Webb and Nation 2017). This complication extends to students, for whom technical terms will not make much sense before they know the accompanying theory or practice (Nagy and Townsend 2012; Widodo 2016). In other words, language teachers need access to the content of their students' vocational subjects in order to coordinate instruction. Skarpaas and Hellekjær (2021) found that for English teachers in Norway, gaining access is not always easy as they rarely have the opportunity to collaborate or confer with their vocational colleagues.

For language teachers who are uncomfortable teaching technical terms, it has been suggested that they can engage learners in identifying what words are central to a specific topic or area (Alcina 2011; Fernádez et al. 2009). Instead of trying to become vocational authorities, language teachers can concentrate on their role as language experts and help learners become aware and develop their repertoire of vocabulary strategies (Chung and Nation 2003) and support their students' language awareness and ability to recognize technical terms (Nation 2001).

#### 1.1.2. Research Aim

The present study aims to describe the characteristics of vocabulary work within a vocational orientation approach to the teaching of L2 English in secondary school vocational classrooms. It focuses on explicit opportunities for vocabulary learning because these are episodes that may be observed. We will compare some current teaching practices to theory and previous research to further illuminate the appeal and importance of vocabulary work within VO teaching.

#### **2. Design and Methods**

#### *2.1. Educational Context*

In Norway, half the student population enters a vocational program in upper secondary school (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training [UDIR] 2021). Most such programs consist of two years in school (years 11 and 12), followed by a two-year apprenticeship. After completing their apprenticeships, students qualify for craft certificates, or they may add a third year in school to qualify for higher education. All students (regardless

of study program) are required to pass a general English course totaling 140 teaching hours. This course prioritizes communicative and intercultural competence, basic literacy skills, and cultural and social content knowledge. Learning vocabulary is not an isolated goal but is linked to communication and language production (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training [UDIR] 2006, 2019). Mostly, English classes are organized by program so that all students in one class attend, for instance, the Building and Construction program. This was the case for all classes in our study.

It is mandatory for all general subject teachers (including English teachers) to apply a vocational orientation approach to their teaching, but they enjoy substantial freedom in determining how and when.

#### *2.2. Research Procedure*

This qualitative study relies on non-participatory observation data that was collected as part of a larger project with ten teacher participants. In the larger project, we utilized a purposive sampling strategy with three selection criteria to identify schools eligible for participation:


We utilized county administration websites to obtain lists of all upper secondary schools with vocational study programs in our target locations (*N* = 146). Next, by examining school websites, we identified 22 suitable schools. The 22 schools were contacted, and ten teachers from ten of these schools volunteered to participate.

From May 2018 to April 2019, the first author collected data in the ten vocational English classrooms, including observations and student- and teacher interviews. Her observations, which are the data utilized in this study, comprised one cohesive teaching trajectory per classroom, lasting from two to five lessons (180–450 min), and, in total, 23 lessons are included in the material. The teaching trajectories were planned by the instructing teacher, who defined them as typical examples of their VO teaching. While the aforementioned interviews were not analyzed for this particular study, they have been analyzed for other purposes (Skarpaas and Hellekjær 2021) and have informed our analysis in the present study.

During the observed lessons, the first author took detailed, naturalistic observation notes focusing on the activities that the teachers initiated, describing (if applicable) expressed purposes and/or intended learning outcomes, tasks, learning materials, organization, and use of time. In addition, she wrote down several examples of dialogue between teachers and students, aiming to capture exact renderings of the exchanges. When she was unable to do this, she would make a note of it in her document and instead paraphrase what was being said to capture content. Example extracts of field notes are available in Appendix A. Table 1 includes information on the number of observations we conducted in each classroom.

#### *2.3. Participants*

The student participants in this study were all pre-service and living in Norway. They were between the ages of 16–20. The teachers had between 3–25 years of experience and were all trained English language teachers. All but one teacher (S6) reported very little collaboration with vocational colleagues when asked by the researchers about this relationship.

Table 1 provides an overview of participating classrooms, including what year (level) they represent, the number of students per class, and the number and minutes of observed lessons. In Norway, the English subject in upper secondary school amounts to 140 teaching

hours with no requirement in terms of individual lesson length. The lessons observed in this material ranged from 90–145 min.


**Table 1.** A table representing the participating classrooms.

\* In Norway, vocational classes usually take up to 15 students.

As shown in Table 1, six classes were in Year 11 and four in Year 12. The main difference between Years 11 and 12 was that students in Year 11 attended a broader foundation course, while students in Year 12 had selected a more specialized course within their field. We, therefore, make the assumption that in terms of vocational learning, year 12 students will possess more specialized knowledge than their younger peers.

#### *2.4. Data Analysis*

To investigate the characteristics of vocabulary work within a VO approach, we followed procedures anchored in thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2012; Terry et al. 2017). We started by familiarizing ourselves with the data. Individually, both researchers read and reread the observation notes (comprising 126 pages), highlighting and taking notes to identify potentially interesting items. After working individually with the material, we discussed our perceptions of salient features to develop initial descriptive codes concerning classroom activities. Some example codes include individual work, word choice, strategies, teacher explanations, and vocabulary use. In the next phase, we utilized NVivo to review the data and the initial codes to identify broader topics. Thus, we developed themes, or overarching categories, to capture patterns across classrooms. At this point, we also compared our developing themes to topics in the relevant research literature and prioritized them according to relevance. From reviewing and reorganizing, we derived the following main themes: Explicit/implicit attention to vocabulary, word choice, organization, and vocabulary context (further described in Appendix B). Through the first theme, explicit focus, we saw that eight classrooms (out of ten in total) prioritized vocabulary explicitly. We decided to limit our scope to these explicit instances, so while S9 and S10 were part of the initial analyzes, they were not part of the further exploration on account of not meeting the criteria *explicit vocabulary attention*.

#### *2.5. Ethics*

Throughout the project, caution was exercised to maintain the right to privacy, and the field notes prioritized the larger picture of "life in the classroom" rather than focusing on individuals. Participants have been anonymized, and all proper names in the material are pseudonyms.

#### **3. Findings**

In this section, we first characterize the material by presenting three central aspects: *word choice*, *organization*, and *context* (Section 3.1). Then, we present three snapshots (Section 3.2), or examples, which will illustrate variety across the material. These particular snapshots were selected to illustrate practices of particular interest to language

teaching/learning that were not easily captured in the cross-material characterizations of Section 3.1.

#### *3.1. Characteristics across the Material*

Table 2 provides a brief overview of our observations, including the two classrooms with no explicit vocabulary focus (S9 and S10) that were part of the overall project. Where applicable, it includes short descriptions of observed target vocabulary.

**Table 2.** A table describing observed instruction in S1–S10 and target vocabulary in S1–S8.


\* No explicit vocabulary attention and therefore not explored in detail in this study.

Vocabulary received explicit attention in eight out of ten classrooms. Thus, we can establish that explicit attention to vocabulary is a common element within a vocational orientation approach to English, at least in the Norwegian school system. We will use the subsequent sections to characterize this instruction further.

#### 3.1.1. Word Choices: What Words Were Attended to?

Most of the target vocabulary could be classified as *work-related*. Examples were observed in all classrooms, except S7, and included words concerning the practices of relevant occupations, including tools, machines, safety gear, and produce—typically physical objects. In S5, for example, one of the observed activities involved listing hand tools the students had used as part of their vocational training.

In addition to the expected category of work-related vocabulary, our observations included two instances (in S3 and S7) of vocabulary that could be classified as relating to the system of vocational education. In both cases, the teachers included some of the same words, such as *apprentice* and *vocational education*, while other words differed.

To summarize, we found that all classrooms worked with specialized vocabulary, frequently of an occupational nature. More rarely, the words related to the system of vocational education. Table 2 above offers a brief description of the target vocabulary in each classroom.

#### 3.1.2. Organization

We observed vocabulary work across all types of classroom organization—in wholeclass instruction, group or pair work, and individual work (Consult Appendix C for an overview). In sum, teacher-led whole-class conversations were the most common and were observed in all eight classrooms. Group or pair activities relating to vocabulary were observed in four classrooms, while individual activities were observed in all but one.

#### Whole Class

Whole-class instruction with vocabulary focus could be grouped into one of two categories. Most common were conversations with an explicit focus on word form and how to translate words from Norwegian into English. These whole-class conversations were predominantly examples of the initiation-response-feedback (IRF) format, where the teacher asks a question, a student answers, and the teacher accepts or corrects them. To illustrate, we have included an excerpt from S3, in which the teacher checked the students' vocabulary retention from a homework reading:

Teacher: What safety gear do you need to wear? Thomas?

Thomas: eh . . . helmet

Teacher: Yes. We can also call this a hard hat

Lars: Vest . . . I don't know what *refleksvest* [reflective vest] is called in English

Allan: High-visibility vest

Teacher: Yes, either that or reflective vest

Lars: Ear plugs

Ola: Protective glasses

Ali: *Eller* [or] goggles

T: Excellent. You have read the text and remember a lot of the vocabulary

In this excerpt, the teacher accepted the translations *helmet* and *high-visibility vest* as alternatives to *hard hat* and *reflective vest*, although the reading had included the latter pair only. Ali, however, corrected Ola's suggestion from *protective glasses* to *goggles*. Although not the case in this excerpt, it was quite common for the teachers to solicit a specific word when they asked for L1–L2 translations and to correct students who offered alternatives. Across the material, the teacher in S8 was the only one who actively encouraged students to discuss alternative translations, in this way displaying a broader understanding of words and their function.

The second type of whole-class instruction, observed in three classrooms (S1, S3, S7), involved meta-conversations about vocabulary. Here, the teachers addressed such issues as the function of the specific vocabulary in instruction manuals (S1) and the impact of

vocabulary on grades (S3 and S7). These meta-conversations were highly structured by the teachers, who overall conveyed the message that appropriate vocabulary would improve the quality of a written or spoken text.

#### Group and Pair Work

In four classrooms, the students worked with vocabulary in groups or pairs. In two of these cases (S2 and S3), the pair/group activities concerned word-level translations in an online game. The game would only accept one translation as correct, and to play, the students would first have to memorize their teachers' translations.

In the other two examples of pair/groupwork (S6, S7), the activities required discussion beyond the word level. To illustrate, we will give an example from S6, where pairs of students translated an English textbook text into Norwegian. It was a spoken exercise, and the goal was to notice and learn new words and phrases. To aid their translations, the students used the textbook glossary as well as input from their teacher, who visited the groups one by one. The teacher also spent time asking the pairs how they had translated key terms, seemingly to check retention of central vocabulary.

#### Individual Work

Seven classrooms (all but S2) had one or more examples of students working individually with vocabulary. The word-level translation was the most common activity within the individual segment (observed in all seven instances). In S4, for example, the students were given a booklet with 43 baking-related words to be translated into English. In this example, the students worked independently to find appropriate translations, and they were not asked to use specific tools or strategies to complete the work. Many of the students used Google Translate, and at one point, the teacher felt the need to remind her students not to rely on this as a definitive tool for answers. However, she did not suggest other sources by which they could try to expand their strategic repertoire. In addition to Google Translate, we observed several instances where students asked the teacher to tell them the correct term. In these cases, the teacher performed as they asked by simply stating a translation.

To summarize, we mainly observed strong teacher regulation of whole class instances and standardized activities and task instructions in group/pair and individual activities. It was typical for the vocabulary work to be highly structured, and we observed many instances of L1–L2 translations across the organizational formats.

#### 3.1.3. Vocabulary Context

In the observed trajectories, vocabulary episodes occurred in contexts of varying complexity. To describe this complexity, we need to account for two types of context: the inter-subject context, concerning links between the English instruction and the vocational subjects, and the intra-subject context, describing how vocabulary work relates to other tasks or activities within the English subject.

#### Inter-Subject Context

The inter-subject context concerns whether the observed instruction had expressed links to current (or past) units of the students' vocational subjects. In four classes (S1, S2, S5, S8), the teacher addressed this relationship, thus making the vocational orientation *explicit*. In the other four classrooms (S3, S4, S6, S7), such links were not mentioned, leaving the vocational orientation *implicit*.

There were differences in how explicit inter-subject links played out in our observations. In S1 and S5, the students were required to use content knowledge from their vocational subjects to solve English language tasks. In S2 and S8, however, the students worked with relevant vocabulary, but they were not required to utilize knowledge or competence from their vocational subjects. In other words, thematic links that were created between English and the vocational subject were not sustained in the actual activities.

In the four cases of implicit VO, neither the teacher nor the students addressed any links between English and the actual (completed or ongoing) content of the students' vocational study programs. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest a planned link in our observation notes nor in the teacher interviews that were conducted as part of the overall research project (see Section 2.2). When we use the term *implicit* to describe this type of instruction, it is because there were still loose ties between the English teaching and the students' vocational subjects. We can illustrate the notion of implicit inter-subject links by referring to an example from S7. Here, students in year 11, which is a fairly broad foundation course, were to work with vocabulary to describe the educational path to their future occupation. Clearly, this had relevance, as the discussed occupations were genuine career options for the students. A problem, however,—and the reason we consider it an example of implicit inter-subject link—was that the students had not yet decided between the various year 12 specializations that existed in their field and did not know much about their options.

#### Intra-Subject Context

Descriptions of the intra-subject context of vocabulary activities concern how these activities figure within a larger English teaching trajectory. We have categorized the vocabulary work as examples of either *separate* or *embedded* activities.

In what we term *separate activities*, learning words was presented as a goal in its own right. Seven classrooms (not S1) had at least one example of a separate vocabulary task. Most often, the separate tasks asked the students to work with L1–L2 translation, concentrating on form. We have already described how this transpired in S4 (above, under *individual work*).

For some of the activities that we have categorized as separate, the teachers did address why the students should acquire the target vocabulary. In S2, for example, the teacher specified that the students were learning words that would be useful for a test later in the semester. However, in the observed lessons, the words were simply translated and not utilized for communication or other purposes. The activity has therefore been classified as separate.

In *embedded activities*, attention to words was framed as necessary for completing a larger task within the observed trajectory. The students would, for example, be instructed to use suitable vocabulary when writing a longer text, or there was attention to the role of vocabulary in reading comprehension tasks. Because the words occurred in a richer context (compared to the separate activities), there were more opportunities to pay attention to meaning and use.

The embedded tasks most frequently combined vocabulary with reading (S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8). Vocabulary figured in pre-reading activities as students previewed central vocabulary prior to reading. Twice, vocabulary was attended to in the while-reading stage, once as the teacher asked students to underline central terms while reading (S3), and once as students read a text in English, which they simultaneously translated into Norwegian (S6). The most common observation, however, was for vocabulary to figure in the post-reading phase, typically as a comprehension check. In S6, the post-reading activity concerned the pronunciation of challenging words that the students had noticed in their reading (examples include *lathe*, *vernier calipers,* and *torque wrench*). We mention this in particular because it is the only example in our material in which pronunciation received explicit focus.

Furthermore, we observed three instances in which the embedded tasks combined vocabulary with writing (S1, S3, and S7). In writing trajectories, vocabulary work will be embedded in various ways, but we focus on instances in which it is explicitly mentioned. In our material, this mainly occurred in the whole class introduction of tasks when teachers framed vocabulary as important for writing quality. In S1, the teacher introduced specific vocabulary as an important genre trait for the instruction manuals the students wrote, while in S3 and S7, the teachers described the ability to use appropriate and advanced

vocabulary as a requirement to do well on the end-of-year exam. Furthermore, they framed the written assignments as opportunities to practice vocabulary skills. In S1 and S3, we also observed instances of teacher–student interactions about vocabulary that occurred as the students were writing. These instances did, however, involve a smaller number of students, typically on the initiative of the student.

It proved more challenging to give accurate descriptions of the way that vocabulary and speaking co-occurred in our material. We observed a great deal of speaking across all eight classrooms, sometimes mainly on the part of the teacher, but often also on the part of the students. However, few tasks or episodes involving vocabulary emerged as *primarily* about oral communication. Instead, they were typically incidents when students shared their answers to specific tasks in the initiation-response-feedback (IRF) format (i.e., the teacher checked the students' answers). One exception is S5, where we observed several longer stretches of classroom conversation. We will present the practices observed in S5 in the example section below (Section 3.2).

#### *3.2. Three Snapshots from the Material*

To provide more insight into how the overriding trends (Section 3.1) play out in our observations, we will present three snapshots from the material. These snapshots illustrate some of the dominant tendencies and capture interesting examples not easily covered in the structured presentations above. However, because they were selected to illustrate practices of particular interest to language teaching/learning in addition to the typical, they do not cover all the aspects addressed in Sections 3.1.1–3.1.3. Table 3 gives a more detailed overview of what the snapshots are examples of.

**Table 3.** Details about the observations described as snapshots.


#### 3.2.1. Snapshot 1: Vocational Orientation Curbs English Language Use

We have classified this snapshot from S2 as an example of whole-class instruction targeting work-related vocabulary. Concerning the inter-subject level, this is an example of an explicit VO link, while at the intra-subject level, it illustrates a separate activity.

In S2, we observed how the teacher prepared his students for an upcoming English assessment where the students would describe the process of ATV assembly. The assessment itself was not part of the observed trajectory. To be able to perform well, the students would first need to learn relevant vocabulary, and the teacher had preselected target words, which he presented on digital flashcards. Words on his list included parts, such as *shock absorber* and *front hub*, and processes, such as *frame production* and *bending by bulging*. For each word, the teacher asked questions about the students' workshop experiences, and he offered additional information indicative of extensive technical knowledge. However, both teacher and students used Norwegian almost exclusively, and all technical explanations and interactions were all in Norwegian. English was only used in the actual translations of target vocabulary.

Of particular interest here is the way the teacher created an explicit VO link: there were clear bonds to an ongoing unit in the students' vocational subject, visible in the topic (ATV assembly), and in the teacher's rich descriptions of the target vocabulary. He gave detailed explanations of vehicle parts and construction processes and asked follow-up questions that tapped into the students' practical and technical competence. As an example, when introducing *joining*, the teacher had four students comment on the joining processes used for ATV assembly. However, while the teacher was able to build on the students' vocational content knowledge, all communication, including the technical discussions, was conducted in Norwegian, and English was never used beyond the word level. The observed interactions involved many relevant terms, and if the interactions had been conducted in English, they would have afforded opportunities to practice vocabulary in relevant communicative contexts.

The observation exemplifies how it is possible for English teachers to create strong inter-subject links where students can use terminology to talk about their own work and experiences. However, it is also an example of how teachers may struggle to balance vocational topics with language learning. Across our material, the choice to use mostly Norwegian was not very common, but it was found in S2 and S6.

#### 3.2.2. Snapshot 2: Vocabulary and Communication beyond the Word Level

In S5, the episode we report on occurred halfway through our first observation. We have classified this snapshot as mainly an example of whole-class instruction, with some individual work. The students targeted work-related vocabulary, more specifically, safety equipment. Concerning the inter-subject level, this is an example of an explicit VO link, while at the intra-subject level, it is an example of an embedded activity in which vocabulary has a function in spoken interaction.

We observed how the teacher asked the students to write down examples of safety gear and protective clothing. They were told to use Norwegian only if they did not know or could not guess the word in English. After some minutes of individual work, the teacher started collecting words for a shared list. The first item mentioned was *safety glasses*. The teacher said this could also be a different word, and another student offered *safety goggles*. The teacher stated that *safety googles* are important to avoid getting splinters or swarf in the eyes and added a column to the blackboard where he wanted to write down why the various types of equipment are essential. The class then discussed where splinters or swarf come from and concluded that they are both hot and sharp. Four students engaged heavily in this discussion. After a while, the teacher continued collecting words:

Teacher: More for the list?

Filip: Safety boots

Teacher: Why are they safe?

Filip: Because if you drop a hammer on them, it won't hurt.

Teacher: Yes, but why? Why does it not hurt?

Filip: Because they have a steel tip

Teacher: What should we write on why?

Filip: So, I do not drop something on my feet, and it hurts?

Teacher: Yes, but it does not really protect you from dropping something, does it?

Filip: No . . . .

Teacher: So, we can put that safety boots are to protect from falling objects?

Filip: Yes!

The part of this observation we would like to unpack concerns the way the students were required to use domain knowledge to list and elaborate on vocabulary relating to safety equipment. As part of a health and safety certification mandatory in their vocational program, they had developed knowledge of workshop hazards and how to avoid them, such as by using safety equipment. The structure of the vocabulary activity allowed the students to use this knowledge not only to offer relevant vocabulary but also to engage in explaining the protective function of the various equipment. In this manner, the teacher and students used target vocabulary in communication beyond the word level, which we rarely saw in our material. The observation exemplifies how English teachers can create

opportunities for L2 interactions in which target vocabulary is in active use while students take responsibility for identifying relevant vocabulary within a specific topic.

#### 3.2.3. Snapshot 3: An Opportunity to Practice Translation Strategies

We have classified this snapshot from S8 as an example of individual instruction targeting work-related vocabulary. Concerning the inter-subject level, it has an explicit VO link, while at the intra-subject level, it is an example of a separate activity that only concerns word learning.

We observed how, as the first activity of the lesson, the students were asked to translate thirteen terms from Norwegian into English. These terms were, in their Norwegian form, key for understanding the current unit in the vocational subject. Most of the words were quite challenging to translate, some because they were linked to the specific organization of health services in Norway, others because they were compound words, while others were challenging because the students lacked the necessary background knowledge to understand the words and their significance. The students used several electronic and online dictionaries, and if these gave no definitive answers, they made guesses, which they then set out to verify using online sources. One student, for example, used Google Images and Wikipedia to verify her initial guess of how to translate *sosial kompetanse* ("social competence") into English. In addition, the teacher aided her students in the process of analyzing L1 words to achieve a better understanding of their meaning. Here is one example:

S9: I don't know how to translate *samhandlingskompetanse*[collaborative competence]

T: What does it mean in Norwegian? What is the essence of this word?

S9: I don't know. We haven't talked about it in our vocational subject yet.

T: [To everyone]: When you encounter a word you are unsure of, it is very helpful to think about the word in Norwegian. And if you do not know what it means in Norwegian, you can look it up and read about it in Norwegian before translating into English.

As a final part of this segment, the teacher asked the students to use digital flashcards that she had prepared to check their translations against hers. However, the teacher did not treat her own suggestions as final or the only possible options, telling her students that "if you disagree with the way I have translated something, let me know and we can discuss it." Our observations include examples of students who initiated such discussions.

In this classroom, we noticed how the students persisted in their translation work, and instead of giving up or asking the teacher for help (which we observed in many other instances), utilized a repertoire of strategies to identify suitable translations. We did not observe similar practices anywhere else. This observation exemplifies how students can become proficient and autonomous users of translation strategies, but because it was the only instance when we observed strategy use, it also suggests that students do not automatically develop the strategies they need.

#### **4. Discussion**

In this study, we have described characteristics of vocabulary work within a vocational orientation to L2 English teaching. The study is informed by Skarpaas and Hellekjær (2021), who found that English teachers in Norway described vocabulary work as a backbone of VO teaching. Our study supports this contention by establishing that vocabulary work indeed had a strong presence within the VO instruction that we analyzed. In the following, we discuss our findings, starting with word choice (Section 4.1), then organization (Section 4.2), and finally context (Section 4.3).

#### *4.1. Word Choice*

Regarding word choice within the VO approach, we found that the teachers prioritized terminology from the students' vocational programs. Using Nation's (2001) description of the levels of vocabulary (i.e., high-frequency words, academic vocabulary, technical vocabulary, and low-frequency words), we conclude that VO teaching mainly addresses technical vocabulary. In other words, most of the vocabulary concerns words that are part of the system of subject knowledge within a particular domain (Chung and Nation 2004). We also found evidence that some teachers take a broader approach to VO vocabulary, by including words to describe education and school systems. This vocabulary would typically be categorized as academic, using Nation's (2001) descriptions. Thus, the vocabulary taught under a VO heading can be classed as belonging to one of two categories: technical words to describe (future) work-related practices or academic words to describe education. Of these, the first category was by far the most common.

We take the priority given to work-related vocabulary as an indication that the teachers wanted to target words that may prove useful to their students in their future work life. In the classrooms we studied, the English teachers had typically preselected target words (see Snapshot 1), and we observed very few instances where students were involved in negotiating relevant words (Snapshot 2 provides one of those rare examples). From the perspective of teachers, it is clearly an advantage to preselect vocabulary, as it means they can—to some extent—remain in control of the learning sequence even with very little vocational background knowledge. However, as several others have described how language teachers struggle to identify which L2 words vocational students need to learn (Cowan 1974; Webb and Nation 2017; Widodo 2016), this is not necessarily an advantage from the perspective of student learning. To some degree, a teacher's ability to pinpoint what is relevant vocabulary will be determined by their domain content knowledge (Nagy and Townsend 2012) and the extent to which they collaborate with vocational teachers (Widodo 2016). We know from Skarpaas and Hellekjær (2021) that vocational English teachers in Norway rarely experience such collaborations and that they also struggle to comprehend the core content of their students' vocational educations. This raises the question of whether the teachers are in a position to select vocabulary that represents core aspects of their students' vocational learning. To ameliorate what can be seen as a problematic situation, we build on Alcina (2011), Fernádez et al. (2009), Chung and Nation (2003), and Nation (2001), whom all argue that there is no need for English teachers to be vocational experts to succeed in teaching vocational terminology. Instead, English teachers in vocational education can retain their role as language experts and focus on facilitating vocational language encounters. This would entail a practice of involving students in identifying central vocational topics and key terminology related to the topics in question. Rather than being the students' dictionaries, teachers can explain dictionary use, support the students' language awareness and require them to review their understanding of central vocational content by identifying key terms. Snapshot 2 gave one example of how this might function in practice.

#### *4.2. Organization*

Our second finding concerns classroom organization. We found that vocabulary work was included in whole-class instruction, group or pair work, and individual work. Of these, teacher-led whole-class conversations were the most common and found in all eight classrooms with explicit vocabulary focus. Typically, the conversations were instances of highly structured IRF sequences. Independent work was also common and included many instances of L1–L2 translation. Group or pair work could be identified in only half of the classrooms and was clearly outnumbered by the other two organizational forms.

Regardless of organizational form, most vocabulary tasks were highly structured, either by the teacher or by task instructions, and they rarely required independent reasoning. Webb and Nation (2017) argue that the quantifiable nature of vocabulary learning makes the progress of lexical development relatively clear compared to other language skills, which is something students tend to appreciate. In general, when translating a list of words into English, teachers and students might achieve a sense of quick progression as they check off words that have been satisfactorily translated. In our observations, the teachers typically helped students who struggled with their translations by offering the correct

answer instead of supporting them in figuring it out on their own. This ensured (superficial) progress for everyone. In line with Webb and Nation (2017), we hypothesize that the highly organized structure of much vocabulary work, combined with this sense of progress, could explain why teachers perceived it to be a popular VO approach among vocational students (Skarpaas and Hellekjær 2021)

In this study, we found that when VO teaching trajectories include explicit attention to vocabulary, form-focused instruction, and to some degree comprehensible input, is prioritized over meaning-focused output and fluency development (i.e., the four strands, Nation 2001). We believe that this imbalance would be redressed by a shift in the instructional organization away from teacher-led whole-class instruction. We will also argue that because the material contains extensive use of L1–L2 translation, there is great but untapped potential to practice vocabulary strategies and to raise the students' language awareness. Both strategy practice and language awareness have been described as particularly important for students who have a great deal of English-language contact outside of school (Nation 2001; Schmitt 2017; Webb and Nation 2017). S8, which we presented in some detail in our third snapshot, provided the only example of how translation tasks can be utilized to develop students' autonomous use of language learning strategies. Here, the teacher developed a standard translation task to house explicit focus on how to use translation strategies independently, which she paired with an invitation to utilize vocational knowledge as a resource while engaging in the translations.

#### *4.3. Context*

The third and final finding concerns contextual variations in vocabulary teaching. We have described context using two parameters: inter- and intra-subject relationships. We argue that the findings in this study suggest that both aspects of context are important to realize the full potential of vocabulary teaching from a VO perspective.

Creating close inter-subject links between English and the students' vocational subjects is a practice that contributes toward framing English as a relevant part of vocational education, which is typically what educational stakeholders have called for when requesting an integration between general and vocational subjects (see Conroy and Walker 2000; European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (2019); Hoachlander 1999; NOU 2008:18 2008; Quinn 2013; Roberts et al. 2005; Vogt and Kantelinen 2012). Snapshots 1 (S2) and 2 (S5), where target words were anchored in a vocational unit, exemplify what this may look like in relation to vocabulary teaching. However, in Snapshot 1, we also observed that on the intra-subject parameter, the vocabulary work occurred in isolated activities, with no opportunities for application to reading, writing, or speaking purposes. Webb and Chang (2015) argue that the application of newly encountered words is key to more durable long-term learning gains, and for the same reason, Nation (2007) urges teachers to develop a system to ensure the return to the same material several times over. On these grounds, we argue that in the case of S1 (and the other examples of isolated vocabulary practices), the conditions for vocabulary retention would be improved if the teacher planned for multiple encounters—preferably across the four language skills—with the same vocabulary within a short timeframe.

To develop comprehensive word knowledge, learners need to focus on form, meaning, and use and to practice the words receptively and productively (Nation 2001; Webb 2005). Our snapshot design cannot reveal whether target vocabulary was revisited outside of the observed trajectories, and it is, therefore, possible they were given more attention at a later date. However, we did observe complete trajectories, and within these trajectories, there were typically few opportunities for repeated use and few opportunities to use target vocabulary while producing output. Our study is not in a position to explain why this may be. Instead, we contend that although the students' vocational subjects are a good place to anchor vocabulary instruction, the vocational link must not overshadow the language aspect of vocabulary learning. With grounds in the previous research presented above, we suggest a need to balance the two aspects of context so that the engagement-supportive

practices of VO do not hamper the language learning prospects of vocabulary activities. In sum, our study suggests that a potential means of improvement within VO vocabulary instruction is the extent to which it supports the development of speaking and writing skills, as well as the type of language awareness needed to understand nuances linked to meaning and use. Vocabulary work can become richer if teachers consider both the interand intra-subject aspects of the context in planning their activities.

#### **5. Concluding Remarks and Didactic Implications**

Through the investigation of twenty-three English L2 lessons in eight vocational classrooms, this study has identified aspects of VO vocabulary instruction that can be used to discuss why vocabulary is a favored part of VO teaching. Furthermore, the study has analyzed how teachers approach vocabulary and it has identified some debatable issues.

The main contribution of this study lies in the way it documents vocabulary practices within VO teaching. By observing multiple classrooms, the material provides grounds for future comparisons, such as with VO English teaching in other countries and contexts. Furthermore, the study is a contribution within the field of vocabulary instruction, where naturalistic observation studies of classroom practices are scarce.

In terms of motivating vocational students, an advantage of working with vocabulary within a VO frame is that it comes with a highly noticeable and easily accepted link between English and the students' vocational subject. When, for example, teachers ask their students to translate a list of tools found in the workshop, the task is recognizable both as an English language task and as relevant for vocational education.

In line with central voices in vocabulary research (Nation 2001; Schmitt 2017; Webb and Nation 2017), it is an important goal for students to become autonomous language learners and increase their word awareness (for example, ability to recognize words as technical and relate core meaning to technical meaning) as part of vocabulary instruction. Accordingly, a further advantage of linking vocabulary and relevant vocational issues—not fully utilized in the classrooms we observed—is that students can be involved in identifying key terms and in finding and testing strategies for arriving at precise terms. In this way, vocabulary tasks can support the students' language learning autonomy and release teachers from the responsibility of being vocational authorities.

Translating terms from L1 into L2—even if they are VO terms—will not automatically propel students' language competence forward. Instead, we suggest teachers prioritize activities that support student autonomy and help students develop a broader repertoire of vocabulary strategies. Furthermore, by embedding vocabulary work within a larger trajectory of, for example, writing and/or speaking, the students will have more opportunities to go beyond form to explore aspects of meaning and use.

Throughout our observations, the students seemed quite content with basic translation tasks. We can only speculate that this might be because it is a manageable task imbued with a sense of progress as words are translated. However, they are used to active ways of learning from their vocational subjects, and there is no reason to expect that the English subject would become less appealing if vocabulary activities prioritized autonomy, language exploration, and use over structured tasks.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, K.G.S. and K.A.R.; Formal analysis, K.G.S.; Investigation, K.G.S.; Methodology, K.G.S. and K.A.R.; Project administration, K.G.S.; Resources, K.G.S.; Supervision, K.G.S.; Validation, K.G.S. and K.A.R.; Visualization, K.G.S.; Writing—original draft, K.G.S.; Writing—review and editing, K.G.S. and K.A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by Norwegian Centre for Research Data (protocol code 59328, date of approval: 16.03.2018).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data are not publicly available.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors would like to thank Glenn Ole Hellekjær for valuable feedback in the writing process.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **Appendix A. Example Fields Notes**

Example field notes 1, S4 Time: 0823-0840

The teacher starts the class by referring to the booklet from last week, saying that they are to finish their walk-through of correct answers. This becomes a sequence where two students partake, and the teacher is the main voice heard. She adds additional information on every bread/baked good they go through, and students are only invited to say one word here and there.

T: Find your booklet [waves the booklet from last week in the air]

S2: I am sorry, but I have lost it

T: Well, I do not have an extra copy, so then you will have to dig deep in your memory to remember.

They are to go through the answers for last week's glossary tasks. The teacher projects pictures of bread and baked goods onto the screen. First word (and picture) today is rundstykker 'rolls'. The teacher asks for the English name, a student says rolls. Teacher adds that in the English-speaking world rolls are usually eaten with food, not with cold cuts and spreads like we do in Norway.

Next picture is of a rugbrød 'rye bread'. One student gives the English name. Teacher says it is fairly coarse, and that barley and rye does not rise a whole lot. Therefore, it looks like a brick and is fairly heavy.

Next picture is a scone. A student gives the English name as scones. Teacher says it is something that used to be popular to make in elementary school in Norway, perhaps as the first thing to make in Mat og Helse 'food and health subject', because it is easy to make.

T: Do you know what scones are used for in England?

S3: They are eaten with jam or cheese or something.

T: Yes

Teacher proceeds to talk about clotted cream and that scones are eaten with tea in the afternoon. She also adds that proper scones should be baked so that you do not need a knife to cut them, you can simply twist them.

Next picture is of sourdough bread. Teacher asks what makes it different from other bread. One student says it is sour. Teacher says not necessarily in the flavor. A student says something about the way it is made, and the teacher agrees [I did not quite catch it].

Next is spelt bread. Teacher asks what makes it different from a regular loaf of bread. No one answers. Teacher eventually says you cannot tell from looking at it. However, it is the flour. Spelt is one of the original grains, it has more gluten in it and is therefore easier to bake with.

Example field notes 2, S7

Time: 0820-0848

The students sit quietly at their desks; the teacher is speaking. She introduces the project and says that it will end up with oral presentations. It is a continuation of what they did two weeks ago—now they will study two vocations in more depth. They should choose jobs they are interested in and might want in the future.

The teacher links the project to vocabulary, by saying that she often experiences that students do not use appropriate vocabulary when presenting their education or future jobs. She would therefore like to remind them of a few things related to vocabulary. She says that she wants them to take notes because this is important. The students get ready for

taking notes (however my impression is that only one of them actually does it). The teacher writes on the board: Design, arts and crafts, not: going on a line, but "taking a course".

T: First and foremost, you are studying what in English is called Design, Arts and Crafts. So, when you refer to your study, use this title, and notice that in English you have upper case letters for each of the words. Often students tell me, they are going on a line called Design, Arts and Crafts. To a native speaker that sounds as if you are walking on a line, like this [mimes]. So, you can say that you are taking a course. A course is what they refer to as a line of study in English. Design, Arts and Crafts is one course in the vocational programme in Norway.

Then, the teacher goes through some other words on the board. The first one is 'vocational'. She says this is a word they have encountered earlier this autumn and asks if anyone remember what it means. No one answers, and the teacher says it means 'yrkesfalig'. She states that it is a very useful term for them to know. The next word is 'apprentice'.

T: Also, when you have studied here for two years, you may become an 'apprentice', what is that?

S1: [hand up]

T: Yes

S1: Skal jeg si det på norsk eller engelsk? [Should I answer in Norwegian or English?] T: Si det på norsk, oversettelsen [Say it in Norwegian, the translation]

S1: Lærling da [Apprentice, then]

The next word is 'work placement', which the teacher explains herself. Then she mentions 'skills' and talks a bit about skills and 'competences' herself. She says that at the end of an apprenticeship, if you prove your competences you will get a 'diploma', or 'fagbrev'.

The teacher repeats that she wants the students to write the words down (they are all written on the board now), because students are very often not successful when they attempt to translate words that have to do with the Norwegian educational system into English. She also stresses that she would like to hear these words in the presentation.

#### **Appendix B. Themes, Descriptions, and Examples**

**Table A1.** Coding scheme with examples.



**Table A1.** *Cont.*

#### **Appendix C. Overview of How Vocabulary Instruction Was Structured in the Observed Classrooms**

**Table A2.** Overview of how vocabulary instruction was structured in the observed classrooms.


#### **References**


Llach, Maria Pilar Augustin. 2011. *Lexical Errors and Accuracy in Foreign Language Writing*. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.


Schmitt, Norbert, and Diane Schmitt. 2020. *Vocabulary in Language Teaching*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


### *Article* **Language Play with Formulas in an EFL Classroom**

**Parvin Gheitasi**

School of Language, Literatures and Learning, Dalarna University, 791 31 Falun, Sweden; pgh@du.se

**Abstract:** Language learners' play with language can be a useful and effective tool for learning. Since language play generally involves deviating from the norms, one potential source for it can be multiword units of language known as formulaic sequences. This study is informed by sociocultural perspective and Bakhtinian dialogism and investigates language play with sequences among young foreign language learners in a classroom context. A class of 11 pupils (aged 9 to 11), in Iran, was observed and video recorded for 16 × 90 min sessions. Across recordings, episodes where pupils were engaged in language play were identified and analyzed qualitatively to document patterns of use and participation. Additionally, formulaic sequences were identified based on pre-established criteria. Results revealed that the young learners of the present study were recurrently engaged in different types of language play with formulaic sequences such as playing with sounds, manipulating some units of sequences or using a sequence to play a role. The data provide examples illustrating the role of language play in generating occasions for learners to practice, repeat, explore, and interact with the language in a more lively and low stress environment.

**Keywords:** language play; early foreign language learning; formulaic sequences; classroom interaction

#### **1. Introduction**

Language users, regardless of age, appear to have a drive to manipulate (or play with) language for the purpose of fun and enjoyment. Through different methods of conversation analysis, discourse analysis, and sociolinguistics, scholars have sought to understand the concept of language play, the functions language play serve, and the effect of such practices for language learning.

Language play not only gives pleasure and emotional excitement, but also leads to noticing and provides optimal circumstances for learners to improve a number of linguistic skills from language structure and syntax to pragmatic abilities (Bell 2012; Cekaite 2018; Cook 2000; Reddington and Waring 2015). By providing opportunities for focus on form and access to different types of interaction, language play facilitates second language acquisition (Cook 2000). According to Tarone (2000) language play may foster learning a second language in three ways: by reducing anxiety and lowering learners' affective filters, rendering language more memorable; by providing opportunities for learners to "try on different voices and language varieties"; and by destabilizing the interlanguage (p. 45).

Since language play generally involves deviating from norms and conventions, one potential source for it can be multiword units of language known as formulaic sequences (Bell 2012; Bell and Skalicky 2018). Formulaic sequences generally have a stereotyped form, conventionalized meaning, and require an appropriate context, all of which are immediately recognizable to native speakers of a language (Pawley 2007; Wray 2014). Such conventionalized systems provide an infinite number of options for language users to combine and manipulate elements of language; linguistic structures can be manipulated at the phonemic, morphological, lexical, syntactic, or pragmatic level. As language is a patterned system in which social norms regulate expectations concerning interaction patterns, speakers can manipulate these patterns as they co-construct a conversation.

This study links three areas of great importance in second/foreign language learning and applied linguistics research: (a) early foreign language learning, (b) language play, and

**Citation:** Gheitasi, Parvin. 2022. Language Play with Formulas in an EFL Classroom. *Languages* 7: 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages 7010063

Academic Editors: Pia Sundqvist, Erica Sandlund, Marie Källkvist and Henrik Gyllstad

Received: 27 October 2021 Accepted: 28 February 2022 Published: 4 March 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

(c) formulaic sequences. To date, the topic of language play with formulaic sequences in early language learning has received scant attention in the research literature. This paper reports on a study that investigates the nature and role of language play with formulaic sequences among young foreign language learners in a classroom context.

#### **2. Background**

#### *2.1. Theoretical Framework*

Vygotsky (1978) and Bakhtin (1986) provide theoretical frameworks that have influenced the two realms of play and language development. According to Vygotsky (1978; as cited in Lantolf 1997), the social dialogues children engage in during play contribute to the development of language. These dialogues are important because they are internalized as self-regulatory inner speech. Lantolf (1997) refers to Vygotsky's theory and argues that the purpose of play is not fun; it rather can perform an essential role in the cognitive development of learners by allowing them to handle parts of model utterances that are slightly beyond their current level of competence. According to this model, play creates a zone of proximal development in which the child "always behaves beyond his average age, above his daily behavior" (Vygotsky 1978, p. 102; as cited in Lantolf 1997, pp. 4–5). On the other hand, Bakhtin's (1986) theory of the dialogic process considers parody as a type of double voicing, in which the voice of the other is used for humor. Inspired by Bakhtin's notion of parody, Broner and Tarone (2001) argue that certain types of semantic play can also produce pragmatic effects where language users can distance themselves from certain positions and ridicule the serious reality. In fact, semantic language play provides an opportunity for the language user to creatively explore, practice, and generate fantasies without real, practical consequences. Bakhtin (1986) believed that we learn language by appropriating the voices of others. Every utterance stands in multiple dialogic relationships with other utterances, and they gain their true meaning through the interaction between a speaker, a respondent, and a relation between the two. This theory suggests that when the language learner acquires the varieties of others, they associate those utterances with the personal characteristics of those other speakers. Consequently, the learner adopts and retains the characteristics of different roles and registers and can employ them as desired.

Considering these two views of language play (as language practice intended mainly to be fun and as language practice intended to be rehearsal), Broner and Tarone (2001) argue that due to the multifunctionality of discourse, some utterances may appear to function as both fun and rehearsal.

#### *2.2. Language Play*

Language play refers to instances when language users manipulate the forms and/or functions of language as a source of fun for themselves and/or for others (Crystal 1998). Affirming that language users employ play primarily for enjoyment, Cook (2000) maintained that language play may take a variety of forms: linguistic (play with sound and grammatical patterns; repetitions), semantic (play with ambiguities; reference to an alternate reality), and pragmatic (play that focuses on performance and may be done for enjoyment and/or value, for example, in achieving solidarity).

Research in the field of applied linguistics has revealed various roles of language play in facilitating language learning (e.g., Bell 2005, 2012; Cekaite 2018; Cho and Kim 2018; Cook 2000; Hann 2017; Laursen and Kolstrup 2018; Reddington and Waring 2015). Several studies suggested that play can provide opportunities for noticing and encoding form as language users pay increased attention to language structures such as morphemes, phonemes, and lexemes (Bell and Skalicky 2018; Bushnell 2009; Cekaite and Aronsson 2005; Forman 2011). When language users are playing with or laughing about a certain aspect of language, their attention is directed towards it. Based on the results of a study involving three advanced second language learners, Bell (2012) claimed that language play may result in deeper processing of lexical items, rendering them more memorable. In a study of young language learners, Cekaite and Aronsson (2005) found that language play provided opportunities for

extended practice and entailed learners' attention to phonological, semantic, and syntactic levels, promoting awareness of correct and incorrect phonology and morphology. Moreover, Reddington and Waring's (2015) study of adult language learners revealed that language play provides a safe space to rehearse different aspects of language, and at the same time to destabilize the interlanguage, keeping it open to change. In the same vein, observing multilingual children's text construction activity, Laursen and Kolstrup (2018) concluded that the pupils' engagement with language play led to a cheerful interaction where pupils playfully involved themselves in manipulating and exploring the aesthetic and creative potentials of language, and hence generating a space in which they simultaneously explored the possibilities of language to not only act in the world as it is, but also to generate new realities and their own social identities.

Language play has been found as an effective tool for developing learners' sociolinguistic competence via the appropriation of other voices (Bushnell 2009). Cekaite (2018) examined young learners' engagement in spontaneous language play through an interactional sociolinguistic approach. The findings of her study revealed incongruence as a generic and primary mechanism for creating amusement and entertainment that involved novel combinations of prior resources. Cekaite observed that the inversion of expectations and norms generated entertaining improvisations which could contribute to building and sharing norms and values.

During language play, when language users spontaneously and playfully focus on form, the episodes are "affectively charged" and the "emotional excitement" inherent in play may also contribute to noticing and rendering language forms as more memorable (Broner and Tarone 2001, p. 375). Hence, language play may trigger a classroom culture that encourages learners to participate and thus to make use of opportunities to produce language and receive feedback (Bell and Skalicky 2018; Cho and Kim 2018; Pomerantz and Bell 2011; Waring 2013). Moreover, language play can generate a sense of community among a group of language learners. Hann (2017) found that language play built rapport among the adult L2 students and contributed to their sense of communal identity.

#### *2.3. Formulaic Sequences*

It is becoming increasingly apparent that there is some level of fixedness in language; that is, some phrases and expressions have become conventionalized as more or less unanalyzed composites of form and function. These prefabricated chunks known as formulaic sequences are defined as: "a sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other meaning elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated: that is stored and retrieved whole from the memory at the time of use, rather than being subject to generation or analysis by the language grammar" (Wray 2002, p. 9).

Developing on the psycholinguistic perspective of this definition, Wray (2002) suggests viewing formulaicity as the way a certain sequence is treated by a particular individual (learner internal approach), rather than attributing formulaicity to sequences in the language (learner external approach). The rationale for this statement is that a sequence that might be formulaic for one language user (e.g., for the speaker), need not be formulaic for another (e.g., for the listener). Likewise, introducing the term *processing unit*, Myles and Cordier (2017) define a learner internal sequence as "a multiword semantic/functional unit that presents a processing advantage for a given speaker, either because it is stored whole in their lexicon or because it is highly automatised" (p. 12).

During language acquisition, learners acquire and maintain many unanalyzed sequences of language linked to pragmatic competence in order to use them in some predictable social contexts (e.g., 'nice to meet you' for greeting). As language users' proficiency develop, they can start to analysis these prefabricated sequences and break them down into smaller patterns and individual words. Later, both the original sequence and the individual units and patterns of syntax, which come from analysis, can be retained (Nattinger and DeCarrico 1992; Wood 2015; Wray 2014). In the field of first language acquisition, there is some evidence suggesting that sequences that are learnt and retained as unanalyzed units

are later segmented into individual words, which can be combined with other words in a novel utterance (Cameron 2001; Peters 1983). McKay (2006) claims that while exposed to the language in use, young language learners have a strong tendency to rely on a formulaic system. Through this, they gain implicit knowledge of language rules; later, they become able to generate their own constructions and discourse. Likewise, the two studies by Myles et al. (1998, 1999) suggest a developmental process from formulaic-based language production to lexico-grammatical productivity in the foreign language context. Their findings revealed that over the course of a year, the participants of their studies (11- and 12-year-old learners of French) progressed from using holistically stored interrogative forms to more analytically stored forms and used components in different ways.

On the segmentation of a formulaic sequence, some scholars believe that language users generally implement a conservative approach to processing. That is, they are reluctant to go beyond the things they have heard in the input or that they have often used themselves (Tomasello 2003; Wray 2014; Wray and Grace 2007). In line with the conservative approach to language processing, Wray (2002) has proposed the "Needs Only Analysis hypothesis" (p. 130). This hypothesis suggests that a language user analyses a sequence only if communication circumstances necessitate it. In both first and second language acquisition, young language learners analyze formulaic sequences only when required and more specifically to the extent that they are needed or when the possible changes have been indicated in the course of input (Wray 2002, 2014). This processing principle enlightens why some sequences are processed and stored more analytically than others. Language play entails situations where norms are violated and one way to do that is for language users to analyze and manipulate a formulaic sequence.

As a type of creative language use, language play is often dependent on formulaic language. In a review of the literature on relationship between formulaic language and language play, Bell (2012) concluded that formulaic sequences are rich resources for language play, which provides "particularly young second language learners" with an opportunity for both practice and analysis (p. 194). Formulaic sequences commonly have a stereotyped form, conventionalized meaning, and require an appropriate context, all of which are immediately recognizable to native speakers of a language (Pawley and Syder 1983; Wood 2015; Wray 2014). Such conventionalized systems provide an infinite number of options for language users to combine and manipulate elements of language; linguistic structures can be manipulated at the phonemic, morphological, lexical, syntactic, or pragmatic level. As Crystal (1998) described it, "to play with language requires that, at some level of consciousness, a person has sensed what is normal and is prepared to deviate from it" (p. 181). Since language is a patterned system in which social norms regulate expectations concerning interaction patterns, speakers can manipulate these patterns as they co-construct a conversation. Language users may consciously manipulate patterns in conversation, while they are aware of what is expected in the language (Huth 2017). In addition, this can be a way for learners to build up knowledge of formulaic sequences and/or language structure through experimentation. Concerning the memory effect of language play for learning, research shows that sequences that are encountered in a playful context are remembered better than those that were encountered seriously (Bell and Skalicky 2018).

All in all, the review of previous studies confirms that language play may contribute to a number of linguistic skills, including lexical, grammatical, and syntactic abilities. Language learners may also develop sociolinguistic skills through language play, and significant affective benefits seem to accompany this phenomenon. These advantages suggest that language play has great potential for application in the classroom particularly with young language learners, as among distinctive characteristics of young language learners are their enthusiasm for imitation, discovering things, and play (Pinter 2017; Scott and Lisbeth 1992). On the other hand, conventionalized formulaic sequences are pervasive in language and facilitate efficient communication, and contribute to aspects of accuracy and fluency (Wood 2015; Wray 2014).

Despite their influential role in the process of language learning and the interdependence of the two, investigations into language play and formulaic language have largely taken place without reference to each other (Bell 2012; Bell and Skalicky 2018). The review of previous studies on both language play and formulaic language makes clear that this relationship needs to be examined. Moreover, young foreign language learners constitute a very large yet under-researched population in the field of language teaching and learning (Collins and Muñoz 2016; Enever 2018; Pinter 2017). Given the significant benefits of language play in the process of early language learning and the integral role of formulaicity in language play and in early language learning, this study aims to investigate the role and nature of language play with formulaic sequences among young language learners in a foreign language classroom.

#### **3. Materials and Methods**

The setting for data collection was a private language institute in Tehran, Iran. This context provides a good example of a foreign language setting, since learners are exposed to English mainly in the classroom (Davari and Aghagolzadeh 2015). Since the public educational system in Iran does not introduce English language to the pupils before grade 6 (age 11), parents who wish their children to learn English earlier need to send their children to a private language institute as an extracurricular activity. This study was carried out in one private language institute where the pupils were grouped based on their proficiency level and not on age; the age range of the pupils was between 9 and 11 years. Both the teacher and the pupils were Farsi native speakers and English was their foreign language. The lessons were based around the course material "Family and Friends" (Oxford University Press) and according to the institute's policy, teachers and pupils were expected to communicate only in English during the whole lesson.

Prior to collection of data, following the local procedures of the context, permission was obtained from the head of the school, the teacher, and the parents. Moreover, the pupils were informed about the study and their consent was also obtained. After an oral description of the research process by the researcher, the pupils were asked to read a short, informed consent (in their first language) and to circle a smiley face if they consented or a sad face if they were not willing to participate. A disadvantage with using a sad face and a smiley face as the response alternatives might be that pupils can feel obliged to choose the happy face since a sad face might be considered negative. However, the researcher tried to emphasize (both in oral and in written explanations) that participation was voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

To accomplish the purpose of the study, a classroom with 11 pupils was observed and video recorded for 16 sessions (90 min each). For each session, the video camera was installed at the front of the classroom at a point from which the whole classroom was visible. The researcher sat on a student chair in the corner of the classroom, keeping running logs about what was taking place in the classroom. The observation log provided a basis for becoming familiar with the data and the basic interpretations. Moreover, after the session was finished, the researcher could engage with the teacher as a collaborator to interpret certain instances and the possible reason(s) for certain behavior and activities observed.

After the data were collected, the initial task was to transcribe the recorded data. Due to the extensive amount of data collected and the limited time available for the study, not all recordings were transcribed. First, all the recordings were reviewed several times and then 10 sessions, which included more oral interaction activities than other sessions, were chosen to be transcribed. The other lessons were mostly focused on literacy skills and writing tasks or written exam. However, the recordings from all 16 sessions were reviewed and all episodes where learners were engaged in language play were transcribed. A number of transcription codes were adopted and adapted from Jefferson (2004) to indicate certain features such as hesitation, pause, and emphasis (see Appendix A).

The unit of analysis for the present study was stretches of talk treated by participants as humorous, which included transformations of various linguistic features. To identify

and analyze language play instances in the data, certain guidelines derived from the review of literature were implemented in this study. Language play incorporates a wide variety of actions, through manipulations of language at three levels of linguistic form, meaning, or use. For the purpose of this study, I applied Cook's (2000) description of the defining features for each of these levels, such as repetition and patterning (formal), separation from 'real-world' reference (semantic), and social inclusion and or exclusion (pragmatic). Cook suggests that it is not necessary that all features be present in each instance. Likewise, in this study, the presence of one or more of these features was acknowledged as an indication of language play. Furthermore, some of the embodied actions relevant to the production of language play were taken into consideration. These actions could be smiles, laughter, marked shifts in vocal pitch and quality, reference to fictional worlds, repetition (or use of linguistic forms already known to the learner), or recycling the format of the prior turn, while changing some of its elements (Bell 2005; Broner and Tarone 2001). These contextualization cues were used to facilitate the identification of language play in the present study.

Given that one of the topics that this study is interested in is formulaic language, it is essential to specify how formulaic sequences were identified. As mentioned earlier in Section 2.2, this study adopted a learner internal definition of formulaic sequences—that is, a sequence treated as a whole unit by an individual language user. Previous studies with a learner internal approach to the definition and identification of formulaicity suggest using a criteria checklist for the identification of formulaic sequences (e.g., Myles 2004; Wood 2015). One of the most comprehensive identification checklists was presented by Wray and Namba (2003), and it is applicable to many types of data and is quite refined (Wood 2015). This checklist was adopted for the purpose of this study. As suggested by Wray and Namba (2003), it is not necessary for each of the selected sequences to meet all of the criteria; some sequences can be distinguished as formulaic if they meet one or two criteria.


Following the identification of the language play episodes, a detailed, turn-by-turn analysis of the language play incidents was conducted to reveal ways in which pupils do language play in the classroom context. Following the identification of language play instances, the episodes were further investigated to analyze the nature of language play and the role of formulaic sequences in these occasions. Language play instances were categorized according to the three levels of form, meaning and use applying the defining features introduced by Cook (2000). This part of the analysis was applied to examine the different ways that pupils were engaged in language play, employing formulaic sequences for the purpose of humor across the varied sessions.

#### **4. Results**

Analysis of the pupils' interactions revealed that the young language learners of this study were engaged in different types of play with language. Language play was a recurrent and spontaneously occurring verbal activity, situated in and related to the pupils' ongoing social practices. There was at least one instance of language play taking place during each lesson that was observed and transcribed. It was observed that the play episodes could take between 5 and 15 min (in total) of a lesson. A sufficiently relaxed classroom atmosphere allowed for this kind of play to happen. The teacher was highly skilled in knowing when to allow the play to continue and when to move on to the next task. Below an analysis of the different instances of language play is presented, with elaborations of illustrative examples for each category. It should be remembered that for the purpose of confidentiality, pseudonyms were used.

#### *4.1. Sound Play*

The participants of this study seemed to enjoy the potential for a simple but enjoyable game with the sounds of English. Sometimes the input they received could trigger their attention; they started to laugh, imitate, and exaggerate the sounds, and hence they repeated the sequence several times. The following extracts, numbered (1) and (2), are some of the occasions when pupils were engaged in this type of language play.

(1) Teacher: Selina rea::d plea::se! Mobina: Selina rea::::d Plea:::::se Class: Selina rea:::d Plea:::se - ... Anita: Miss co:::me plea::se - (2) Teacher: Oh I love that Hiva: Oh I **love** th'at - (Tina, Selina, Mobina, Anita repeat the sequence and laugh; soon the whole class imitates and laughs)

These types of play with sounds were common during the sessions. Instances of play with sound were found in 8 out of 10 lessons. Such instances appeared to engage all the pupils; even the more reserved and silent learners were also engaged and seemed to have fun. These occasions could provide opportunities for all the learners to practice repeating the input. As illustrated in examples (1) and (2), when the young learners were engaged in sound play, they repeated the sequences that they heard. During this procedure the pupils practiced language by repeating it and also hearing it from their peers, and in the meantime, they were having fun and laughing.

#### *4.2. Word Switching*

In addition to playing with the sounds through repetition and exaggeration, the pupils enjoyed partly analyzing formulaic sequences that they heard. On these occasions, first they initiated the play by repeating a sequence, then they substituted an element in a sequence with another element. Extract (3) presented below shows an occasion when the pupils had fun playing with the sound while also analyzing a sequence. In this example, the teacher asked the pupils to read their answers to the questions in the workbook. It was Sara's turn to read; however, she was talking to a friend and did not notice that it was her turn. The teacher tried to get Sara's attention and reminded her that it was her turn to read.


In example (3), the teacher tried to call Sara's attention to remind her that it was her turn to read. The teacher's statement drew Mobina's attention, who tried to reproduce the sequence playfully and exaggerated the sounds. Other pupils such as Tina, Darya, and Anita, who found it amusing, tried to follow Mobina and play with the pronunciation of the word *your* within the sequence *it's your turn*. Later, Hiva identified a potential substitution slot within the formulaic sequence and tried to refill it with another word. She replaced the pronoun *your* with my and produced the sequence *it's my turn*. Anita who wanted to correct her friend and point out that it was Sara's turn and not Hiva's, started to refill the slot with another element. She started to produce the pronoun *she* but then gathered that it was not suitable, and hence replaced it with a correct possessive pronoun (*her)* and produced the sequence *it's her turn*. This case demonstrates the pupils' play with a formulaic sequence through exaggerating the sounds and consequently repeating it several times. Moreover, this example distinctly illustrates pupils' engagement with language structure through manipulating a sequence, refilling a slot within the sequence and practicing the use of possessive pronouns with the sequence.

The following extract (4) presents another case where the pupils started to play with a sequence by refilling a slot within the sequence to refer to an alternate reality. On this occasion, the teacher asked the pupils a question about the weather outside, which was hot. The teacher had asked this question during previous lessons as well and the response had always been *it's sunny and hot.* Hence, both the question and the response could be considered as formulaic and prefabricated.


In response to the teacher's question, the pupils produced the fixed sequence *it's sunny and hot*. Since it was summer and the weather was hot, the sequence *it's sunny and hot* was found frequently in the data. Seeking fun through inversion of reality, Hiva analyzed the sequence and substituted the word *hot* with the opposite adjective *cold*. Anita who found this joke funny maintained this approach by substituting the same slot with another word (*rainy*). After the production of these sequences the whole class was laughing. This type of play with frequently used sequences happened quite often; there was at least one instance during each lesson where the pupils manipulated the repeatedly used sequences. The following extract (5) illustrates another case of this type, where pupils had fun modifying a part of sequences introduced in the book. The lesson was on negative imperatives and the teacher read some of the imperatives from the course book.


(5)

(Sara wants to touch Selina's hair and Selina does not let her) Anita: don't touch the Selina hair -

Example (5) shows an occasion when some of the pupils tried to use a few sequences playfully. They had fun refilling a slot (at the end of the sequence) with words that were more familiar and humorous for them. They analyzed the sequences playfully. Two sessions later, one of the pupils (Anita) applied the sequence *don't touch the Selina* during a playful conversation with her friends. Although Anita heard this sequence only once during session 6, she could remember it after two lessons, and she applied it in the right context. This instance clearly demonstrates the potential facilitative influence of language play in pupils' language learning.

Below is another case, extract (6), where pupils had fun modifying a part of a sequences playing with two homophones (*too/two*).


Extract (6) presents an example of wordplay where language itself is manipulated. This type of wordplay is generally associated with semantics. The pupils created puns that exploited semantic ambiguity.

#### *4.3. Role Play*

Playing the role of a teacher is often a commonly occurring playful activity among pupils in classroom environments. This type of play seemed to be favored by the participants of this study. To inverse the social order and be the teacher, the pupils needed to imitate their language teacher as a role model. There were several occasions where pupils applied sequences that were frequently used by the teacher to play the teacher's role. On these instances they tried to produce the sequence with the same (or often an exaggerated) intonation pattern mimicking the pattern used by the teacher. For instance, in the following extract (7), the pupils were listening to a list of words and were supposed to repeat after a CD recording. The main purpose of this choral repetition was to practice pronunciation of new words.


As the pupils forgot the order of the words, at one point, the choral repetition became chaotic. Usually, in these cases, the teacher would stop the CD and ask the class to repeat the word/sentence after her to remind them of the task. This time, when the teacher was going to stop the CD, Mobina took the opportunity to play the role of the teacher, employing one of the teacher's frequently used sequences *repeat after me*. This led to laughter on the part of the teacher and the other pupils. The next session, before the class started, the pupils were in the classroom and were talking to their peers in Farsi (the teacher had not arrived yet). Mobina entered the class saying *hello*. There were not many replies from her classmates; hence, she stood in front of the class (where the teacher usually stands) and asked for a choral repetition of the word *hello*, using the sequence *repeat after me*. In response some of her peers used the sequence *how are you*, which was a joke with the greeting rituals that they had. Next, Tina used the teacher's other sequence *oh my god*. All of them were laughing and had fun using the teacher's frequently used formulaic sequences. Below is extract (8), from an instance when the pupils applied a sequence used by the teacher.


Analysis of the teacher's language disclosed that the frequent function of the formulaic sequence *oh my god* was an exclamation of frustration. The pupils adopted the sequence *oh my god* from the teacher's talk and applied it to their conversation with the same pattern. For instance, in the example above (8), the learners had heard the sequence *oh my god* on several occasions during session 1 and 2. In session 3, they wanted to play a game in the class but the teacher did not accept this request and instead asked one of the pupils to read the text. At this time, Selina and Tina employed the sequence *oh my god*, imitating the teacher, to show their frustration or disappointment. The sequence was produced with the same intonation contour that the teacher had previously produced but with a smile. It seemed that imitating the teacher's frequently used sequence allowed the pupils to express frustration or resistance, whilst at the same time mitigating this resistance in order to fit the classroom norms. In this example, play functioned as an interactional resource for renegotiating the task and experimenting with different voices.

Language play probably contributed to provide further opportunities to the acquisition of some of the teacher's sequences. In an attempt to play the role of a teacher, the pupils practiced their teacher's frequently used sequences and eventually added them to their respective linguistic repertoire. Since this type of play focused on mimicking and playing with the sounds more than the analysis of the sequences, it could appeal to all the pupils regardless of their language proficiency level and self-confidence. In these situations of imitations, even the less active pupils seemed inspired to repeat or imitate the sound pattern, and all the pupils seemed to be engaged and enjoy the play. Moreover, there were instances when the silent pupils also used the playful formulas, such as *oh my god,* in their speech.

#### **5. Discussion**

The results of this study indicated instances of all three types of language play presented by Cook (2000): linguistic, semantic, and pragmatic. The pupils enjoyed employing different types of language play, from playing with the sounds through exaggeration to violating sequential expectations as well as role expectations. The participants of this study were 11 young lively pupils with abundant passion for play. They might have been motivated to learn English or not, but they all appeared very fond of fun. This observation is in line with Pinter's (2017) description of young language learners' characteristics. She states that children are sensitive to sounds and the rhythm of language and they enjoy copying sounds and patterns of intonation. Moreover, children pick up and learn language if they have fun and if they can understand messages from meaningful contexts. These pupils could turn any potential situation into a game and were engaged in both 'play with' and 'play in' (see Bell 2012) English, where the former type dealt with instances in which the language itself was manipulated for play, and the latter with cases in which the language was used to engage in a play, such as playing the role of a teacher.

The data provided examples illustrating the role of formulaic sequences in the pupils' language play. Playing with formulaic sequences created opportunities for language learners to practice, repeat, explore, and interact with the language and at the same time to

have fun. Although all the instances of language play observed in this study were initiated by the pupils during spontaneous classroom conversations, the teacher played a facilitative role in this process. Language play was individual, but mostly collectively evoked and sustained. Interestingly, language play appeared to promote a good mood among the pupils, who often laughed together as a result of having initiated such play. Research in the field of applied linguistics has revealed that, by lowering the affective barriers, language play enhances language acquisition (Bell and Skalicky 2018; Cho and Kim 2018; Cook 2000; Pomerantz and Bell 2011; Tarone 2000; Waring 2013). It should be noted that in the present study, the pupils who were engaged in language play could produce and recycle some of the language, but we do not know if this language had already been acquired.

The episodes of language play were accompanied with laughter and positive engagement of the pupils. This could indicate that, through language play, the pupils enjoyed language practice in a lively and low stress environment. These observations support claims by other researchers who assert that, besides fostering the development of linguistic and pragmatic abilities, language play may also result in significant affective benefits. It can increase language learners' motivation (Broner and Tarone 2001; Waring 2013), enhance community formation (Carter 2004; Cekaite 2018; Cekaite and Aronsson 2005; Hann 2017; Laursen and Kolstrup 2018), and contribute to communicative confidence and an affectively charged atmosphere (Bushnell 2009; Pomerantz and Bell 2011; Tarone 2000). In Section 3, a few examples were presented where learners of this study applied sequences that they played with such as *oh my god* or *don't touch the Selina hair*. This in turn seemed to lead to a facilitated acquisition of sequences. These findings are in line with the claims by other researchers who affirm that language play enhances internalization and acquisition of language by opening doors for learners to practice and develop deeper awareness of language (Bell 2005; Bell and Skalicky 2018; Bushnell 2009; Cook 2000; Laursen and Kolstrup 2018; Pomerantz and Bell 2011). When learners are playing with and laughing about a certain aspect of language, their attention is directed towards it and the positively charged atmosphere may lead to increased noticing.

Linguistic play with formulaic sequences appeared to help the pupils to practice the language, by both repeating a sequence and also by analyzing the structure. The results signified the facilitative role of language play on pupils' knowledge about language structure, by providing opportunities for them to focus on form. In order to manipulate a sequence and refill a slot within a sequence, the pupils were required to distinguish the type and function of the individual units and the structure of the sequence that they were playing with. For instance, in extract (3), when the pupils were playing with the sequence *it's your turn,* they needed to distinguish the nature of the unit, which was a possessive pronounm and then they could practice by substituting the pronoun 'your' with other pronouns, such as 'my' and 'her'. All in all, it appeared that refilling the slots within a sequence could boost pupils' awareness of different aspects of language structure. As Reddington and Waring (2015) argue, language play provides a safe space for rehearsal and can help to destabilize the interlanguage, keeping it open to change.

The young language learners of this study were engaged in Cook's (2000) linguistic, semantic, and pragmatic play to amuse themselves or others. For instance, in extract 6, presented earlier, pupils were engaged in semantic wordplay by using homophones (*too, two*). As Cekaite and Aronsson (2005) observed, such stretches of talk raise awareness of correct and incorrect phonology and morphology and may provide opportunities for extended practice. Again, we need to return to the notion of a safe space, as language play can offer not only protection from being held responsible for the content of a contribution, but also for the accuracy and appropriateness of the form in which it is conveyed (Bell and Skalicky 2018; Cekaite 2018; Laursen and Kolstrup 2018; Pomerantz and Bell 2011). In this way, language play provides learners with freedom to engage in a linguistic experiment while distancing themselves from threatening mistakes. As Broner and Tarone (2001) mention, language play can provide opportunities where the learners can distance themselves from

certain positions and ridicule the serious reality to creatively explore, practice, and generate fantasies without real, practical consequences.

Although not all the pupils were initiators of language play, it appeared that when the play started it could engage all or the majority of the pupils in the classroom to a greater or lesser degree. The results revealed that there were only certain pupils (more experimental pupils) who always commenced play with language, and the more conservative pupils might get actively engaged with the play after some time or not at all. An interesting finding of the study was the observed impact of personality traits on pupils' engagements in language play. It was observed that some pupils did not engage in certain types of language play. One explanation could be that some pupils might be concerned about politeness, and therefore engaged in language play only if it did not clash with their personal view of classroom ethics. For instance, during the language play episode where some learners started to apply the sequence *Oh my god* (see extract 8) as an expression of frustration or resistance, two of the pupils sat silently and did not engage in the play at all. As Bakhtin (1986) states, the composition and style of speech can be highly affected by the speaker's attitude toward the others (listeners).

The observed tendency for play among the pupils can be explained by Hasselgren's (2000) and Pinter's (2017) description of young language learners' characteristics. They believe that young learners are open and enthusiastic to learning and have a particular need and capacity for play and fun. While this statement cannot be assumed to apply to all classroom contexts, in those situations where a skilled teacher is able to create a supportive atmosphere, opportunities for fun and play with language are more likely to be taken.

Bandura (1986) argues that children tend to follow the beliefs and behaviors of an adult who is perceived to be important. As an important adult, the teacher can be viewed as a role model by young language learners (see Nikolov 1999), and therefore plays an important role in the pupils' learning process, attitudes towards language learning, and their self-concept (Mihaljevic Djigunovic 2015; Nikolov 1999). Moreover, Bakhtin's (1986) concept of *double voicing* emphasizes that, in developing an utterance, language users tend to prefer words or sentences that they have heard from other speakers on similar occasions. Following Bakhtin's idea, Broner and Tarone (2001) claim that the appropriation of other voices is essential for a learner to become a fully competent language user, familiar with different registers and varieties of the language. Young language learners are often focused on their teacher and very likely to imitate the teacher and pick up their language since they idealize their teacher. It should be noted that the status of teachers might vary from one culture to another. Additionally, the concept of formulaicity focuses on the idea that language users pick up sequences that they have heard before and reuse them later to achieve increased fluency and accuracy. As observed in this study as well, the pupils seemed very keen to sound like the teacher or to play at being the teacher. One of the visible patterns of this type of play in this context was to employ the teachers' language in order to sound like her. The pupils picked up certain sequences from the teachers' language and tried to act out the role of the teacher in the classroom with their peers. This role playing resulted in incidental learning of a few formulaic sequences. A noteworthy feature of this play in the present study was that pupils mainly attended to sequences that the teacher applied in natural communications rather than sequences presented in the teaching materials. This evidence could relate to the significance of appropriation of an utterance for a language user, where learners acquire the utterances of others and associate those varieties with the personal characteristics of those speakers. By attending to the teacher's or peers' language, the pupils of this study could adopt and retain the characteristics of different roles and registers. This is in line with Cekaite's (2018) observations that the inversion of norms generated entertaining improvisations for the pupils.

By violating sequential expectations as well as role expectations, the pupils were effectively engaged in developing their sociolinguistic competence. The language practice of these pupils can be explained by Vygotsky's sociocultural perspective, which places the social context at the heart of learning and communication process. Vygotsky suggested that learning is highly affected by the social and cultural forces that influence the individuals (Toohey 2000). Like Vygotsky, Bakhtin (1986) claims that any instance of language use draws on conventions that embody specific social and ideological practices. Hence, to interpret the findings of this study, it is essential to consider the social context and setting of the classroom, the relations among the pupils and with their teacher, and the design and structure of the teaching and learning practices. In this context, learning English was an extracurricular activity that the parents of these pupils chose for them. The pupils needed to learn and use the language to be able to accomplish certain purposes. They aimed to please the teacher, to have fun, and to be able to assimilate into the group, following the rules of an English-only classroom. Bakhtin's (1986) view on the relation between the social context and the individual is evident in his notion of dialogism, which stresses that language emerges from the individual's communication with others. Bakhtin asserts that language users apply other speakers' utterances and through the process of appropriation they reflect on those utterances and shape them to their own intents (Toohey 2000). In the present study, among the most influential factors in the pupils' language practice were the roles of the teacher and the peers. Humor and play contributed to establishing a community. Through language play, formulaic sequences went through a process of appropriation. The pupils picked up sequences from their teacher or their peers and recycled them to communicate their intentions. This observation provides evidence for the significance of meaningful communication for the young language learners, confirming also the occurrence of incidental learning of formulaic sequences through language play. As Bakhtin (1986) argues, once the individual appropriates an utterance, it becomes the language user's personal understanding and accommodates to their mental schemata.

Finally, it is noteworthy to highlight, as several scholars have done, that humor and play often can be dependent on teachers' and learners' personalities; certain teachers and learners apply more examples of humor and play than others (Bushnell 2009; Laursen and Kolstrup 2018; Pomerantz and Bell 2011; Waring 2013).

#### **6. Conclusions**

Taken together, the findings of this study reveal that the young language learners evaluated herein took great pleasure in finding and creating fun in their studies. The pupils were engaged in linguistic, semantic, and pragmatic play, through which they could rehearse and explore language. These results suggest that encouraging language play in the young learner classroom and strategically harnessing its potential for specific learning purposes allows for genuine engagement and learning opportunities. Considering the findings of this study, it can be concluded that language play may accelerate language learning in the classroom in at least three ways: by fostering focus on form, by providing opportunities for pupils to develop sociolinguistic competence, and by promoting a classroom culture that supports and encourages participation.

Raising teachers' awareness regarding the role of language play and also formulaic sequences could valuably contribute to their effectiveness in implementing appropriate responses in the classroom situation. The data indicated that, although language play was a recurrent and possibly efficient strategy for pupils to both rehearse and explore the target language, and to provide a positive atmosphere in the classroom, there was no evidence of teacher-initiated language play. These findings suggest that teachers should be informed about the facilitative nature of language play in order to be able to orchestrate, foster, or simply support language play in the classroom. They can then employ formulaic sequences as sources for language play to aid pupils' language acquisition. It should be noted that this activity would demand very careful planning in larger classes. Equipped with this knowledge, teachers may be able to apply and encourage the facilitative functions of language play using formulaic sequences.

The role of language play with formulaic sequences in relation to learners' acquisition of language structures could be an interesting topic to be investigated in future research. A further avenue for investigations might be studies of specific pedagogical intervention

where, for instance, different forms of language play with formulaic sequences are used in formal instruction for young language learners.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Ethics approval for this project was granted by the institute board in Iran.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data supporting the results are not publicly available at this time, due to the nature of the agreement with parents and the school to protect the privacy of the participating children. Enquiries about data can be made direct to the author.

**Acknowledgments:** I would like to extend my gratitude to the participants of this study.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **Appendix A**

Transcription codes

The following codes have been used in the transcriptions in this text:


In some instances, the transcriptions are more affected by the phonological features of the language produced by the learners (e.g., escuse me for excuse me).

#### **References**


## *Article* **Getting Students to Talk: A Practice-Based Study on the Design and Implementation of Problem-Solving Tasks in the EFL Classroom**

**Silvia Kunitz 1,2,\*, Jessica Berggren 2,3, Malin Haglind <sup>4</sup> and Anna Löfquist <sup>5</sup>**


**Abstract:** This study addresses a pedagogical practice-based issue, that is, difficulties with eliciting student–student co-constructed oral interaction in the EFL classroom. The study was conducted with a bottom-up approach to pedagogical research through the close collaboration of teachers and researchers who were equal partners in the research team. It was observed that students often engage in parallel monologues or unauthentic question–response sequences when accomplishing oral activities; thus, the research team aimed to design tasks providing opportunities for meaningful, co-constructed talk. The research design involved an iteration of task design and classroom testing in three cycles, and the student–student interaction was analyzed using conversation analysis. Findings show that the divergent problem-based task designed in this process did elicit purposeful and collaborative oral interaction, as the students engaged in co-constructed talk by visibly attending to each other's turns-at-talk and by formulating fitting turns that fostered the progressivity of the activity. The task also included artifacts (i.e., material objects), the manipulation of which played an important role in the emerging collaborative interaction. These findings suggest that the implementation of open-ended problem-based tasks can develop students' interactional competence, while the use of artifacts can help students make their reasoning tangible and visually accessible.

**Keywords:** task-oriented interaction; EFL; task design; materials use; interactional competence; conversation analysis; collaborative research

### **1. Introduction**

The present practice-based, collaborative study focuses on the implementation of problem-based tasks in the EFL classroom in lower secondary schools in Sweden. Specifically, the analysis presented here and conducted with a conversation analytic (CA; see, Sidnell and Stivers 2013) lens shows how students in grade 7 engage in co-constructed interaction as they accomplish problem-based tasks that were designed following Ellis' (2003) framework. At the same time, the findings discussed here highlight "the relationship between participants, learning materials, and (inter)action" (Mathieu et al. 2021, p. 3) that is currently gaining increasing attention within approaches to the study of second language (L2) teaching and learning that see the material world as integral to such processes (Guerrettaz et al. 2021).

Our study is part of a larger project called *From monologues to dialogues*, financed by Swedish school organizers and universities. It is important to point out that our work is rooted in a practical, pedagogical problem concerning difficulties with organizing oral activities that elicit co-constructed talk in the language classroom. This problem was collaboratively addressed by schoolteachers and researchers with the aid of two different

**Citation:** Kunitz, Silvia, Jessica Berggren, Malin Haglind, and Anna Löfquist. 2022. Getting Students to Talk: A Practice-Based Study on the Design and Implementation of Problem-Solving Tasks in the EFL Classroom. *Languages* 7: 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages7020075

Academic Editors: Pia Sundqvist, Erica Sandlund, Marie Källkvist and Henrik Gyllstad

Received: 6 December 2021 Accepted: 9 March 2022 Published: 24 March 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

scientific frameworks; namely, Ellis' (2003) take on task-based instruction in general and task design in particular, and conversation analysis (CA; see Sidnell and Stivers 2013) with its focus on the details of interaction (see below). The novelty of our work lies precisely in the fact that it is grounded in a bottom-up approach to research: a problem observed during classroom practice was addressed in and through classroom practice, with a researchinformed pedagogical intervention that was collaboratively designed and subsequently analyzed by a research team of schoolteachers and researchers. This approach is similar to action research in that it takes a pedagogical problem as a starting point (Burns 2010; Elliot 1991); however, action research is commonly understood as teacher professional development (e.g., see: Banegas et al. 2013; Edwards 2021) and is focused on the production of local knowledge (Eriksson 2018). In our case, however, the collaboration entailed that the team members were on equal footing as they engaged side by side in addressing the same research object (Carlgren 2012; Eriksson 2018). Specifically, throughout the process, teachers were "included in the research as interpretative professionals making professional sense of particular educational events" (Carlgren 2012, p. 126). This collaborative way of working with teachers and researchers as equally knowledgeable partners produces "sustainable" (ibidem) results that are more credible and more applicable in the classroom. In this article, we thus describe the collaborative research process at the root of our work and present the findings of such work with a CA lens.

The process of designing tasks that promote collaborative interaction and of analyzing the implementation of these tasks led the research team to reflect on what interaction entails and to eventually adopt CA as the analytical framework for the study. CA views interaction as the primordial site of human sociality (Schegloff 1987) and L2 learning as an inherently social (and socially situated) process occurring in and through interaction (e.g., see: Kasper and Wagner 2011; Sahlström 2011), which in turn is guided by a constant "effort to achieve and maintain mutual understanding" (Kim 2019, p. 323). As evidence from longitudinal studies is cumulatively suggesting (see Pekarek Doehler et al. 2018 and some of the studies in Hellermann et al. 2019), repeated participation in locally contextualized, situated interaction fosters the development of an increasingly diversified repertoire of semiotic resources that allow participants to engage in context-sensitive and recipientdesigned conduct and thereby to show a higher degree of interactional competence (or IC; though see Hall 2018 for the distinction between IC as an underlying universal apparatus versus interactional repertoires as the variable set of semiotic resources for taking action that constitute the object of learning). In other words, language learners need to engage in interaction with the resources at their disposal in order to further develop and diversify their semiotic toolkit. Simply put, L2 learning is inseparable from L2 use (see Eskildsen and Markee 2018 and Kim 2019, among others) as language is both the object and the tool of learning.

A logical corollary of the view of L2 learning as rooted in interaction is that the classroom needs to provide opportunities for meaningful communication in order for students to practice their interactional skills and to acquire the language-specific semiotic repertoires that are essential to use the target language proficiently. This is also suggested in the integrative (i.e., aimed to reconcile cognitivist and social views) framework proposed by the Douglas Fir Group (2016). According to this group of scholars, at the core of the L2 learning process is the "micro level of social activity" (p. 25) represented by "individuals engaging with others" (ibidem) through the use of a variety of semiotic resources (ranging from linguistic to artifactual). At the same time, their interactions are "situated within and shaped by" (ibidem) social institutions, including schools. It is thus clear that schools play an important role in terms of the affordances for learning as social interaction that they provide.

The Swedish syllabus for English in compulsory school, prepared by the Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket in Swedish), has a clear communicative standpoint, as evidenced by the statement that the students should "develop all-round communicative skills" (Skolverket 2018, p. 34). Furthermore, it should also be noted that the syllabus

is influenced by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), which adopts an action-based, communicative approach to language education (Council of Europe 2020). In other words, the policy documents that are referred to in language education in Swedish schools have a clear communicative focus. Now, while Swedish students' language proficiency is generally high (Skolverket 2012) and many teenagers use English outside the school for communication purposes (Sundqvist 2009), some students have expressed that they do not get the opportunity to show their communicative skills in English in school (Myndigheten för Skolutveckling 2008).

Similar issues had been observed by the schoolteachers participating in this study. Specifically, these teachers perceived that the student–student interaction that is typically enacted in the L2 classroom resembles either a series of monologues where a change of speakership is marked by fixed expressions such as *what do you think?* or *do you agree?*, or unauthentic question–response sequences where the exchanged information is often known beforehand. Put another way, student-student interaction in the L2 classroom does not seem to entail mutual and collaborative engagement; that is, the kind of engagement that is deeply rooted in the attempt to make sense of the coparticipants' actions-in-interaction while establishing and maintaining intersubjectivity.

These issues are similar to issues analyzed in the literature on language testing, which has highlighted that test-takers often produce parallel monologues (Galaczi 2008, 2014) and "monological accounts" (Sandlund and Sundqvist 2016, p. 123); this kind of interaction essentially shows students "talking *at* rather than talking *to* each other" (May 2011, p. 137). Overall, then, there seems to be a discrepancy between the institutional aim for the development of communicative skills set by the syllabus and the skills that are actually practiced in the classroom and manifested in oral classroom activities and national exams.

Against this background, the research team hypothesized that the root of the problem might lie with the oral activities that are typically implemented in the classroom. Based on the participating teachers' experience, two kinds of activities seemed to stand out in the L2 classroom: (a) activities where the aim is to practice the use of specific grammatical features, words, or phrases, and (b) opinion-based tasks inspired by the Swedish national standardized tests (see below). The former can be likened with exercises (Ellis 2003, 2016) focusing on form, often in the shape of dialogues, whereas in the opinion-based tasks, the participants are instructed to discuss a statement or a question by first expressing their own view and then asking for their friend's opinion (see below). Neither kind of activity provides opportunities for meaningful conversation or promotes collaborative and co-constructed talk. Consequently, the aim of the study was to design tasks that promote collaborative oral interaction in the lower-secondary EFL classroom, in line with the research on taskbased language teaching that emphasizes the importance of "purposeful and functional language use" (Ellis 2009, p. 222). To accomplish this goal, the teachers' knowledge of classroom practices and their vision of the desired interactional outcome were crucial for producing "sustainable" (Carlgren 2012, p. 126) results that could be implemented in the classroom. At the same time, the active and collaborative participation of teachers and researchers in the socially situated process of designing and testing tasks and of analyzing their outcomes allowed for the achievement of professional, pedagogical knowledge that the use of ready-made tasks would not have made possible.

Before we engage in the analysis and discussion of students' task-oriented interactions implemented in the L2 classroom, it is relevant to address the institutional framework within which Swedish teachers work in their local context and the theoretical and methodological framework that we intend to adopt in our study. Therefore, in what follows, we detail the conceptualization of oral proficiency that emerges from Swedish policy documents and from the national exams that inspire the teachers' work in the EFL classroom. We then discuss findings from previous studies on EFL oral interaction in Swedish schools and finally present a conceptualization of oral proficiency as IC that is rooted in CA-SLA work on L2 interactions and in CA's view of language as a tool for social action.

Oral proficiency in the Swedish syllabus comprises oral production and oral interaction and is strongly linked to the ability to adapt language use to purpose, interlocutor, and context and to the use of strategies (Skolverket 2018). In relation to oral interaction, these strategies are intended to enable the students to "contribute to and actively participate in conversations by taking the initiative in interaction, giving confirmation, putting follow-up questions, taking the initiative to raise new issues and also concluding conversations" (Skolverket 2018, p. 37). The commentary adds that body language and gestures, as well as speech sounds and intonation, are important aspects of students' interactional skills (Skolverket 2017).

To further conceptualize oral proficiency, Swedish EFL teachers rely on the mandatory national standardized tests, which are carried out in grades 6 and 9 in compulsory school. While the main purpose of standardized testing in Sweden is to improve comparability and equity across schools, these tests are also used "implicitly" in order to "clarify and exemplify the view of knowledge and language expressed in the national curricula and syllabuses" (Erickson 2020, p. 1). In practice, this means that the construct of oral proficiency targeted by the national tests and related assessment criteria shapes the general conceptualization and understanding of oral proficiency in Swedish EFL classrooms by providing some guidance on the interpretation of the syllabi (see also Erickson and Börjesson 2001). For this reason, and for the extensive use of opinion-based tasks inspired by the national tests in the EFL classroom, we deem it important to describe the format of the national exams and the kind of interaction that is typically observed during such exams.

The oral proficiency test, called "Speaking", assesses both oral production and oral interaction and is, in recent years, carried out in pairs, without teacher participation. Normally, the test comprises a warm-up activity followed by opinion-based tasks related to a general theme, such as "The world around us". These tasks are implemented using conversation cards with a statement or a question followed by a short instruction asking the students to, for instance, agree or disagree and explain why. The students are also encouraged to engage in conversation by asking for their friend's viewpoints and to "BE ACTIVE AND SPEAK ENGLISH ALL THE TIME" (Skolverket 2020; capital letters in the original). It is important to note that several topics are covered during a test and that the students are not informed of the topics before the test. In the assessment guidelines, it is articulated that the assessment should be based on the presupposition that the student is willing and able to express and develop content, individually and in collaboration with others (Skolverket 2020). The assessment foci are (i) content and (ii) language and the ability to express oneself. Criteria for content involve intelligibility and clarity, richness and variation, context and structure, and the ability to adapt to purpose, interlocutor, and situation. The criteria for language and ability to express oneself comprise the use of communicative strategies, fluency and ease, range, variation and clarity, confidence and adaptation to purpose, interlocutor, and situation (Skolverket 2020). Turn-taking is not mentioned explicitly in the criteria but can be implied from the description of the communicative strategies (Borger 2019; Council of Europe 2020). To clarify the assessment factors and facilitate grading, teachers sometimes make their own scoring rubrics (Byman Frisén et al. 2021). In many respects, these rubrics resemble the official assessment guidelines, but with the addition of engagement/initiative and interactional skills. It is possible that these aspects are included to simplify the individual grading of a co-constructed conversation (Byman Frisén et al. 2021).

Studies also show that it is common to use sample tasks provided by Skolverket to prepare the students for the test (Sandlund and Sundqvist 2011; Sundqvist et al. 2013) and, as mentioned above, these opinion-based tasks also inspire teachers in the design of their own prompts for oral interaction practice in the classroom. Accustoming students to a certain test format by, for example, discussing the instructions and grading criteria can help the students avoid test-related trouble (Sandlund and Sundqvist 2011, 2013). As indicated above, however, it is not just a matter of familiarizing students with a specific test format, in that these national tests also influence EFL teaching by affecting the conceptualization of

oral proficiency that language teachers use in school and the opportunities for oral practice that they provide for their students. In the EFL teacher community, it is, for example, common to share lists of "useful phrases" accompanied by conversation cards similar to the ones used in the national tests.

In line with the problem that forms the background for this study, Sandlund and Sundqvist (2016) observe that, even if the national exam is considered a proficiency test (and therefore an objective assessment of what the students can do with language), the task-based interaction enacted during the national exam is very different from everyday conversation. For example, the task design used in the national exams does not encourage the pairs to collaborate and engage with each other's turns-at-talk; instead, they take turns to "exhaust their commentary on a topic" (Sandlund and Sundqvist 2016, p. 128), which means that they engage in relatively long turns with limited overlaps. It is also considered important that the students share the floor (Borger 2019; Sandlund and Sundqvist 2016); that is, that each of them speaks for roughly the same amount of time. Moreover, it is likely that the students' prior knowledge and personal experience of the topics affect their possibilities to initiate and elaborate on the topics to be discussed in the exams.

As mentioned above, for the purposes of this study, we rely on CA methodological affordances for the analysis of interaction, and, more specifically, we adopt CA's definition of IC. The concept of IC as it is used today builds on Hymes' (1972) view of communicative competence as the knowledge of how to use language appropriately in a social context. Such a view was then imported into the field of language education by Canale and Swain (1980) and later framed Bachman's (1990) model for testing communicative language ability. From a CA perspective (e.g., see Kasper and Ross 2013), in these models, components of communicative competence are considered statically, as cognitive properties of the individuals and anchored in a rationalist approach to pragmatics that is grounded on intention-based accounts of social actions, with an almost exclusive focus on the speaker. CA, instead, adopts an action-based account of interaction, which is seen as inherently co-constructed by all the participants, and it thus falls in the field of discursive pragmatics (for a discussion of the differences between rationalist and discursive pragmatics, see Kasper 2006). In CA terms, then, IC is the ability to accomplish recognizable social actions through the production of timely turns that are well-fitting with respect to prior talk and its praxeological (i.e., action-related) import. Being interactionally competent involves the ability to understand and respond to the local, emergent circumstances in which social actions are accomplished through talk-in-interaction (Eskildsen 2018). Therefore, "competence is displayed ( ... ) in the ways in which the members act on their discourse within the sequential order of their interaction" (Lee 2006, p. 368). Studying IC, then, means studying "the interpretive work of understanding that participants display" (Lee and Hellermann 2014, p. 769) with each turn they produce, with each action they accomplish. Such ability is based on the appropriate use of the mechanisms organizing talk-in-interaction (such as turn-taking, repair, sequence organization, and preference organization; for an overview of these terms, see: Sidnell and Stivers 2013), coupled with the use of various linguistic and embodied resources (Hall 2018; Markee 2008; Pekarek Doehler 2018). We thus see a clear connection between this conceptualization of IC and the "all-round communicative skills" (Skolverket 2018, p. 34) that the Swedish syllabus for English aims for.

Overall, then, our study emerges from the practical need—as perceived by the participating teachers—for oral activities in which the students engage in collaborative interaction where their communicative skills can be clearly observable. As research has shown (e.g., see: Hellermann and Lee 2020; Mori 2002), it is not enough to instruct students to "have a conversation", since this prompt seems to elicit an interview type of interaction organized around a series of question–answer sequences that somewhat straightjackets affordances for topic development and mutual engagement, while reproducing a rather rigid system of turn-taking and turn allocation. Therefore, the research team was faced with the issue of designing classroom tasks that would be different from the task format typically adopted in the L2 classroom, and that would go beyond the "have a conversation" prompt. After a few

cycles of design, implementation, and revision of different types of tasks, the research team eventually settled on open-ended problem-based tasks, in which students work with specific artifacts (e.g., cut out figures, actual material objects). While the task design phase was informed by Ellis' (2003) framework and the idea of providing opportunities for meaningful and functional language use, there remained the empirical issue of examining whether this task type might lead to the kind of engaged and collaborative interaction that the teachers were aiming for. The analysis presented here shows how students in grade 7 implemented the task-as-activity (versus the task-as-workplan; see Breen 1989; Coughlan and Duff 1994; Seedhouse 2005) and the kind of interactional features and semiotic repertoires the students used during their task-based interactions. As the analysis will show, the artifacts that were included in the task design played a major role in making visible and tangible the interactional co-construction of imaginative narratives in which the students engaged. Our practice-based study, therefore, contributes not only to CA-SLA research on L2 IC (see above) and on task implementation (e.g.,: Kunitz and Marian 2017; Lee and Burch 2017; Pochon-Berger 2011; Hellermann and Doehler 2010; Seedhouse 2005), but also to the recent strand of research focusing on the use of language learning and teaching materials (Guerrettaz et al. 2021) and on their impact on classroom discourse (Mathieu et al. 2021).

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

As mentioned above, the work presented here is framed within the project *From monologues to dialogues*, a classroom study carried out by a research team in which researchers collaborated with several primary and secondary school teachers in English and Modern languages (Berggren et al. 2019); the research team designed and implemented oral tasks in their classes. The research design involved a number of subprojects, each comprising an iteration of task design and classroom testing in three cycles (cf. design-based research, Anderson and Shattuck 2012). To facilitate comparability across the subprojects, Ellis' (2003) framework of design features informed the task design in all subprojects. Moreover, findings from previous subprojects contributed to subsequent designs.

The collaboration with schoolteachers ensured the ecological validity of the project, that is, "the degree of similarity between a research study and the authentic context that the study is purportedly investigating" (Loewen and Plonsky 2015, p. 56). As detailed in the introduction, the project was anchored in the teachers' practical problem of implementing oral tasks that would engage students in co-constructed, collaborative interaction for meaningful communicative purposes (and therefore in line with the syllabus for English in Sweden and with the CEFR). To further enhance the ecological validity of the study, data collection was carried out during regular class instruction; this meant that the students' regular English teacher was in charge of the students' implementation of the tasks.

The present paper builds on data from the first iteration of the task *What happened to Kim?* This task was designed based on earlier findings in the project indicating that problem-based tasks presented with short instructions and relying on the use of artifacts foster students' engaged and collaborative interaction. The instructions were displayed on a screen (see Figure 1) and presented orally by the teachers at the beginning of the class.

The students, who worked in groups of three, were asked to find a solution to the problem faced by Kim, a twelve-year-old who had left home early in the morning, never arrived in school, and was found later in the evening at a petrol station with a paper bag containing eight artifacts (see Figure 1). Each group of students received a paper bag with a mobile phone, a note saying "I love you", a roller coaster ticket, a torn photo, a receipt, a key, some coins, and a cuddly toy which was different for every group (in the data presented here, Group A received a teddy bear and Group B received a fish). The students were specifically instructed to select five artifacts that they thought could help Kim remember what had happened during the day. Essentially, the question the students were supposed to answer was *What happened to Kim?* The task was divergent in that there was no correct solution to the problem. The intended outcome was that the students would engage in a conversation about Kim's day and select five items to help Kim remember what had happened.

**Figure 1.** Task instructions.

The task was implemented in two classes during an ordinary English lesson: one in grade 7 and one in grade 8. All the students present completed the task, but video recordings were only collected from the students who had consented to participate in the study; the recruitment procedure followed the ethical guidelines issued by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet 2017).

The analysis of the students' task-oriented interaction was completed in two stages: a first stage based on empirically derived categories and a second stage using CA. Both stages were accomplished collaboratively by the members of the research team (teachers and researchers) and intended to pinpoint characteristics of "good" interaction. For stage one, word-only transcripts, including a description of artifact manipulation, were prepared, and the students' utterances were categorized based on their function in the conversation, such as confirmations, new ideas, and elaborations. These categories were discussed among the members of the research team and emerged from their observations of the data and from what they deemed to be instances of "good" interaction. The purpose of this initial analysis was to provide an overview of the co-constructed interaction; however, it was clear that a more fine-grained analysis was needed.

It was at this stage in the project that it was decided to resort to CA and its theoretical and methodological affordances. CA is a "naturalistic, observational discipline" (Schegloff and Sacks 1973, p. 289) that is interested in how participants in interaction make sense of each other's actions—actions which are accomplished through the lamination of various semiotic resources (Goodwin 2013), including talk, prosody, and embodiment. CA was deemed particularly suited to describe the students' task-oriented interaction precisely because of its focus on interaction and, in particular, on L2 IC (see above for definitions of L2 IC in the CA-SLA literature). At the theoretical level, CA adopts an emic (i.e., participantrelevant) approach to data analysis, which is empirically driven and grounded in the participants' observable behaviors. At the methodological level, CA relies on audio and/or video recordings of naturally occurring interactions, which are then transcribed in great detail. A CA analysis is rooted in an action-based view of language and interaction, in that CA is interested in "talk-that-does" (Schegloff 1990, p. 52) rather than "talk-about" (ibid., p. 52); therefore, the focus is on the participants' actions-in-interaction rather than on the topics of conversation.

For the present paper, we chose to work with two groups from grade 7 whose video recording was of good quality in terms of the audibility of the students' talk and visibility of the group's embodied actions. The recording of Group A lasts approximately 21 min, while the recording of Group B lasts approximately 19 min. As mentioned below, the analysis focuses on two stretches of talk that represent a specific phase of the task-oriented

interaction, namely, the moment in which students, after manipulating and discussing the artifacts one by one, start formulating the first hypothesis about what happened to Kim by bringing together two or more artifacts (see below). Each excerpt presented in the analysis has been transcribed following Jefferson's (2004) convention for the transcription of talk. Relevant embodied actions are also described; their simultaneous occurrence with talk is marked with a plus sign (+) or with an asterisk (\*). Frame grabs have also been included in order to give the reader visual access to some particularly significant moments in the interactions; in the frame grabs, the participants' faces have been blurred for anonymity purposes.

#### **3. Results**

The analysis illustrates excerpts from the two groups of students as they are engaged in a similar phase of their task accomplishment, that is, the co-construction of the first imaginative narrative in which different artifacts are brought together in the attempt to develop an organic story about what happened to Kim. This phase occurs after the initial artifact-manipulation phase, during which the students extract the artifacts from the paper bag and start identifying each one of them. For each group, we analyze the emergence of the first narrative based on multiple artifacts, the additions, agreements, and disagreements through which such narrative is shaped, and, finally, the ad interim summary produced by each group, bringing together the artifacts that have so far been taken as relevant for determining what happened to Kim. This summary also represents the participants' first attempt at providing a relevant task outcome, in that the task instructions (Figure 1) required students to select five artifacts that could help Kim remember what had happened during the day.

Excerpt 1 (divided in Excerpts 1a, 1b, and 1c) reproduces the task-oriented interaction accomplished by group A (Iman, Sam, and Walt). With Excerpt 1a, we join the students as Iman proposes the first multiartifact narrative, bringing together the roller coaster ticket, the teddy bear, and the *I-miss-you* note.

In line 1, as she is looking at the roller coaster ticket, Iman produces a high-pitched ↑*ma:ybe* and then adds that Kim got the bear and the note (lines 2–4) while putting the note on the bear. Her first narrative, formulated both embodiedly (through her gazing at the ticket in line 1) and linguistically (lines 2–4), seems to suggest that Kim won the bear with the note at a Luna park. The use of the epistemic hedge *maybe* (line 1) and the embodied action of showing the note and the bear to Sam (line 4, Frame Grab 1\_1) make relevant a response from Sam, who indeed produces the acknowledgment token *yeah* in line 6. What is relevant to note here is that the holding of the bear and the note in Sam's direction provides material and visual access to the reasoning so far. That is, the manipulation of artifacts seems to have a crucial role in the interactional emergence and unfolding of the narrative.

Sam's turn is followed by a 0.4 s pause (line 7), during which Sam reaches for the photo. Sam then continues Iman's turn with the increment *from (.) her* (line 8), delivered with emphasis. Here the embodied action of reaching for the photo mobilizes the coparticipants' attention to a new, potentially relevant artifact while disambiguating the referent of *her*. Sam's actions provide an example of co-constructed interaction, in that—with her acknowledgment of Iman's proposal-so-far (line 6)—Sam displays the understanding that a response is expected from her. At the same time, with the increment that recompletes (Couper-Kuhlen and Ono 2007; Lerner 1991; Schegloff 2016) Iman's previous turn (↑*ma:ybe he: got (0.2) this::.*, lines 1–4), Sam displays the rather sophisticated ability to monitor the coparticipant's turn by adding to it in a fitting way, in terms of action, content, and syntax. Iman displays strong agreement (line 10), as indicated by the loud volume on *YEAH* and by the use of the intensifier *exactly*, accompanied by the embodied action of picking the photo from the desk.

After Iman's agreement, Sam continues the developing narrative with *and he went to a tivoli,* as she reaches for the roller coaster ticket, lifts it, and moves it toward Iman (line 12). By putting her hand on the ticket (line 13), Iman shows receipt of Sam's emerging narrative

and continues Sam's turn with the increment *WIth (0.3) her* (line 15) as she raises her hand holding the bear and the note. Iman's turn is produced in partial overlap with Walt, who agrees (*I* ↑*think* ◦*so*◦, line 14) with the developing narrative. These lines too show the highly collaborative work accomplished in and through interaction, with the participants displaying agreement (Walt, line 14) with the emerging narrative and building on each other's ideas and turns-at-talk (Iman, line 15) while relying on the available artifacts to make visible their emerging reasoning.

At this point, after a 0.9 s pause (line 16), Iman attempts a continuation of the narrative by adding that Kim bought something (line 19). As she says *buy*, Iman takes one of the receipts from Sam's hand (by mistake, the paper bag received by group A contained two receipts). During the ensuing 1.5 s silence (line 20), both Iman and Sam look at the two receipts. Sam further displays acceptance of Iman's proposal that Kim bought something with *and buyed* (line 21). Her linguistic choice realizes an embedded correction (Jefferson 1987) of Iman's turn (*and buy:*, line 19) through the use of the past tense form; though *buyed* is not grammatically accurate, the replacement of *buy* with *buyed* in a turn that is otherwise identical to the one delivered by Iman in line 19 displays Sam's orientation to a narrative set in the past (see Iman's use of *got* in line 2 and Sam's *went* in line 12). Finally, it is Walt who completes the turn-so-far by producing *apples* in line 25. After a further look at the receipts (line 26), Sam confirms by repeating *apples* and adding *yeah* (line 27).

Overall, Excerpt 1a has shown how the participants closely monitor each other's talk in terms of propositional content, praxeological import, and linguistic formulation. The three students are able to elaborate on each other's ideas in a topically and syntactically fitting way (e.g., see the increments in lines 8, 15, and 25) while also displaying alignment and agreement. It is also apparent that the artifacts are instrumental as mediating tools that structure the students' reasoning in the interaction while also making it more tangible and available for the coparticipants' scrutiny.

In Excerpt 1b, which occurs soon after Excerpt 1a, we see both Iman and Sam (lines 33– 34) observably wondering about the role of the apple purchase for the emergent narrative.

After a 1.2 s pause (line 35), during which Sam further inspects the receipt, Walt formulates his own hypothesis regarding the role of apples: at the Luna park (line 38), Kim bought apples with the coins in the bag (line 40) in order to feed the bear (line 36). Note how his narrative is developed increment by increment, as Walt touches the relevant artifacts, one by one, in line with what is being brought into relevance in the talk. Specifically, Walt touches the bear and the ticket as he mentions these items (lines 36 and 38) and, as he refers to the money (line 40), he puts the coins on the desk, next to the bear and the ticket (Frame Grab 1\_2), so that all relevant artifacts in Walt's narrative are grouped and displayed in the same area on the desk.

Walt's embodied action of putting the coins on a specific area of the desk mobilizes Iman's attention to that area; in fact, she gazes down in that direction (line 40) and starts frowning (line 41). Soon afterward, Iman explicitly rejects Walt's narrative with a turninitial *no.*, followed by an open-class repair initiator (*what?*, line 42) that challenges the narrative proposed by Walt. In the following line, Sam too displays her rejection of Walt's proposal with a straightforward *no:.* (line 43). Sam's turn, however, is more articulate in that she questions Walt's proposal with *why would he feed the be(h)ar(h)¿ (0.5) with apples*, lines 43 and 46). Note that Sam is here reproducing Walt's narrative in detail. That is, this is not a simple (and generic) rejection of what had been said before (as is the case for Iman's turn in line 42); instead, Sam is explicit about what exactly she is rejecting by reproducing it almost verbatim. Furthermore, the interspersed laughter in the delivery of her turn shows that she is orienting to Walt's idea as a laughable. Walt responds by joining Sam's laughter (line 44) but without any further (or revised) elaboration of his own proposal. In the meantime, Iman backs Sam's rejection by shaking her head (line 45) and producing multiple *no*'s (line 47; on multiple sayings as an interactional resource, see Stivers 2004). With her actions, Iman explicitly and strongly rejects Walt's course of action and its implications for task accomplishment.

Excerpt 1b could therefore be taken as an example of collaborative disagreement, in which we see two participants (Iman and Sam) siding with each other against a narrative proposed by the third coparticipant (Walt). At the same time, Sam's rejection—in its explicitness—shows that she has carefully attended to Walt's proposal.

In subsequent lines (not reported here), Iman and Sam discuss the role of the phone for the emerging narrative. Since they had received a broken phone, they develop a narrative according to which Kim must have fallen, broken his phone, and lost his memory. Excerpt 1c picks up the talk as Sam shows Iman the note (line 1). At this point, in seeming competition with each other, both Walt (line 4) and Iman (line 5) start formulating a summary of the artifacts that have been talked into relevance so far, and that might play a role in determining what happened to Kim.

Specifically, Walt grabs the photo and points at Iman's hand holding the note, as he says *I* ↑*think that* ↑*there*, (line 4), thereby establishing a connection between the photo and the note. He then gives the photo to Iman (line 6), who has just grabbed the note from Sam's hands (line 2) and touched the roller coaster ticket and the bear (line 5). With these embodied actions of touching, grabbing, passing the artifacts, the participants seem to accomplish a material summary of the narrative so far.

Iman further brings these artifacts into relevance with minimal talk accompanied by observable embodied actions. That is, she says *because THAT* as she visibly puts the note and the photo in her right hand (line 8), and she says *and then*, as she grabs the bear (line 10). Iman's talk in these lines is produced with listing intonation, projecting continuation; her coparticipants do not take the floor but follow Iman's hand movements with their gaze (lines 10 and 12), thereby displaying that they are attending to Iman's summary in progress. Then, as Iman says *and the* (line 12), both Iman and Sam orient to the ticket as the next item in the summary, as indicated by Iman's action of touching it (and eventually lifting it in her left hand) and by Sam's action of pointing at it (see Goodwin 2007 on environmentally coupled gestures and Mondada 2014 on pointing). The summary so far is visible in Frame Grab 1\_3, showing Iman holding the bear and the note in her right hand and touching the ticket with her left hand while Sam points to it. After a slight hesitation (see the cutoff and the pause in line 12), Iman uses the Swedish formulation *bio* (literally, "cinema", line 14) to refer to the roller coaster ticket. At this point, during a 0.5 s pause (line 13), Sam moves her hand toward the receipt and suggests it as a potentially relevant item for the summary (*and maybe the::*, line 14; see Lilja and Piirainen-Marsh 2019 on the role of gestures for action ascription). With these actions, Sam directs the coparticipants' attention to another artifact that they have discussed so far. Note that the students were instructed to select five artifacts that could help explain what happened to Kim; the receipt would therefore constitute the fifth artifact. However, this suggestion is discarded by Iman, who announces that she does not get the apple thing (line 16). Her turn is formulated with an initial *but* that projects disagreement. Sam carefully parses Iman's turn and actually produces ◦*apples*◦ in collaborative overlap with Iman (line 17) before explicitly aligning

with her by saying *no.* (line 19). This final exchange then excludes the receipt as a relevant artifact for task completion.


Overall, in this short stretch of talk that concludes the first cycle of imaginative narration of what might have happened to Kim, Iman is co-constructed as the student in charge of summarizing the discussion so far by bringing further into relevance the selected artifacts. While Walt and Sam initially seem to compete for such a role (lines 4–5), Walt eventually gives in by handing the photo to Iman (line 6). We have then seen how Sam collaborates in completing the list of five artifacts (lines 12–14) and how she accepts Iman's disagreement (line 19): the receipt is related to the purchase of apples and the role of apples in the narrative is not quite clear (lines 16–17).

In sum, Excerpt 1 shows the high level of co-construction and cooperation achieved by the students in group A. Specifically, the analysis of Excerpt 1a has illustrated how the students build on each other's turns-at-talk as they collaboratively shape the emerging narrative, with displays of agreement and further additions that are syntactically and thematically consistent. On the other hand, Excerpt 1b has provided an example of coconstructed rejection, with an initial rejection formulated in generic terms (line 42) being upgraded with a more detailed rejection (lines 43 and 46) that displays attentive listening of the original proposal (lines 36–40). Finally, Excerpt 1c has shown the collaborative co-construction of a list of potentially relevant artifacts (see task instructions), which also has the function of summarizing the discussion so far and of providing a first, tentative task outcome. Crucial in all these excerpts is the presence of artifacts that are oriented

to and manipulated by the coparticipants as they present, discuss, and summarize their ideas for the emerging narrative. Such use of the artifacts makes visible and tangible the developing narrative.

Excerpt 2 (divided in Excerpts 2a, 2b, and 2c) illustrates the emergence of the first multiartifact narrative in Group B. The group members are Calle, Lina, and Marie. Lina maintains a bystander role in that she is mostly silent, but through her embodied actions (such as eye-gaze behaviors and body posture), she displays at least an orientation to the task-based interaction conducted by her two classmates.

Excerpt 2a picks up the talk as Marie connects two artifacts, that is, the receipt and the coins. With a hedged epistemic stance (*maybe:*, line 1), she suggests that Kim bought something and got some coins in return (lines 1–2). Marie's turn is formulated with deictic pronouns (*this* in lines 1 and 2), accompanied by embodied actions (i.e., grabbing the receipt and pointing at the coins). Calle agrees with a series of *yeah* (line 4) as he touches the coins and then provides the expression *the return of the money* (line 7) to verbally refer to the coins. With this action, Calle orients to the relevance of providing specific lexical items to name the referents that are brought into relevance in the interaction.

Subsequently, while Calle's turn in line 10 (↑*YEAH¿ that- that seems*) projects an assessment of the emerging narrative involving the receipt and the coins, Marie orients to the roller coaster ticket (line 12). Once again, Marie uses a deictic pronoun (*this*, line 12) as she touches the relevant artifact (see also Frame Grab 2\_1, where Marie is seen holding the ticket). At this point, as shown in line 13, Calle is attending to two aspects of the narrative: on the one hand, he is making tangible the connection between the receipt and the coins by putting the coins on the receipt (Frame Grab 2\_1), thereby seemingly materializing and finalizing the narrative-so-far; on the other hand, he is also following Marie's emerging idea, as indicated by his provision of the lexical item (*the coupon*, line 13) referring to the ticket.

Calle then further aligns with Marie in shifting the focus of attention to the roller coaster ticket, the role of which he problematizes with *why why's:: (0.4)* ◦*this thing*◦*.* (lines 14 and 16). He reaches for the ticket (line 16) that Marie had been holding in front of herself (lines 13–14) and slightly moves it in his direction. At this point, all participants (including Lina) are looking at the ticket (line 17) and are quietly reading from it (lines 18–21). Marie then formulates the first hypothesis concerning the ticket's role in Kim's story by suggesting that Kim was possibly going to that place (line 23) where the ticket could be used (line 25). After competing with Marie for the floor (line 24), as he attempts to come up with his own hypothesis concerning the ticket, Calle produces a stretched *yea::::::h.* (line 26) with which he accepts Marie's proposal so-far (*maybe he was <go::ing to that place>*, line 23). This indicates that, while initially attempting to produce his own hypothesis regarding the role of the ticket for Kim's story (line 24), Calle quickly drops his attempt as he parses Marie's turn-at-talk (line 23) and agrees with the narrative she is proposing.

Then, Calle verbalizes what the ticket (previously referred to as the coupon, line 13) is for (*this:: is like a* ↑*roller coaster or something¿*, line 28). At this point, Marie reformulates her previous turn (lines 23 and 25) in more specific terms: *maybe he was going to like an amusement park or something* (lines 30–31). With this reformulation, she orients to the relevance of replacing an ostensibly vague location reference (*that place*, line 23) with a lexical item that identifies a specific location (*amusement park*, line 31; note that this was referred to as *Tivoli* by the participants in Excerpt 1). Once her turn is projectably complete, Calle takes the floor by mentioning what is written on the ticket: *good for one ride* (line 32).

Overall, Excerpt 2a shows various ways in which the coparticipants collaborate in task accomplishment through co-constructed interaction. At first, we have seen Calle offering unsolicited vocabulary assistance (lines 7 and 13), an action which might show his orientation to the accomplishment of a task targeting language practice (note that a similar orientation is displayed later by Marie when she replaces a vague reference with a more specific one; see line 31). Calle's action also displays his alignment with Marie: he is attending to her turns-at-talk, agreeing with what she proposes (lines 4, 7, 10), shifting focus when she mobilizes their attention to a new artifact (lines 11–14), while also providing specific lexical items that verbally label the focal artifacts. After all the participants engage in reading what is written on the ticket, both Marie and Calle start formulating hypotheses about the role of the ticket, with Calle quickly abandoning his turn (line 24) and aligning with Marie's emerging narrative (line 26).


Excerpt 2b takes place shortly after Excerpt 2a. Here, Calle further reformulates Marie's turn in lines 30–31 by suggesting: *<*↑*maybe (0.3) he went to the (1.1) roller coaster park.>* (lines 36–37; Marie's *amusement park* in Excerpt 2a, line 31, here becomes *roller coaster park*), as he holds up the fish (line 36) and points at the ticket (line 37). Note that Calle prefaces and concludes his turn with hedges (↑*maybe* in line 36 and the claim of insufficient knowledge i don't know in line 37; for the latter, see Sert and Walsh 2013) that weaken his epistemic stance.

After Marie displays alignment with *mh mh*, (line 38), Calle elaborates on the ongoing, emergent narrative by suggesting that, at the roller coaster park, Kim got the roller coaster ticket (line 39) and won the fish (line 40). At this point, Marie starts smiling (line 42) and produces a laughter token (line 43); the import of these actions is not clear. In subsequent lines, however, Marie talks into relevance the receipt (lines 45 and 47) and seems to suggest that the role that the receipt might have in the narrative contrasts with Calle's emerging narrative about Kim going on a roller coaster and winning a fish toy at a roller coaster park. Indeed, even though the formulation of her turn initially projects continuation (*a:::::nd*, line 45), the subsequent unfolding of her turn with *but (0.8) what about this: then.* (lines 45 and 47) introduces the receipt in a contrastive light.


Note that, at this moment, Calle is further developing the narrative about the roller coaster park, as he adds that Kim won the fish *like a:: hunt.* (lines 44 and 46). As he says so, Calle enacts a throwing gesture (line 44, Frame Grab 2\_2), which seems to suggest that Kim played some sort of game with which he won the toy fish. At this point, Marie is already orienting to the receipt, as indicated by her index finger touching the receipt (line 44, Frame Grab 2\_2). That is, the divergence in the participants' orientation is also visibly manifest in their embodied actions, with Marie touching the receipt (lines 44–45) and Calle holding up the fish (line 44). After receiving no response to his subsequent confirmation request (*yes¿*, line 46), Calle shifts his attention to the receipt (line 47), in response to Marie's inquiry about its role, an inquiry that is specifically addressing Calle (see the receipt held in Calle's direction in line 47). Calle replies with ◦*>I think.<*◦ *this was: (.) before*. (line 49), as he lifts the receipt to his eye level in order to inspect it closely.

Overall, Excerpt 2b shows that the participants attend to each other's talk, whether they align with it (line 38) or signal potential inconsistencies in the evolving narrative (lines 45 and 47). Note also that the inconsistency pointed out by Marie is recipient-designed in a contrastive way with respect to prior talk, which observably indicates that the role of the receipt in the story might not fit with the narrative developed by Calle.

In lines not reported here, the participants try to figure out the timeline of the story by checking the instructions (which say that Kim left home at 7:30 a.m. and was found at 11 p.m.) and the time specified on the receipt. After determining that at 1 p.m. Kim was at the store where he got change for one dollar, thereby reinstating the connection between the receipt and the coins (see Excerpt 2a), the participants start orienting to different artifacts. We join the discussion in Excerpt 2c with Calle mentioning the change (lines 1–2) as he touches the coins (line 1) and looks at the receipt (lines 2–3), while Marie grabs the note (line 2).


Calle then reaches for the phone (line 10) and assesses its potential role in the evolving narrative as making *z:ero sense* (line 11) since *it's just a pho:ne* (line 12), *not charged* (line 16). In these lines, Calle is engaging with the camera by turning the phone towards it (lines 12 and 15); the camera then seems to be invoked as a fourth participant to which evidence needs to be provided as a way to back one's assessments. Note that, in this stretch of talk, Marie smiles as Calle says that the mobile is just a phone (line 12) and then takes the floor in line 14, possibly in the attempt to develop a hypothesis concerning this artifact. However, she rejects her own idea (↓*no:h*., line 14) before verbalizing it.

At this point, after Calle's negative assessment of the role of the phone and after Marie's abandoned attempt at producing a potential narrative that includes the phone, Calle takes the floor again with an extended hesitation token (*u:::hm::*, line 18). After a 1.6 s pause (line 18), Calle starts listing the artifacts that might be relevant to develop the narrative about Kim's day. As he lists the artifacts, Calle moves them next to each other, thereby materializing the list: the phone (line 19), the coins (line 21), the ticket (line 23), and the fish (line 25) are brought together to occupy a specific area on the desk (see Frame Grab 2\_3, where the phone, the coins, and the fish are visible). Calle then projects the continuation of the list with *and uh* as he grabs the keys and puts them aside (line 27). That is, Calle seems to be discarding the keys as a relevant fifth artifact.

However, Marie looks at the keys (line 28), points at them (line 29), and then, after raising a potential objection (*but the key::s*, line 29), grabs them, lifts them at eye level, and carefully inspects them (line 31). In the meantime, Calle seems to be considering other artifacts, as he touches the photo (line 30) and the note (line 32), while rejecting the potential relevance of the keys with *no:::.* (line 32). Marie finally produces the assessment that those keys are not the keys to a house (line 34). Calle confirms (*no::.*, line 36) and further reinstates his rejection of the keys as the relevant fifth artifact (*it doesn't help us.* ◦*like*◦ *at all.*, line 36). Marie, however, in partial overlap with Calle, starts developing a narrative concerning the role of the keys in Kim's day (*maybe he was like*, lines 37–38). At this point, Marie and Calle collaboratively complete the turn (lines 38–39). While Marie's talk here is unfortunately not audible, Calle distinctly completes Marie's turn-so-far with *going to the school* (line 39), with slightly rising intonation projecting continuation. Indeed, after Marie's acceptance of his emerging hypothesis (line 41), Calle completes the narrative with *and something happened* (line 42), with which Marie quickly aligns (line 43). We can then say that this is a case of joint turn construction, which is defined as "a practice whereby a participant in conversation completes a grammatical unit-in-progress initiated by another participant" (Hayashi 2014, p. 225).

Overall, Excerpt 2c illustrates the first ad interim summary co-constructed by the students in Group B. In this excerpt, it is Calle who self-selects (line 18) and starts mentioning the items that might go together while also physically moving them one next to the other. The summary emerges after the participants initially orient to different artifacts (lines 1–10) and once the mention of the phone does not lead to any hypothesis concerning that artifact (lines 11–16). Put another way, in a moment when the participants seem to have reached an impasse, Calle's action of listing potentially relevant artifacts while grouping them together on the desk summarizes the points of their discussion so far. As soon as he orients to an artifact not previously mentioned, the keys (line 23), Marie reopens the discussion as she formulates a narrative around the role of the keys, supported by a close inspection of the artifact. While initially discarding the keys as an item that does not help with task accomplishment (line 36), Calle eventually collaborates in the completion of Marie's emerging hypothesis.

In sum, the analysis of Excerpt 2 has shown the co-constructed, task-oriented interaction achieved by the students in Group B. In the three excerpts examined here, we have seen how the participants attend to each other's talk, whether they agree (Excerpt 2a) or disagree (Excerpts 2b and 2c) with the emerging narratives and the artifacts they orient to. Their turns-at-talk are recipient-designed to target prior talk as they align with it, indicate potential inconsistencies, mobilize their attention towards a shared focus, and, in some cases, offer unsolicited vocabulary assistance. As they accomplish all these actions, the two focal participants, Marie and Calle, collaboratively orient to the progressivity of the task.

#### **4. Discussion**

This practice-based study is the result of a collaborative research effort conducted by schoolteachers and researchers. The novelty of our work lies in its rootedness in practice and the involvement of teachers throughout the entire research process: from the identification of a practical problem observed in EFL classrooms in Sweden to the design of tasks that might help to solve the problem and, finally, to the analysis of the collected data. This kind of collaborative research produces knowledge that is directly relevant and actionable for the teaching profession (Eriksson 2018; see also Carlgren 2012) and does not need to be "translated" to be applicable in the classroom (Hultman 2015).

The point of departure for the larger project in which this study is framed stems from the participating teachers' observation that student–student interaction in the EFL classroom in Sweden does not seem to be characterized by students' collaborative engagement with each other's talk. The issue was attributed to the kinds of activities for oral practice that are typically used in the classroom and that are usually inspired by the task format adopted in the Swedish national exams. Indeed, as research has increasingly shown (e.g., Sandlund and Sundqvist 2011, 2013, 2016; Sundqvist et al. 2013), the opinion-based tasks used in the national exams and for the purpose of classroom practice tend to elicit monologues rather than dialogues. As pointed out by Sandlund and Sundqvist (2016, p. 128), the speech exchange system enacted in these tasks is rather unnatural, as it is characterized by "extended, less co-participant-oriented turns with few overlaps and interjections". Arguably, this kind of talk is not illustrative of the students' communicative skills, which nevertheless are the main target of L2 education as envisioned by the Swedish syllabus for English (Skolverket 2018) and by the CEFR (Council of Europe 2020). The research team thus designed a problem-based task in order to verify whether this kind of task might be more conducive to the co-constructed interaction that the teachers saw as an indication of their students' communicative abilities. The analysis of the students' interaction was conducted with a CA lens (Sidnell and Stivers 2013), which we deemed particularly suited to describe in detail how students participate in and contribute to task-oriented interaction. In addition, we paid particular attention to the students' orientation to and manipulation of artifacts in the interaction, in line with recent calls (Guerrettaz et al. 2021; Mathieu et al. 2021) for an increased focus on materiality as central for learning and teaching research.

Our analysis, focusing on two groups of students in grade 7, has shown that the problem-based task designed by the research team did elicit co-constructed, collaborative talk that is very different from the parallel monologues seen in the national exam (Sandlund and Sundqvist 2016). More specifically, the students observably engaged with each other's turns-at-talk, not only by aligning with and elaborating on emerging narratives but also by challenging and disagreeing with proposals issued in prior talk. As the students collaboratively accomplished the task in and through the unfolding co-constructed interaction, they manifested their sophisticated interactional skills, such as the ability of parsing previous turns, of understanding their praxeological import, and of building on them in timely and fitting ways. In the interactions analyzed here, the turns are relatively short, and overlaps are common; there are also instances of incremental turn recompletion (Couper-Kuhlen and Ono 2007; Lerner 1991; Schegloff 2016) and of joint turn construction (Hayashi 2014), which show the students' ability to closely monitor the linguistic formulation of emerging turns. In other words, in finding out what happened to Kim, the students were speaking *to* each other (rather than at each other; cf. May 2011) and, thus, engaged in meaningful and functional language use (Ellis 2003, 2009). In doing so, they visibly displayed their interactional competence (see: Eskildsen 2018; Hall 2018; Pekarek Doehler 2018). At the same time, it should be noted that, in their task-based interactions, the students relied heavily on the use of the available artifacts, the manipulation of which clarified the import of their turns and made tangible and visually accessible their reasoning as they engaged in the co-construction of imaginative narratives. In other words, one could say that the use of artifacts was part and parcel of the meaning-making process accomplished by the students as they were engaging with each other's ideas while maintaining and establishing intersubjectivity.

Clearly, the task *What happened to Kim?* is different from the oral activities usually implemented in the EFL classroom in Sweden (not least for its inclusion of artifacts) and, therefore, from the opinion-based tasks used in Swedish national exams. On the basis of the detailed analysis of the students' interaction presented here and of our observations on the implementation of this specific task and its blueprint by various student groups at different levels (from grade 6 to upper secondary school), we maintain that this kind of problem-based task has proved to be a valuable opportunity for students to practice the "all-round communicative skills" that the Swedish syllabus for English aims for (Skolverket 2018, p. 34), while also giving students the chance to show their interactional skills in school (cf. Myndigheten för Skolutveckling 2008). Therefore, we believe that, in order to follow Skolverket's recommendations for the development of communicative skills, it would be relevant to include problem-based, open-ended tasks in students' regular class instruction. At the same time, at the theoretical level, we suggest that the CA-based, action-oriented notion of IC can meaningfully contribute to the conceptualization of oral interaction that is currently held in Swedish schools. In sum, our findings have implications for the (potential) diffusion of curricular innovations (Markee 1997) and testify to the relevance of bottom-up collaborative approaches to research where teachers and researchers are collaboratively involved in a joint investigation of a pedagogical problem that is explored and addressed through the combination of theory and practice.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, S.K., J.B., M.H. and A.L.; methodology, J.B., M.H., A.L. and S.K.; formal analysis, S.K.; investigation, J.B., M.H., A.L. and S.K.; resources, J.B. and S.K.; data curation, J.B. and S.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K. and J.B.; writing—review and editing, S.K. and J.B.; supervision, J.B.; project administration, J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the fact that sensitive information about the informants was neither collected nor used.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data sharing not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** We would like to thank the platform Stockholm Teaching & Learning Studies (STLS) that is financed by school organizers and Stockholm University. Our thanks go also to all the teachers and students who have participated in our project throughout the years.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


Markee, Numa. 1997. *Managing Curricular Innovation*. New York: Cambridge University Press.


Myndigheten för Skolutveckling. 2008. *Engelska. En Samtalsguide om Kunskap, Arbetssätt och Bedömning*. Stockholm: Liber.


## *Article* **Two Oral Exam Formats for Literary Analysis in the Tertiary English as a Foreign Language Seminar**

**Anna Thyberg**

Department of Languages, Linnaeus University, 35195 Växjö, Sweden; anna.thyberg@lnu.se

**Abstract:** For novice students, developing disciplinary literacy in literature courses in English as a Foreign Language education (EFL) at university entails mastering a number of skills. The purpose of this small-scale action research study is to investigate the extent to which two different oral exam formats can serve to make explicit commonly held warrants in the discourse community of literary studies. The material consists of observation notes from Socratic seminars and Thought-Question-Epiphany (TQE) seminars, both of which are analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The results show that most students adopt disciplinary conventions, such as building on each other's ideas, using critical lenses, showing contextual awareness, and supporting claims with textual evidence. While the Socratic seminar format generates lively discussions, the sole focus on questions prevents students from preparing textual evidence for specific literary elements in the analysis. In the TQE seminar, some students react negatively to the forced inclusion of an epiphany, but the format also gives an opportunity to identify significant quotes in advance and to expand on interpretative ideas prompted by the three components.

**Keywords:** oral exam; higher education; literary analysis; English as a foreign language; Socratic seminar; TQE seminar

#### **1. Introduction**

In an effort to investigate language practices in English classrooms, the present study deals with classroom-based assessment practices in tertiary education in the teaching of English literature. After the development of new literacy studies in the 1980–1990s (Barton 2007; Baynham 1995; Street 1984), the range of precisely what is expected to be mastered by novice university students has been discussed in terms of "academic literacies" instead of the earlier focus on "study skills" and "academic socialization" (Lea and Street 1998, pp. 158–59). In fact, these skill-sets are integrated and should not be considered separately, according to Lea and Street (1998). Such a synthesis is nonetheless expressed differently across fields, which came to the fore when Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) first coined the concept of disciplinary literacy arguing that "there are differences in how the disciplines create, disseminate, and evaluate knowledge" (p. 48). Not surprisingly, then, the epistemology of literary studies differs from that of other fields. Goldman et al. (2016) point out the following distinct features "[w]arrants and reasoning in literary argumentation can be grounded in personal beliefs and life experiences, in critical theory, in philosophical tenets ... [and conclusions are] always open to contestation" (p. 227). Apart from this plurality and the tendency in many subfields to avoid claiming to be a method or a theory at all, there is also the focus on debatable claims. Furthermore, having large chunks of texts without subheadings eschews many of the standard formats for academic writing in the social sciences, which by itself could easily lead to students feeling overwhelmed.

Bearing in mind that assessment may represent "the single biggest influence on how students approach their learning (Rust et al. 2005, p. 231), it follows that the design of written and oral assignments becomes a vital factor to consider for instructors in higher education. One such design principle is constructive alignment (Biggs 1996), which relies

**Citation:** Thyberg, Anna. 2022. Two Oral Exam Formats for Literary Analysis in the Tertiary English as a Foreign Language Seminar. *Languages* 7: 76. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/languages7020076

Academic Editors: Pia Sundqvist, Erica Sandlund, Marie Källkvist and Henrik Gyllstad

Received: 31 October 2021 Accepted: 21 March 2022 Published: 28 March 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

on a logical sequence from clear learning objectives guiding the planning of classroom activities to the tested skills in the cumulative assessment. For the individual student, it may still be unclear what leads to a high grade, especially in subjects comprising more than one discipline. A case in point is the field of literary studies in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. Since the learning objectives in the syllabus may comprise linguistics, literature, and language proficiency, it may not be entirely clear how these relate to each other.

Mastering complex sets of skills represent a steep learning curve for EFL students who already contend with the language barrier. Goldman et al. (2016) outline the high level of tasks demanded from students in literature courses, such as how to "notice rhetorical and structural moves prototypically made by authors to convey meanings and make their argument" and also "construct oral and written arguments regarding their interpretations" (p. 226). Not surprisingly, mismatches will occur if students think that it is enough to formulate personal response statements, but the conventions of the field dictate that the reader makes a persuasive case for an interpretation of pertinent aspects of the text. The current inquiry aims at studying how EFL students engage in discourse practices in the field of literary studies when participating in two different oral exam formats, namely Socratic seminars (National Paideia Center 1988) and Thought-Question-Epiphany (TQE) seminars (Thompson 2017).

Conventions such as those mentioned above, and others are part of the tacit knowledge that professors hold about how the discourse communities of literary studies are organized and evolve. Fish (1980) suggests that this process stems from how the act of reading is conceptualized, highlighting that "meanings are the property neither of fixed and stable texts nor of free and independent readers but of interpretive communities that are responsible both for the shape of the reader's activities and for the texts those activities produce" (p. 322). In order to pass their literature classes, novice students thus need to learn not only how to read in a new way but also arrive at analyses of literature that conform to what literary critics would recognize as valid contributions to the discourse community and to do so in writing, class discussions, and oral exams or presentations.

Developing disciplinary literacy relies on a series of steps, but the scope of the present study will be limited to the following three learning objectives: interpersonal skills, analytical skills, and the ability to use textual evidence. According to Goldman et al. (2016), identifying appropriate textual evidence for interpretative claims constitutes a difficult task for students that requires scaffolding. Such scaffolding can be designed as exercises to make visible the process of identifying passages in the text that may serve to substantiate claims about the effect of symbolism, etc. Along similar lines, Corrigan (2019) acknowledges that he often asks his literature students to add "more complexity, more nuance, more insight, more depth, more critical and creative thought, more attention to the details of the text and to the context in which those details exist" (p. 3). These last two points refer to close reading skills, which are essential for high-quality literature papers. Clearly, students need explicit instruction on how to arrive at a literary analysis that passes muster.

One example of explicit instruction comes from Chick et al. (2009) who conducted a lesson study of ways to have students in literature courses experience "the pleasures of difficulty, complexity, paradox, ambiguity, and the multilayered meanings in literary texts" (p. 401). In their investigation of student responses to a poem, they found that "data support the value of collaborative learning as well as students' recognition of this value" (Chick et al. 2009, p. 425). This is in line with what Weissman (2010) proposes, namely, that it is not enough to teach students close reading, rather "[a] more multifaceted, self-reflective, and collaborative reading practice is required, one that addresses how a literary text both constrains and exceeds the meanings its readers make of it" (p. 44). Such an endeavor accommodates the barrage of literary theories introduced in the field ever since 1938 when. Rosenblatt ([1938] 1995) posited that reading is not only an event but a transaction between the reader and the text. She was one of the first to challenge the focus

on the unity of the text proposed by New Criticism, even if it took until the 1970s and 1980s for the field to diversify and more fully embrace new approaches (Parker 2014).

In recent years, approaches focusing on active learning and student-centered pedagogy in higher education have been lauded as more in tune with the needs of college students entering a rapidly changing global market (Misseyanni 2018). Moving away from the supposedly neutral position of "the informed reader" in formalist theories (Fish 1980, p. 48) and instead introducing multiple theoretical lenses, may allow students to read against the text in a literature classroom based on "critical inquiry" (Beach et al. 2016, p. 5). Within literature pedagogy, using critical inquiry in the classroom entails a power shift from the instructor to the students regarding what is considered meaningful learning (Beach et al. 2016). While reading against the text may seem quite advanced for undergraduate students, Appleman (2015) argues that even in secondary school "[o]ur responsibility as literature teachers is to help make the ideologies inherent in those [literary] texts visible to our students" (p. 3). Likewise, Corrigan (2017) states "teaching literary studies means teaching the ways of reading and writing that constitute our discipline, particularly critical reading and persuasive writing about texts" (p. 550). When using theoretical approaches, students can learn to identify ideological layers of a literary text that are not immediately apparent; a critical skill that can serve them well also in other areas of their lives.

In this approach, conversations about literary texts can instead deal primarily with what students bring to the table. This is especially prominent in Socratic seminars, which is one of the formats investigated in the present study, and where the type of discourse differs from other established academic formats in the sense that it is neither a deliberative dialogue with consensus as the objective nor a debate where winning over opponents matters most. On the contrary, it has been designed to encourage students to build on each other's ideas (Davies and Sinclair 2014). The range of discussion formats used in a critical inquiry classroom may, for instance, cover literature circles (Daniels 2002), book talks (Chambers 2011), and similar peer-led group constellations.

In terms of assessment of learning objectives, Shanahan and Shanahan (2014) propose that explicit instruction may allow students to recognize more fully what is valued in various learning situations, equipping them to succeed to a higher degree. The main idea stated by Shanahan and Shanahan (2014) is that disciplinary literacy "invites students to join the disciplinary field itself. It's a kind of invitation to join a club" (p. 629). Students are welcomed as potential members, which aligns with the principles of equity and inclusion.

Viewing discipline-specific conventions as a club may not be prevalent among instructors as of yet. Wilder (2011) found in an empirical interview study of 13 professors of literature and composition that "disciplinary discourse practices appear to function largely implicitly in the course's background" (p. 60). Furthermore, the only professor who claimed to use their course as an introduction into the discipline still refrained from mentioning to students exactly what literary theory they were using (Wilder 2011). When theoretical underpinnings are hidden, the authority of the professor is upheld, and students may be less able to question propositions made (Parker 2014). Such taken-for-granted attitudes to epistemological matters may also impact how students view the degree of subjectivity and bias in grading. In a study on assessment at a university in the U.K., MacLellan (2001) found that a majority of the students believed that their professors used criteria not stated on syllabi when grading. It is possible that if instructors are unaccustomed to clarifying what the conventions of the field are, they may be equally vague when it comes to grading criteria.

Increasing the transparency within literary studies in tertiary education may be fraught with difficulties due to teaching traditions. Wilder and Wolfe (2009) suggest that in undergraduate writing courses explicit instruction can be quite a contentious issue: "[w]hile many scholars and instructors have advocated explicitly teaching these formerly tacitly imparted conventions, others have strongly argued against such explicit instruction" (p. 171). The reasons might be that professors fear that students will not be able to implement the strategies because the discourse practices are too complex and can only be learned through

mentoring (Wilder and Wolfe 2009). In addition, instructors may want to protect students' unique voices and prevent formulaic writing (Wilder and Wolfe 2009). Along similar lines, abstract qualities, such as style and originality that are valued in literary studies perhaps due to their close vicinity to the expressions of elegant prose in literature, may also influence the grading process if instructors see these qualities as innate rather than acquired.

As noted above, the present study compares the result from Socratic seminars and TQE seminars both of which fall under the umbrella term of dialogic teaching. Dialogic teaching, as defined by Alexander (2020), "harnesses the power of talk to engage [students'] interest, stimulate thinking, advance understanding, expand ideas and build and evaluate arguments, empowering them for lifelong learning and democratic engagement" (p. 1). This requires fine-tuned orchestration by the teacher, who needs "a broad array of interactive skills, strategies and moves [and] to exercise their own judgment about how these are most effectively applied to the particular context in which they are working ..." (Alexander 2020, p. 3). For teachers using constructive alignment (Biggs 1996) and transparent grading procedures, this type of engagement and student-centered learning can also be implemented in the process of assessment in the form of Socratic seminars.

#### *1.1. Definition of Socratic Seminar*

The Socratic seminar method has been used for decades in the United States, most commonly under the auspices of Paideia seminars. The National Paideia Center (1988) was started in North Carolina by Adler and Friday in an attempt to cultivate critical thinking skills in a "public school system that was at once intellectually rigorous and fundamentally equitable". Originally a technique used to boost the performances of underserved student populations, it has recently been implemented in advanced placement courses thus effectively catering to privileged groups (Getachew 2021).

In a quasi-experimental study of Socratic seminars, students engaged in more complex discussions and used more textual evidence (Davies and Sinclair 2014). Davies and Sinclair (2014) clarify that "[c]entral to Socratic questioning is the provision of a thought-provoking, open-ended question, which promotes inquiry and allows ideas to be probed, grappled with and tested" (p. 23). According to Chisholm and Quillen (2016), dialogic teaching is one way to increase collaborative learning and student engagement. In an action research study on Fishbowl discussions, which entails that there is one group of students engaged in discussion and another group of students observing and taking notes, they found that

students responded in ways that were (a) dialogic (e.g., posing questions about the text and engaging in multiple perspectives), (b) metacognitive about participation structures, (c) supportive of other student voices, and (d) engaged in complex dialogic exchanges across discussion platforms—all functions of discussion that helped promote both meaning making about the text and relationship building. (Chisholm and Quillen 2016, p. 89)

Similar to what Chisholm and Quillen (2016) found when employing the Fishbowl format, a Socratic seminar will also be conducive to dialogic learning and active listening skills. In addition to the fact that the Socratic seminar can function to increase student engagement, it also qualifies as a relatively safe examination form in comparison to other group-based projects. Social loafing will be less of an issue in a Socratic seminar since each student is assessed on their individual contributions and skills. Even in a group that might be less inclined to cooperate, it is possible for a student to engage in the behaviors and demonstrate the required skills without having to worry about others' performances reflecting negatively on them.

Nonetheless, as in any examination procedure, there are safeguards that may have to be put in place to counteract undesirable behaviors. In her English classroom, Walsh-Moorman (2016) found that "the seminar sometimes supported pre-existing social dynamics allowing some voices to dominate" (p. 72). Another problem concerned the fact that students introduced textual evidence rather seldomly. In fact, Walsh-Moorman (2016) reports being "disappointed by actual time spent in an instructional period talking about the text" and she "noted that most discussion is more universal to the text; about big ideas and themes, rather than specific passages and details" (p. 73). In an article reporting on the work of two English Language Arts (ELA) teachers, Barker (2017) outlines their strategies to counteract similar problems, for instance interrupting the discussion when the talkative students have said enough and organizing digital comments for students observing the discussion in a Fishbowl activity thus allowing shy or reticent students a chance to succeed as well. The careful wording of instructions and rubrics as well as strategic preparations, such as setting ground rules for group work may further minimize negative behaviors.

In the courses that I teach, I have experimented with different kinds of oral exams but the one method that has consistently received positive feedback in student evaluations has been the Socratic seminar, adapted from the format developed by the National Paideia Center (1988). Since I specialize in teacher education, my aim is to model a variety of instructional strategies and assessment tasks for pre-service teachers. Therefore, I was intrigued when I came across a new format for small-group literary discussions in my Professional Learning Network. During the 2020/2021 academic year, I used the Socratic seminar in the fall term as usual, but in the spring term, I implemented this new format called the TQE seminar (Thompson 2017) in one course (38 students) but continued to use the Socratic seminar in my other class (62 students). The reason for using this material for research purposes was to investigate whether these oral exam formats are conducive to enculturating students into the discipline of literary studies.

#### *1.2. Definition of the TQE Seminar*

The TQE seminar format was developed by ELA teacher Thompson in 2017 in an attempt to move away from teacher-written questions to more meaningful learning by having the students themselves generate the questions. On her website, Thompson defines TQE as "a student-driven and teacher supported exploration of a text through individual small group and whole class curated inquiry." Thompson (2017) explains that "Students write their OWN Thoughts, Lingering Questions, and Epiphanies about the text." In the original format, there are multiple steps to the process. Step one is assigning a text for students to read at home. Step two is for students to formulate a thought, a question, and an epiphany based on the reading. Thompson has devised a list of question stems moving from basic to more advanced that she uses to model the kind of cognitive skills she is looking for in this step. In step three, students discuss their TQEs in a small group and decide on the best two of each category. Step four consists of a whole-class discussion of the selected TQEs from each group. When I used it with my students, I omitted the ranking of TQEs as well as the whole-class discussion. I naturally also shared the blog post that Thompson wrote with my students.

#### *1.3. Aim and Research Questions*

The purpose of this small-scale action research study is to investigate how two different formats of oral exams may serve to implement disciplinary literacy in the tertiary EFL seminar. To that end, the Socratic seminar and the TQE seminar are evaluated concerning their potential to introduce students into the academic seminar culture of literary studies. The research questions are as follows:


#### **2. Materials and Methods**

The reason the present study can be called action research (Mertler 2019) is that it is based on questions that arose from the practice of my own teaching and seeks to validate participant voices. The method used for data analysis is qualitative content analysis (Brennen 2013). In this research design, credibility will depend on to what extent the researcher is knowledgeable about the setting and thus able to identify a relevant focus for the study as well as suitable methods for the data collection (Graneheim and Lundman 2004). As regards transferability (Graneheim and Lundman 2004), it may be possible at least to replicate the assessment procedures. The study follows the same subset of students over the course of one term and, for the majority of students, two examinations, which has the potential to yield results of interest for practitioners in higher education perhaps considering implementing similar discussion formats in their oral examinations. In alignment with the Swedish Research Council's ethical guidelines (Swedish Research Council 2017), informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study. Furthermore, students were informed that participation in the study was voluntary and could be terminated at any time. All student data are presented in a way that protects individual student integrity and anonymity.

#### *2.1. Setting and Materials*

The Swedish university where this study was carried out has five faculties, 33 departments, and an enrollment of circa 44,000 students. The prerequisite for admission to English studies courses is English 6 from the Swedish upper secondary school; the equivalent of B2 on the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe 2020) scale. The material consists of what could be called observation notes somewhat similar to the unstructured field notes linguistic ethnographers take in participant observations (Copland and Creese 2015). These notes were taken during oral exams in a small group setting from two literature modules in English studies, term 2. I will also refer to written communication with students.

#### *2.2. Courses and Participants*

In the English Department, we strive to give extensive feedback on oral and written assignments. We have designed the assessment in this way because we hope it will help novice students learn the conventions of the field of literary studies. The grading criteria we use are meant to conform to the higher-order thinking skills outlined in the upper tiers of the revised Bloom's taxonomy: analyze, evaluate, and create (Bloom and Anderson 2014), aiming to train students in critical reading.

Participants included all students enrolled in the second term of English studies in the academic year 2020/2021 and who signed up to take the oral exam, 62 students, see Table 1. Due to the pandemic, all classes and examinations were held online via Zoom. The time limit for the oral exam was 45 min per group.


**Table 1.** Course overview.

In the oral exam in the course on African American literature, which was the last of four modules in the literature course in the second term, 62 students participated. Out of the 62 students, 24 were students in English, and 38 were pre-service teachers with English as one of their two subjects. The pre-service teachers took an additional course: Literature instruction in the EFL classroom, which was given in the first half of the semester. It was in this course that I introduced the format of the TQE seminar. In the TQE seminar, the students analyzed a short story that they had chosen from a list of six stories as well as drew on extracts from a theoretical text. The assignment was to prepare TQEs (thoughts, questions, and epiphanies) both for the short story and for the theoretical reading.

Since an overwhelming majority of the teacher trainees preferred the TQE to the Socratic in the evaluations, I gave them the option to do a TQE seminar in the course on African American literature as well. Among the nine groups of pre-service teachers, three groups chose the TQE format, ten students in total. The students formed groups themselves and signed up via the learning management system (LMS) for a time slot on a given day. On that day, they had to submit three higher-order and open-ended questions in writing (or their TQEs) via the LMS.

In preparation for the oral exam in the course African American literature, the students had studied Lorraine Hansberry's play *A Raisin in the Sun* (1959) and had selected a poem or a song from the first workshop (Hansberry [1959] 2001). In the Zoom meeting, after I had given them the instructions, I turned my camera off and took notes on my laptop as the seminar unfolded, hence the discussions were entirely student-led. The reason for not recording the Zoom sessions was to alleviate the stress level for students. These exams took place during the pandemic and the faculty was informed by the Student Health Center that many students were suffering from anxiety and high levels of stress. Therefore, I emphasized that the Socratic seminar was a learning opportunity; a chance to speak about literature with others. Afterward, I shared my notes with students together with the results of the grading. These observation notes are limited to what I was able to take down during the conversation.<sup>1</sup> As the students discussed, I wrote down as much as I could capture what they said in a document in which each student had one column. At the end of the day, I went through my notes and expanded on abbreviations, and corrected spelling mistakes. I also created one document for each student with only their utterances included. This document was subsequently used for grading the student's performance. For the Socratic seminar, the rubric contained nine criteria, namely interpersonal skills, listening skills, ability to pose questions, dialogic skills, analytical skills, textual evidence, intertextuality, historical and cultural context, and terminology. I used a rubric with eight criteria for the TQE format: interpersonal skills, listening skills, ability to verbalize thoughts and convey epiphanies, textual evidence, intertextuality, historical and cultural context, and terminology. I also pasted their written assignment into this document so that they could receive feedback on the questions or the TQEs that they had uploaded to the LMS.

#### *2.3. Data Analysis*

The qualitative content analysis aims at bringing "out the entire range of potential meanings in texts" (Brennen 2013, p. 194). In accordance, the data analysis was conducted in three steps. The first step in the analysis of the notes was to construct a concept-driven coding frame based on previous knowledge of the discourse community of literary studies all the while upholding the principles of "unidimensionality" and "mutual exclusiveness" (Shreier 2013, p. 175). Unidimensionality refers to how "main categories should cover one aspect in the material only" whereas mutual exclusiveness concerns subcategories in which "any unit can only be coded *only once under one main category*" (Shreier 2013, p. 175). The main category was identified as conventions in the field of literary studies. Three subcategories were chosen in conjunction with the grading criteria: interpersonal skills, analytical skills, and textual evidence. The second step comprised coding notes based on the three subcategories and the third step consisted of a latent analysis. This was an attempt to "find the underlying meaning of the text" (Bengtsson 2016, p. 10). I wanted to investigate whether the notes of the Socratic seminars and the TQE seminars showed alignment with the conventions of literary studies. In the analysis of the Socratic seminars, I could relate my findings to previous research, but this was not possible for the TQE seminars. Therefore, I relied on the topoi identified in a replication study conducted by Wilder (2005) in order to relate the students' disciplinary literacy practices to conventions in the field. Wilder's (2005) formulation of topoi builds on the results by Fahnestock and Secor in 1991 (Fahnestock and Secor 1991). According to Wilder (2005), the following topoi

indicate common warrants in the field of literary studies: appearance/reality, paradigm, ubiquity, paradox, and *Contemptus mundi* as well as the three topoi that have emerged in the field since then, namely social justice, mistaken critic, and context (pp. 84–85, 91).

#### **3. Results and Discussion**

In this section, the results from the study of classroom-based assessment practices will be presented and discussed. More specifically, I will focus on how disciplinary literacy skills are enacted in conformity to the discourse community of literary studies, which represents the main category in the qualitative content analysis.

#### *3.1. Observation Notes from the Socratic Seminars*

The presentation of the results stems from the three subcategories identified in the material when using the concept-driven coding frame. Extracts from the notes are meant to serve as an illustration for the reader of what each subcategory comprises.

#### 3.1.1. Interpersonal Skills

The first research question (about the extent to which students' rhetorical moves in the oral exam formats of Socratic seminars and TQE seminars align with discipline-specific conventions) deals with the conventions of the field of literary studies, i.e., disciplinary literacy (Shanahan and Shanahan 2008). As in all human interaction, there is a risk of enactment of power dynamics to the detriment of reticent or introverted students (Walsh-Moorman 2016; Barker 2017). By including interpersonal skills in the rubric, I tried to alleviate such concerns. If anybody were to dominate the discussion, they would receive the lowest point for that score. If students showed leadership skills and took care to invite other students into the dialogue, they were rewarded with the highest point. It could be argued that the rubric promotes shallow compliance with values, such as cooperation, respect, and leadership. On the one hand, the rubric makes the discipline-specific actions and behaviors explicit leading to gradual enculturation into this discourse community. On the other hand, it may reinforce status inequities since high-achieving students are more prone to carefully study the rubric and deliberatively try to engage in the desired actions. There is no denying that an oral group exam will by default reward extroverted students who enjoy talking in groups. Still, the practice of inviting fellow students into the conversation and keeping to a small-group format instead of conducting the exam as a formal individual presentation could benefit introverted or communication apprehensive students.

In the data analysis, the category of interpersonal skills in the Socratic seminar rubric concerns to what extent the students are able to take on leadership and establish a safe and encouraging group culture. The rubric included this skill because I wanted students to become enculturated into a seminar culture in literary studies where dialogue and critical inquiry are at the forefront (Beach et al. 2016).

Subcategory 1 Interpersonal skills


In the first example, we see how this student took charge of the discussion and helped establish the rules of the conversation, and in the second example how one student adopted a positive attitude. The third example shows how students made an effort not only to build on each other's ideas (Davies and Sinclair 2014) and contribute new insights but also to invite others to participate. In the fourth example, the student ensured that everybody would be able to share the floor, thus conveying a sense that each person had a unique contribution to make in a collaborative reading practice (Weissman 2010). For reticent students, an invitation to participate may be the only way to gain a voice in the discussion (Barker 2017). The fifth example shows conformity with the academic seminar culture in literary studies in how students often started their comments on a positive note. Apart from being gratifying for the individual, these rhetorical moves can alleviate the pressure of being examined if students experience a boost in confidence.

#### 3.1.2. Analytical Skills

Regarding analytic skills, several students used theoretical concepts from secondary sources when analyzing the primary texts. Some were also able to show awareness of contextual factors, such as historical context and author biography as well as make intertextual connections in a way that shed new light on the play or the poem. The rubric refers to contributing new perspectives or insights to the conversation and showing evidence of independent reasoning. The latter criterion is a sophisticated skill that is hard to define (Corrigan 2019), but I tend to see it as an ability to offer original in-depth interpretations. Subcategory 2 Analytical skills


Example one indicates the fulfillment of a learning objective in the course syllabus for term 2, to "apply different literary theories and methods in analysis of fiction." In the material, several students made use of Critical Race Theory as a critical lens (Beach et al. 2016). In example two, we see how some students also addressed the wider significance of their claims when pondering how the characters represent anti-racist strategies. Example three fulfills another learning objective stated in the syllabus for term 2, the ability to "analyze literary texts in a way that takes cultural and historical contexts into account." In terms of disciplinary literacy, intertextual references allow for deeper analysis in that they reveal the significance of various elements in the plot that novice readers may overlook. To sum up, students were able to engage in the discipline-specific discourse practice of how to analyze poetry and drama by using a critical lens, addressing possible ramifications of claims, and drawing parallels to other works of art.

#### 3.1.3. Textual Evidence

Bearing in mind that Goldman et al. (2016) have highlighted the difficulty for novice students to provide textual evidence, it is noteworthy that all EFL students participating in the oral exam were able to fulfill that criterion. As this practice is also required in written assignments in the literature courses, students no doubt recognized its necessity for passing the exam, although the level of difficulty was shown in that many students only paraphrased. While their paraphrasing often showed extensive knowledge of the texts, students who were able to use direct quotes got higher points since this practice is more convincing in terms of supporting one's claim. Therefore, indicating a specific passage in the text aligns more closely to discourse conventions regarding close reading (Corrigan 2019).

Subcategory 3 Textual evidence


Example one shows what a typical paraphrase looked like in the material when used to substantiate claims about authorial intention and dynamic characterization. In example two, there is stronger alignment with the rubric since it includes a direct quote. Being able to paraphrase or quote from the text adds to the complexity of the discussion so it is an important disciplinary literacy skill (Davies and Sinclair 2014). Example three outlines how some students seamlessly integrated the evidence into their questions or claims and how meaning-making about the text was a collaborative practice (Chisholm and Quillen 2016). The reason direct quotes will make claims more persuasive is that they allow the student to point to exact wording in the primary text (Corrigan 2019). From an assessment perspective, this practice qualifies as more advanced since it entails being able to identify poignant passages at the same time as taking part in the discussion (Goldman et al. 2016). All in all, the ways in which students relied on textual evidence to ponder ideas and strengthen the validity of claims indicate that students are cognizant of this subset of discourse conventions.

#### *3.2. Observation Notes from the TQE Seminars*

As stated above, notes from the oral exams were categorized in alignment with the concept-driven coding frame. In the presentation of the results below, examples have been selected from the ten pre-service teachers who chose this format for the oral exam in the course African American literature. Since this is a new method that has not been empirically studied, I will use the topoi found by Wilder (2005) as the basis for the analysis of the data.

#### 3.2.1. Interpersonal Skills

Subcategory 1 Interpersonal skills


In example one we see how students built on each other's statements also in the TQE seminars while engaging in the discourse practice of finding patterns in the literary texts, which Wilder (2005) calls the ubiquity topos. Example two indicates that the students engaged in collaborative reading practices (Weissman 2010) when they used other students' ideas to make connections and to move forward in the discussion. There are also invitations to share the floor by students as in example three (Barker 2017). Consequently, even if the TQE format has less focus on questions (one among three contributions), students still

used questions as a means to increase the dialogic nature of the discussion (Chisholm and Quillen 2016). In alignment with the academic seminar culture, example four showcases how students took care to keep a positive tone in the discussion. Example five is proof of student feelings as the discussion drew to an end. These recurring words of encouragement and praise to fellow students worked as attempts to create a relaxed ambiance and alleviate the pressure of being examined.

#### 3.2.2. Analytical Skills

Based on the pre-service teachers' experience from the TQE seminar in the previous course, one group decided to start with the epiphanies so that they would have time to discuss them better, which shows how strategic students may be when given the chance to control their own assessment practice.

Subcategory 2 Analytical skills


In terms of disciplinary literacy, example one shows evidence of awareness of not only literary devices, such as metaphors and symbolism, but also the wider significance of intergenerational trauma and existential issues, and this could be conceptualized as Wilder's (2005) topos of social justice. In example two, we find the topos of context (Wilder 2005) in the references to literary period as well as intertextuality. In example three, the student was able to point to the deeper meaning in the selected passage, as in the appearance/reality topos (Wilder 2005). The student used both knowledge about the historical context and the extended metaphor of the caged bird in Dunbar's poem to build the case for the impact of structural racism on the youngest character in the play. In short, the variety of analytical skills found in the student discussion aligns with typical rhetorical moves in the discursive practice of literary studies.

#### 3.2.3. Textual Evidence

Just as in the Socratic seminar, all students refer to the primary texts in their discussions using either paraphrase or direct quotes.

Subcategory 3 Textual evidence


Example one comprises the social justice topos (Wilder 2005) when relating the poem to the play, contextual knowledge of the time period in the reference to the white character, as well as authorial design in regard to what the playwright is doing. In example two, a paraphrase is used as the basis for the paradigm topos (Wilder 2005) about being trapped in the proletariat in a capitalist society and there is also a reference to the extended metaphor in Dunbar's poem. In example three, we see that some students quoted or paraphrased both from the primary and secondary sources and the latter would be in accordance with the paradigm topos (Wilder 2005). As comes across in example four, these pre-service teachers address the wider significance of literary interpretation, and they also draw parallels to their future careers. In this way, disciplinary literacy for pre-service teachers encompasses pedagogical matters.

#### *3.3. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Two Formats*

The second research question (about the strengths and weaknesses of the two formats that can be detected in the oral exam setting) centers on what advantages and disadvantages the Socratic seminar and the TQE seminar may have. Since my design of the two formats was built on dialogic teaching principles (Alexander 2020), both formats had the capacity to increase student engagement by relying on collaborative learning (Chisholm and Quillen 2016). In my student evaluations, there are often comments on how interesting it is to hear others' interpretations of the same text. Centering the conversation on student-selected passages and text-to-self references also conforms to discourse conventions in the field of reader-response theories (Rosenblatt [1938] 1995).

Despite the fact that 79 percent of the pre-service teachers preferred the TQE method to the Socratic seminar, only three out of nine groups chose this format for the oral exam in the course on African American literature. It is possible that they chose the Socratic seminar since that was the format stated in the LMS while the option of having a TQE instead was mentioned in class. In connection to their future profession, several pre-service teachers proposed in written communication with me that the TQE method could work well in the EFL classroom for developing close reading and critical thinking skills and they also commented on how the method could be used to gradually build such skills by offering question stems as scaffolding. In terms of disciplinary literacy, there were engaged discussions in the TQE seminar as well. Students built on each other's contributions and analyzed the texts as much as they did in the Socratic seminar. Likewise, students gave each other praise and encouragement also in the TQE seminar although there was less emphasis on that in the rubric.

The format of TQE could potentially have led to more of a monologue than dialogue style conversation with each student stating their own thoughts and epiphanies in a sequential manner. Yet the data does not support this hypothesis as students do build on fellow students' thoughts and move the discussion forward by making connections. The method of the TQE seminar transcends the sole focus on questions in the Socratic seminar. It has been my experience that the questions students pose in the Socratic seminar are sometimes so convoluted that they need to be read several times and explained by the interlocutor, which somewhat defeats the purpose of generating a lively discussion. It is also a common occurrence in Socratic seminars that students answer their own questions. This presents less of a problem in the TQE seminar where students are supposed to expound on their own thoughts and epiphanies. What is more, posing a question becomes one of several contributions instead of the single mode.

Another important point that could be a strength for the TQE method is how it allows students to do the work of interpretation before the seminar while the Socratic seminar requires students to think on their feet and formulate answers to their fellow students' questions. The Socratic method, therefore, makes it difficult for students to provide textual evidence, which is also what Walsh-Moorman (2016) found in her study.

The problems listed in the students' written communication to me with the TQE method were mostly connected to terminology. Several students were skeptical of the epiphany component. Before the seminar, I communicated with a student who did not feel comfortable claiming to have had an epiphany while reading the text. They argued that this will not happen with every text. Another complaint, which came up for the Socratic seminar as well, concerned the instructions given for the task. Students requested clearer and more extensive instructions. In order to increase transparency, MacLellan (2001) advocates "central involvement of students themselves in the assessment process" (p. 317). This may also preempt suspicions that implicit criteria are used. In the instructions, the epiphany can perhaps be explained as an insight to prevent students from thinking they should come up with something original or ground-breaking. Another idea could be to ask students to base the thought on a particular aspect of the text, thereby staying within the fictional world, while the epiphany could relate to the wider significance of the text, as in contextual awareness. In short, the TQE format is preferable to the extent that it offers a variation with three different modes of response and gives students a chance to locate textual evidence for claims in advance without feeling rushed in the moment.

#### **4. Conclusions, Suggestions for Future Research, and Pedagogical Implications**

This investigation of language practices in tertiary English studies focused on classroombased assessment practices. The aim of this small-scale action research study was to study discipline-specific rhetorical moves in two oral exam formats. The research questions concerned to what degree students will engage in disciplinary literacy by analyzing literature according to field conventions, and what advantages and disadvantages Socratic seminars and TQE seminars may have.

In both assessment formats, students performed discipline-specific rhetorical moves, interacting in a respectful manner and using active listening skills, which allowed them to build on each other's ideas. The material shows that students analyzed the literary texts using a critical lens as well as showing contextual awareness, and they also provided textual evidence for claims in a mostly persuasive manner.

Nonetheless, it is important to note that no generally applicable conclusions can be drawn given the limitations of the material and design of the present study. A major flaw in the data collection concerns using observation notes as a documentation method. More specific data on the rhetorical moves the students made in their discussions could have been attained if the sessions had been recorded and transcribed in full. The notes could also have been subjected to the highly detailed and structured procedures of conversation analysis in order to better reflect the dynamics of group interaction.

While there are advantages and disadvantages concerning both oral exam methods, the TQE seminar tended to generate more varied discussions and enabled students to identify textual evidence prior to the exam thus reducing the stress level. Nonetheless, the Socratic seminar is a widely used format that fits well into an inquiry-driven teaching practice where students learn to develop critical thinking skills (Beach et al. 2016) even if there is a risk that students may pose such complicated questions that the discussion suffers. Given that the Socratic seminars were entirely peer-led conversations based on the students' own questions, it may have a high probability of being perceived as relevant by students in the spirit of dialogic teaching with a focus on empowerment (Chisholm and Quillen 2016). The breadth of interpretations may also encourage a view of literature as multilayered (Chick et al. 2009; Weissman 2010). A caveat when using this method of assessment is that in a Socratic seminar, students are assessed on their response to questions that they may not have had the chance to prepare for. This means that asking students to

support their claims in textual evidence, especially direct quotes, is quite a tall order. It is difficult to quickly find a quote in the literary text in real-time. Naturally, some groups share questions with each other in preparation for the oral exam, but not everybody does.

The TQE method allows more freedom for students to ponder text-to-self and textto-world associations (Rosenblatt [1938] 1995) and it moves away from the sole focus on questions. However, the terminology of the TQE seminar can be intimidating. Some students told me that the word *epiphany* conjured up a type of contribution that was difficult to arrive at by necessity. Perhaps the word *insight* could be used instead, in order to lessen the pressure on students to come up with such a profound contribution.

Both discussion methods rely on a student-centered approach in which students gain voice and agency to explore aspects of literary texts that they find meaningful and relevant, thus transforming an exam into a learning opportunity (Rust et al. 2005). This classroombased assessment practice may show students that close reading skills are not enough, since it is in this collaborative reading practice (Weissman 2010) that they discover how the multidimensional quality of literary interpretation (Chick et al. 2009) enriches their own understanding. In order for students to move toward the position of the expert, this focus on student voice could be complemented with strategic and explicit instruction on the conventions of the field (Wilder and Wolfe 2009). It is therefore recommended that these assessments practices are used in tandem with carefully designed rubrics, which would increase the transparency of the grading practices for students (MacLellan 2001).2 One way to engage in explicit instruction in the field of literary studies could be to teach the topoi from the replication study by Wilder (2005). If the purpose is to enculturate novice students into the discourse community of the field of literary studies, then educators would do well to openly discuss what skills are needed to become a member of that club (Shanahan and Shanahan 2014).

Future research studies could further elucidate classroom-based assessment practices in the EFL context in higher education, especially concerning how various rhetorical moves the students make in the different assessment methods would be graded by a group of instructors. Another question to investigate deals with whether students become enculturated into this type of dialogic discourse to the extent that they continue using interpersonal and analytical skills as well as textual evidence in subsequent literature courses and eventually in their own teaching practice. It would also be interesting to study other less structured oral exam formats, such as oral presentations, regarding how each method determines what topoi and other rhetorical moves students use.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines stipulated by the Swedish Research Council. Ethical review and approval were waived for this study since the material does not contain any sensitive personal data.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **Notes**


#### **References**

Alexander, Robin J. 2020. *A Dialogic Teaching Companion*. New York: Routledge.


Baynham, Mike. 1995. *Literacy Practices*. London: Longman.

Beach, Richard, Deborah Appleman, Bob Fecho, and Rob Simon. 2016. *Teaching Literature to Adolescents*, 3rd ed. New York: Routledge. Bengtsson, Mariette. 2016. How to Plan and Perform a Qualitative Study Using Content Analysis. *NursingPlus Open* 2: 8–14. [CrossRef] Biggs, John. 1996. Enhancing Teaching through Constructive Alignment. *Higher Education* 32: 347–64. [CrossRef]

Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, and Lorin W. Anderson. 2014. *A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's*. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Brennen, Bonnie. 2013. *Qualitative Research Methods for Media Studies*. New York: Routledge.

Chambers, Aidan. 2011. *Tell Me: Children, Reading and Talk: With the Reading Environment*. Woodchester: Thimble Press.

Chick, Nancy L., Holly Hassel, and Aeron Haynie. 2009. Pressing an Ear against the Hive: Reading Literature for Complexity. *Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Culture, and Composition* 9: 399–422. [CrossRef]

Chisholm, James S., and Bryan Quillen. 2016. Digitizing the Fishbowl: An Approach to Dialogic Discussion. *English Journal* 105: 88–91. Copland, Fiona, and Angela Creese. 2015. *Linguistic Ethnography: Collecting, Analysing and Presenting Data*. London: SAGE Publications. Corrigan, Paul T. 2017. Teaching What We Do in Literary Studies. *Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Culture,*

*and Composition* 17: 549–56. [CrossRef]

Corrigan, Paul T. 2019. Threshold Concepts in Literary Studies. *Teaching and Learning Inquiry* 7: 3–17. [CrossRef]

Council of Europe. 2020. *Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment—Companion Volume*. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Available online: www.coe.int/lang-cefr (accessed on 14 March 2022).

Daniels, Harvey. 2002. *Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in Book Clubs and Reading Groups*, 2nd ed. Portland: Stenhouse.


Mertler, Craig A. 2019. *The Wiley Handbook of Action Research in Education*. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.


Swedish Research Council. 2017. *Good Research Practice*. Stockholm: Swedish Research Council. Available online: https://www.vr.se/ english/analysis/reports/our-reports/2017-08-31-good-research-practice.html (accessed on 14 June 2021).

Thompson, Marisa E. 2017. We're Killing the Love of Reading, But Here's an Easy Fix. Available online: https://www.unlimitedteacher. com/blog/were-killing-the-love-of-reading-but-heres-an-easy-fix (accessed on 3 September 2021).

Walsh-Moorman, Beth. 2016. The Socratic Seminar in the Age of the Common Core: A Search for Text-Dependent Discourse. *English Journal* 105: 72–77.

Weissman, Gary. 2010. The Virtue of Misreadings: Interpreting "The Man in the Well". *College English* 73: 28–49.

Wilder, Laura. 2005. The Rhetoric of Literary Criticism Revisited. *Written Communication* 22: 76–119. [CrossRef]


## *Article* **Multimodal Resolution of Overlapping Talk in Video-Mediated L2 Instruction**

**Taiane Malabarba 1,\*, Anna C. Oliveira Mendes <sup>1</sup> and Joseane de Souza <sup>2</sup>**


**\*** Correspondence: tmalabar@uni-potsdam.de

**Abstract:** This paper investigates a pervasive phenomenon in video-mediated interaction (VMI), namely, *simultaneous start-up*s, which happen when two speakers produce a turn beginning in overlap. Based on the theoretical and methodological tenets of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics, the present study offers a multimodal and sequential account of how simultaneous startups are oriented to and solved in the context of English as an additional language (L2) tutoring. The micro- and sequential analysis of ten hours of screen-recorded video-mediated data from tutoring sessions between an experienced tutor and an advanced-level tutee reveals that the typical overlap resolution trajectory results in the tutor withdrawing from the interactional floor. The same analysis uncovered a range of resources, such as lip pressing and the verbal utterance 'go ahead', employed in what we call *enhanced explicitness*, through which the withdrawal is done. The orchestration of these resources allows the tutor to exploit the specific features of the medium to resolve simultaneous start-ups while also supporting the continuation of student talk. We maintain that this practice is used in the service of securing the learner's interactional space, and consequently in fostering the use of the language being learned. The results of the study help advance current understandings of L2 instructors' specialized work of managing participation and creating learning opportunities. Being one of the first studies to detail the practices involved in overlap resolution in the micro-context of simultaneous talk on Zoom-based L2 instruction, this study also makes a significant contribution to research on video-mediated instruction and video-mediated interaction more generally.

**Keywords:** video-mediated interaction (VMI); English as an additional language (L2); teaching; turntaking; overlap resolution; 'go ahead'; multimodality; conversation analysis; interactional linguistics

### **1. Introduction**

One of the basic rules of the turn-taking system described by Sacks et al. (1974) is that one party talks at a time, with no or minimal gap or overlap between turns. When overlap occurs, participants draw on the *overlap resolution device*, which is an organized set of practices by which the parties attempt to resolve the overlap and return to a 'one-at-atime' situation (Schegloff 2000). Although several kinds of overlapping talk do not need to be avoided or resolved (see, e.g., the case of early responses, explored by Deppermann and Schmidt 2021), certain forms of overlapping talk are considered "recognizable events" (Schegloff 2000, p. 11), which participants orient to and act upon to secure the progressivity of ongoing talk. An example of this type of overlap are *simultaneous start-ups* (Schegloff 2000), which are the focus of this paper. Simultaneous start-ups are overlaps that occur at transition relevance places (TRP), i.e., places in the interaction "where a change of speakership becomes a salient possibility" (Clayman 2012, p. 151) and are recognized as initiating a new turn-at-talk.

In order to avoid beginning a new turn in overlap or to resolve simultaneous start-ups as quickly as possible, speakers monitor each other closely; that is, ending and incoming

**Citation:** Malabarba, Taiane, Anna C. Oliveira Mendes, and Joseane de Souza. 2022. Multimodal Resolution of Overlapping Talk in Video-Mediated L2 Instruction. *Languages* 7: 154. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/languages7020154

Academic Editors: Pia Sundqvist, Erica Sandlund, Marie Källkvist, Henrik Gyllstad, Juana M. Liceras and Raquel Fernández Fuertes

Received: 1 November 2021 Accepted: 27 May 2022 Published: 20 June 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

turns are projected via participants' gestures, modified posture, facial expressions, and manipulation of objects (Mortensen 2009; Oloff 2013; Mondada 2014, 2007). In video-mediated interaction, however, participants' access to each other's vocal and embodied behavior is impacted due to a range of medium-specific features, such as corporal segmentation, lack of reliance on eye gaze direction, and synchronicity issues, e.g., delays (Luff et al. 2003; Arminen et al. 2016; Licoppe and Morel 2012; Ruhleder and Jordan 2001; Rusk and Pörn 2019; Seuren et al. 2021). As a result, overlapping talk that requires negotiation from the participants (e.g., simultaneous start-ups) has been shown to happen more frequently in video-mediated encounters in comparison to face-to-face interaction (Schneider 2017; Olbertz-Siitonen 2015; Seuren et al. 2021), and is impacted by, e.g., the higher transition time (487 ms) in comparison with face-to-face conversation (135 ms) (see Boland et al.'s (2021) experimental study with dyads interacting via Zoom).

In the data analyzed in this paper, which stem from English tutoring sessions held over Zoom, we identified 41 instances of simultaneous start-ups in ten sixty-minute sessions. Our analysis shows that most cases of this type of overlap result in the student remaining on the floor, and that the tutor draws on a range of multi-semiotic resources to enhance the explicitness of the turn-yielding moves that she uses to secure the floor for the student. We argue that this recurrent resolution trajectory reflects participants' shaped conduct in relation to the affordances of the medium, as well as the tutor's orientation to moments of simultaneous start-ups as emergent language use/learning opportunities (Sert 2017) and her role as an 'interactional manager' (Walsh 2006; Kasper 2004) responsible for crafting such opportunities in situ.

In what follows, we review studies on overlap resolution in video-mediated interaction (VMI), video-mediated additional language (L2) learning, and tutoring, which serve as background to the present contribution.

#### **2. Overlap Resolution in Video-Mediated Interaction**

Schegloff (2000) identified distinct phases through which overlaps are solved with reference to the onset of the overlapping talk: the *pre-onset phase*, *post-onset phase*, *post-postonset phase*, and *post-resolution phase*. During the pre-onset phase, the current speaker may react to their co-participant's incipient attempts to take the floor (for instance, through gaze, pointing, loud in-breaths) and design their utterance to prevent overlap (e.g., by speeding up the pace of talk). In the post-onset phase, speakers adapt to the fact that they are producing talk simultaneously. This adaptation includes halts in the progressivity of talk, usually referred to as "hitches" (e.g., cut-offs) or prosodically marked articulation of talk (e.g., slower tempo), labelled "perturbations" (Schegloff 2000, p. 11). Although hitches and perturbations are found in other interactional environments as well, they acquire specific functions in the context of overlap resolution, as they index that the participants have noticed a problem with progressivity that may impact mutual understanding. In the post-post-onset phase, speakers usually launch what Schegloff calls a "contest" for the floor, by speaking louder, for instance. In the post-resolution phase, the "winner" of the floor adapts back to speaking solo (Schegloff 2000, p. 44). At each beat of overlapping talk, the participants take a stance on what to do next, i.e., to produce the next beat in overlap or to stop talking.

More recently, studies working with video-based data (Heath and Luff 1993; Seuren et al. 2021; Ruhleder and Jordan 2001) have shown how, in VMI, the resolution of overlaps involves dealing with the inherent asymmetries and incongruency in the production and reception of interactional moves. For instance, Seuren et al.'s (2021) study of videomediated consultations in the UK showed that due to delays between the production of a turn by the speaker and the perception of the same turn by the recipient, participants may perceive moments of actual talk as silence. Accordingly, the practices for the resolution of overlapping talk described above may be delayed for one or both interlocutors, and it may take several turns (and new overlaps) for participants to reach an agreement on who should remain on the floor. In a study of the use of videoconferencing to support remote

teamwork, Ruhleder and Jordan (2001) found that transmission delays impacted the course of interaction but seemed to go unnoticed by the participants, who were not able to identify the source of emerging trouble (but see Olbertz-Siitonen 2015 for partially different results). In such contexts, the timely response of one speaker was perceived as late and in overlap with the continuation of another speaker, who might not have continued if the response had come in on time.

All in all, participants in video-mediated interaction do not seem to acknowledge the existence of latency effects (Heath and Luff 1993; Seuren et al. 2021); that is, they tend to orient to "two non-mutual realities" as a "shared one" (Seuren et al. 2021, p. 66). At the same time, as Heath and Luff (1993) point out, participants' conduct *is* affected by such incongruencies, as evidenced, for instance, by the upgrading of certain gestures, especially in cases in which their first attempts at certain interactional moves prove unsuccessful.

Against this background, this study explores turn beginnings that are produced in overlap in the context of L2 video-mediated instruction. We empirically show that in the context of our data, L2 tutoring aimed at advancing learners' speaking skills, simultaneous start-ups are resolved in a more explicit fashion in comparison to face-to-face interaction as described by Schegloff. The typical resolution trajectory and participants' moves observed by Schegloff (2000) and others (Oloff 2013; French and Local 1983), i.e., stopping talking and thus yielding the floor, or continuing speaking (e.g., louder) and thus staying on the floor, are not the norm in our data. Rather, in most of our cases, the negotiation involves dropping out of the floor in a rather upgraded fashion even in moments when the overlap is not persisting. As this practice is pervasively used by the tutor only, we claim that it reflects both participants' adaptation to the specific features of the medium (as prior VMI studies have identified) and the tutor's orientation to moments of simultaneous start-ups as locally emerging opportunities for the learner to use the language being learned. A similar claim has been made by Cancino Avila (2019), which, as far as we know, is the only CA study on overlapping talk in language instructional settings. Although his analyses took into consideration different types of overlaps and drew on face-to-face multi-party classroom data, his findings indicated that by providing learners with interactional space in moments of overlap, teachers display classroom interactional competence (Walsh 2006).

#### **3. Video-Mediated L2 Learning**

As pointed out by González-Lloret (2015), micro-analytical studies on video-mediated L2 learning can be categorized into two major strands: descriptive studies (e.g., Uskokovic and Talehgani-Nikazm 2022; Wigham 2017; Hampel and Stickler 2012; Rusk and Pörn 2019; Dooly and Davitova 2018; Jakonen and Jauni 2021; Balaman 2019) and developmental studies (e.g., Balaman and Doehler 2022; Doehler and Balaman 2021; Sert 2017; Balaman 2018). Descriptive studies seek to unveil the generic structures of VMI, that is, how participants manage sequential organization, turn-taking, repair, etc., in such settings. For instance, Uskokovic and Talehgani-Nikazm (2022) describe how L2 speakers use a gesture with the index finger alone or in combination with the utterance *ein moment* ('one moment' in English) to create space for screen-based word searches in interactions-for-learning between German L1 and L2 speakers. In turn, developmental studies seek to track the development of interactional practices over time. For example, in his study of hinting sequences within a task-based activity, Balaman (2018) shows how a learner increasingly diversifies the resources used to provide hints to her classmates about how to complete the task at hand.

A recurring theme in both strands are participants' methods for securing and maintaining progressivity. Several studies describe how participants use affordances of the medium to restore progressivity, while others focus more specifically on the emergence of practices to deal with technological constraints. Dooly and Davitova (2018), for example, document how the practices of showing smartphone screens and typing are used by a group of teenage learners to maintain progressivity in the face of communication barriers. Balaman and Doehler (2022) and Doehler and Balaman (2021) describe the development

and routinization of grammatical formats (e.g., *let me* and *let's x*) used to transition into screen-based activities. Finally, in their study of Swedish–Finnish Tandem interactions, Rusk and Pörn (2019) show the local emergence of several strategies to deal with lags, such as an explicit orientation by the L1 speaker towards the L2 speaker's incoming turn.

The current paper is situated within the 'descriptive' strand. It adds to this body of work on video-mediated L2 learning by providing a detailed account of participants' interactional conduct when dealing with turn-taking-related disruptions in progressivity in the understudied context of L2 online tutoring.

#### *Tutoring as an Instructional Activity*

EM/CA-inspired studies on tutoring, both in face-to-face and mediated by video, have analyzed the micro-analytic and sequential aspects of this type of instructional activity in various disciplines (see, for example, DiFelice Box (2015) and Creider (2020) on Math tutoring involving children and Bowden and Svahn's (2020) single-case analysis of videomediated Math homework support with an upper-secondary student). In the context of L2 instruction, the rather small body of micro-analytic studies on tutoring has explored, for example, the use of hand gestures to achieve intersubjectivity (Belhiah 2013), the sequential organization of openings and closings (Belhiah 2009), and how advice is negotiated and resisted (Leyland 2018; Park 2017; Waring 2005). And specifically on online L2 tutoring, an instructional set-up that has grown exponentially as a result of technological advances (Hamid et al. 2018) maximized by the limitations on co-present encounters imposed by the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, Nguyen et al. (2022) investigated online search sequences in dyadic Skype interactions between an adult tutee and his L2 tutor. Their paper shows how the word 'corkscrew' becomes a teachable and learnable (Eskildsen and Majlesi 2018) due to participants' impossibility of using the medium's screen-sharing feature. As their analysis reveals, this constraint led to extensive epistemic negotiation between the participants, which occasioned the emergence of the word and its subsequent use by the L2 learner.

One aspect of L2 tutoring that remains largely overlooked refers to specific practices for turn-taking management, which seem to be particularly relevant in this context due to its less constrained interactional arrangement (as compared to regular classrooms). For example, Belhiah (2009) showed that students and tutors tended to carry out the tutoring business rather collaboratively, and that students' self-initiated turns were frequently welcomed by the tutors. In one of his excerpts, a student's initiating turn overlaps with the teacher's, who, similarly to what we find in our data, promptly yields the floor to the learner. The details of this negotiation for the floor, however, are not addressed in his examination. And indeed, no systematic analysis of overlaps in the context of L2 tutoring has been provided so far.

The current paper thus contributes to filling this gap in the CA L2 instruction literature by exploring overlap resolution in video-mediated encounters involving an experienced L2 instructor and an advanced adult learner engaged in what we call *conversational tutoring*. We use this term, which emerged from our work with the data, to refer to one-on-one tutoring sessions led by an L2 teacher that are not part of an institutionalized course program or fixed-term curriculum. Nonetheless, we consider L2 conversational tutoring to be a teaching–learning arrangement. The term 'conversational' refers both to the stated goals of the encounters (to improve students' speaking skills) as well as to their overall sequential structure, which comprises a great deal of interaction that appears 'more conversational' than typically 'instructional' (see context and Methods).

The main goal of this paper is to explore the embodied means through which overlaps are solved and what affordances such resolutions have for this type of L2 instructional activity. A secondary agenda is to consider what interactional demands engenders the typical resolution design found in our data, i.e., the tutor's use of enhanced explicitness in turn-yielding.

#### **4. Context and Methods**

The data analyzed in this study come from a budding corpus of video-mediated language instruction. The interactions took place through Zoom, a video teleconferencing software program that became popular during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The participants—Mari (self-identified as female), a certified and experienced instructor who had taught L2 English for more than twenty years both in language courses and at the university level, and Ivo (self-identified as male), an adult B2-level learner—started meeting weekly in April 2020 (Figure 1). Both participants are Brazilian and were living in Europe at the time of the data collection. Ivo's stated goal with the tutoring sessions was to improve his English speaking skills.

**Figure 1.** To the **left**, Ivo (the tutee); to the **right**, Mari (the tutor).

As stated earlier, the lessons were not based on any pre-assigned course material and were designed by the tutor as mostly comprising conversational practice that was very seldom interrupted for corrections (most corrections were done after the session via WhatsApp or a shared editable file). When there were specific grammatical or lexical units pre-prepared by the tutor, they often drew on issues that emerged during the sessions or related tasks.

Broadly speaking, Ivo and Mari's encounters followed an overall sequential structure comprising several phases. These included both the general phases identified in everyday and institutional video-mediated interactions, such as pre-opening/opening and pre-closing/closing phases (Mondada 2015; Ilomäki and Ruusuvuori 2020) as well as typical language instruction phases (e.g., homework checking and task instruction giving), although these more typical 'instructional' phases were not present in some of the encounters and were held primarily on a conversational basis. The pre-opening and opening phases comprised checks from both parties regarding the quality of the audio and the video and in which the participants greeted each other. Immediately after this phase, Ivo and Mari engaged in extended *howareyou* sequences and updates, followed by a transition to the 'business of the day', proposed by Mari, which included, e.g., a pre-reading activity. During the activities proposed by the instructor, the participants often initiated sequences of talk that were arguably 'conversational', i.e., which did not specifically advance the proposed activity.

The recordings were made from Mari's computer with the written consent of both participants. For the purposes of the study presented here, the first ten recorded lessons were transcribed according to the GAT 2 conventions for English (Couper-Kuhlen and Barth-Weingarten 2011) and the Mondada system for multimodal transcription (Mondada 2019). Combined, these systems allow for detailed prosodic–phonetic and bodily–visual description1.

This study draws on the methodological framework of Conversation Analysis (CA) and Interactional Linguistics (IL). IL investigates linguistic resources as they are used in social interaction (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2018) and has been heavily influenced by CA, which seeks to unveil the nature of the orderliness observed in social interaction. Both fields depart from the basic assumption of "order at all points" (Sacks 1992, p. xlvii), i.e., no detail is dismissed as irrelevant to participants before careful consideration. Likewise, IL and CA approach social interaction from an emic perspective, through which context is reflexively

constructed through participants' talk (Schegloff 1997) and participants' sensemaking practices to accomplish actions are reconstructed through the next-turn proof procedure.

As a CA/IL study, our analysis started with the collection and detailed transcription of candidate single instances of the focal phenomenon (see Hoey and Kendrick 2017 for collections in CA), which yielded a total of 41 clear cases of simultaneous start-ups. We considered turn beginnings that overlapped in the pre-onset and onset phase (see Section 2 above) to be clear cases of simultaneous start-ups. We excluded non-competitive overlaps, such as utterance completions and co-constructions, agreements, brief assessments, and laughter. As we only had the recordings from Mari's perspective, our analysis was based on the 'version' of the interaction uniquely available to one of the participants (cf. Olbertz-Siitonen 2015).

#### **5. Results: The Multimodal Design of Simultaneous Start-Up Resolutions**

The analytical part of this paper illustrates the typical simultaneous start-up resolution trajectory found in our data, which comprises Ivo "winning" the floor (Schegloff 2000) and Mari indicating her dropping out through what we call *enhanced explicitness*, i.e., through the combination of different linguistic and embodied resources used in what Mondada (2014) calls a *complex Gestalt*. One case in which the *enhanced explicitness* strategy is not used is presented as well, with the aim of discussing possible explanations for the distribution of the *enhanced explicitness* strategy in our collection.

#### *5.1. The Lip Pressing Gesture*

Excerpt 1 shows Mari's use of a lip gesture to more explicitly withdraw from the competition for the floor. It takes place at the beginning of the session. Mari and Ivo had spent a couple of minutes looking up landmarks in Mari's neighborhood, at that time unknown to Ivo, on Google Maps. Mari had told Ivo that one of the advantages of living in that particular area was the easy access to parking slots in comparison to other parts of the city. We join their conversation as Ivo affiliates with this stance. The simultaneous start-up takes place in lines 6 and 7.



After Ivo's turn (lines 1–2), Mari produces a minimal token that is hearably an agreement with what Ivo just said (line 3). As Ivo gazes down and does not produce another turn (line 4), Mari explicitly formulates her agreement with "that's true" (line 5), which constitutes both a TRP and a place of possible sequence closure. This is when the simultaneous start-up takes place, with both Mari and Ivo producing *and*-prefaced new turns (lines 6 and 7). For her part, when Mari produces the beginning of her turn, she moves her head to the right towards the window. Although we cannot know for sure, this body movement may have contributed to the simultaneous start up, as it may have impeded the monitoring of each other's embodied turn incipiency. Right after the overlap, we hear a halt in Mari's turn while she is looking away. For his part, Ivo produces a hesitation marker, *uh:*, followed by a pause, and then continues speaking. Mari's next embodied action, done through a pressing lip gesture (line 7, Figure 4) beginning at the end of Ivo's hitch, confirms her withdrawal from the floor. As Ivo continues speaking, Mari keeps her lips pressed, turns to the screen, and nods.

Because of latency issues, participants in video-mediated interaction may face difficulties signaling to their co-participants that they have dropped out of the floor, which can lead to extended stretches of simultaneous talk and several attempts at overlap resolution (Seuren et al. 2021). In the example shown here, the lip pressing gesture—a more explicit resource compared to glottal or labial stops (Schegloff 2000)—allows Mari to underscore her non-speaking stance, and functions as another signal for Ivo to continue his turn. Excerpt 1 thus shows Mari's exploitation of the talking heads configuration (Licoppe and Morel 2012) afforded by the video-conferencing program. Furthermore, because it is non-vocal, this resource facilitates the coordination of speaker transition (cf. Seuren et al. 2021).

#### *5.2. The Go Ahead Utterance*

Excerpt 2 was extracted from Mari and Ivo's first lesson, in which the participants are engaged in a video activity. The video is about strategies that polyglots use to learn a new language. Mari's 'instructional project' (Kimura et al. 2018) seems to be to assess Ivo's understanding of this type of material as well as to discuss language learning strategies that may work for him in particular. The base sequence starts before the excerpt, as Mari pauses the video clip and asks Ivo to report on main ideas conveyed in the video and on whether he agrees with them. We join the conversation towards the end of Ivo's response.



This excerpt exhibits two simultaneous start-ups (lines 14–15 and 17–18). While our focus is on the second one (line 17), we will begin by taking a close look at the first due to its import to the emergence of the second simultaneous start-up. Between lines 1 and 11, Ivo describes his current difficulties with learning English. Although Ivo's turn "and i can't improve in more tha more than this" (line 11) is syntactic and pragmatically complete, its mid-rising final intonation while keeping his gaze down suggests more to come. Throughout Ivo's TCU in line 11, Mari is looking down, involved with note-taking. Mari utters a mid-rising continuer, *m\_HM*, (line 12), thereby registering Ivo's TCU and

treating it as a non-turn-final one (Jefferson 1984). It is during a pause of 1.7 s (line 13), when Mari is taking notes and Ivo is looking down, that the first simultaneous start-up takes place (lines 14–15).

During this pause, had Mari been looking at her screen she might have noticed Ivo's visible in-breath (through torso movement) and mouth opening, both signs that he was about to start talking again. Ivo then utters a pre-turn-beginning *u:h* (line 14) (Schegloff 2010), potentially not noticed by Mari, which indicates an attempt to secure his turn space while he formulates his utterance. Mari comes in in overlap with a second continuer "m\_HM", with reduced loudness and slower tempo (line 15), which does the work of explicitly displaying attentiveness to Ivo's ongoing turn while she is gazing down engaged in note taking. As Ivo does not launch a TCU right away, as projected by the *u:h* (note the pause in line 16), another simultaneous start-up ensues. While Ivo finally launches his TCU with *so* (line 18), Mari produces a click and delivers a *yes* with mid-falling final intonation (line 17), after which Mari's mouth is kept slightly open, indicating that Mari was going to continue speaking. This conduct seemingly indicates both that she was done note taking and her readiness to take over speakership (Jefferson 1984).

At this point, Ivo produces two *uh*s (line 18) and stops talking, which hearably constitute overlap-related hitches (Schegloff 2000). That Mari interprets Ivo's conduct as somewhat oriented to the overlap as "a recognizable event" (Schegloff 2000, p. 11) is supported by Mari's subsequent conduct. For one, she closes her mouth and nods (lines 18–19). Second, as Ivo does not continue immediately (see the pause in line 19), Mari utters a *go ahead* while shifting her body positioning and gaze direction (line 20). The verbal *go ahead* is followed by an apology (line 21), and a smile (line 21). In her move to make sure that Ivo remains on the floor, similarly to what she does in Excerpt 1, Mari uses the enhanced-explicitness strategy in the resolution of the simultaneous start-up. This time, such enhanced explicitness is embodied by the use of a verbal utterance, through which Mari officially allocates and secures the floor to Ivo and encourages him to continue.

Locally, two main contingencies may explain the design of her withdrawing. First, this is a second simultaneous start-up that happens right after the first one. Second, Ivo stops talking after uttering two non-lexical *uh*. Arguably, those two events together render this moment as one of persisting turn-taking issues, which warrants the use of even more explicit means (as compared to Excerpt 1) to resolve the overlap. As Mari turns to the screen while saying "go ahead", she can see that Ivo adopts a stand-by posture as he stops talking and stares at the screen (line 18, Figure 6). The apology "sorry" (line 21) further underscores the inappositeness of Mari's incoming and indexes that Mari holds herself accountable, as the one responsible for the smooth unfolding of the interaction, for not paying full attention to Ivo's moves. This orientation to Mari's role as interactional manager and instructor is further showcased by the Excerpt 3 below.

#### *5.3. The Combination of the Lip Pressing Gesture and Go Ahead Utterance*

Our third example comes from Mari and Ivo's first session, in April 2020, when local COVID-19 lockdown measures were slowly starting to be lifted after a stricter lockdown period. Mari and Ivo had been talking about how they felt during the lockdown. The simultaneous start-up is located in lines 7 and 8.



Lines 1–3 show Mari's resaying of her previous comment about missing the possibility of spending time outdoors. The design of Mari's turn in line 6, along with the alternating eye gaze direction (lines 3–7), suggests a potential sequence and topic-closure (Schegloff 2007). In line 7, Mari's turn is delivered as she is gazing down (potentially at her notes), which, together with the connector *and*, suggests that she was indeed about to launch a new (sub-)topic. As Mari is gazing down, Ivo opens his mouth and then produces an audible in-breath, which is delivered in overlap with Mari's turn.

Mari's dropping out of the floor happens as soon as she hears Ivo's turn. She first does this by simply interrupting her talk. As a consequence, the continuation of Ivo's turn, containing a prosodically marked high-pitched *yeah* and presumably the first sound of the conjunction *but*, is heard in the clear (line 8). This turn design projects a concessive *yes-but* construction (Couper-Kuhlen and Thompson 2000), and thus suggests that Ivo's talk was going to propose a slightly different understanding than the one formulated by Mari in lines 5–6, while remaining on the same topic.

The halt of his turn seemingly displays Ivo's stance towards the fact that he and Mari are talking in overlap. He does not compete for the floor and seems to be uncertain about who should continue, which causes the talk to be momentarily halted. During this pause (line 9), Mari's mouth is closed and Ivo is nodding slightly. Mari then further displays her withdrawal by pressing her lips while moving her head back to the center/front of the screen, which underscores her readiness to listen to Ivo. What follows is a yet more explicit display of Mari's withdrawal: she produces a turn containing *go ahead* while nodding and raising her eyebrows, then smiles (line 10). For his part, Ivo first produces a freestanding *okay* (Couper-Kuhlen 2021), accompanied by a subtle nod (line 11). Although *okay*s are particularly known across languages for acknowledging receipt of information (Couper-Kuhlen 2021; Oloff 2019), the prosodic delivery (faster than surrounding talk and

with mid-rising intonation) of Ivo's *okay* suggests that it may be doing more than merely acknowledging that Ivo has heard that Mari and he are speaking in overlap. However, in the specific context of simultaneous start-up resolution in video-mediated interaction, it is difficult to determine its function. It could be checking whether the lag was over on Mari's end, requesting confirmation from Mari that he could/should continue, or even yielding the floor to Mari. Finally, through its strategic position and design, Mari's smile does several things. First, it further signals her withdrawal from the floor, and thus from the negotiation of speakership. Second, by maintaining her smile at this point in the interaction, Mari imprints a playful stance towards her invoking of her primary rights over the interactional floor as well as the tacit norms of their encounter, which includes Mari facilitating Ivo's access to the floor.

The design of Mari's actions via a cluster of facial gestures (Kendon 2004) and other linguistic and prosodic resources in the overlap resolution in this case points to the local management of the business at hand, i.e., managing the interactional floor and maximizing learners' language use by contingently securing the floor to the student in moments of overlap. By not continuing to speak and signaling her dropping out of the floor in such a marked fashion, Mari momentarily invokes her deontic status, i.e., "the relative position of power that a participant is considered to have or not to have, irrespective of what he or she publicly claims" (Stevanovic 2018, p. 375), as instructor. Ivo's subsequent turn with another *okay*, this time prefaced by a change of state token (Heritage 2016) *oh* (line 13), is delivered with mid-falling intonation in a multimodal package of its own, with laugh particles and accompanied by an eye roll and a head movement (line 13, Figure 8), thus affiliating with the playful stance projected by Mari's embodied actions to resolve the overlap. It complies with Mari's turn-yielding move in a humorous enactment of feigned resistance.

Excerpts 1–3 showcase, in micro-analytical and sequential terms, a recurrent trajectory of simultaneous start-up resolution in our data, i.e., that the tutor orients to the tutee as the one who should continue talking after moments of simultaneous start-ups. They are also representative of how the handing over of the floor happens; it is accomplished through a rich multimodal *Gestalt* of resources mobilized by the tutor in a locally-sensitive way as she adjusts her conduct to the medium as well as to her student's moves. We propose that such moves, i.e., recurrently dropping out of the floor at moments of overlap and indicating it through more explicit embodied and linguistic methods, constitute an emergent interactional practice used by the teacher to manage turn-taking and yield the turn to the student. As such, we argue that this recurrent resolution trajectory reflects and constitutes part of the tutor's role of 'interactional manager' (Walsh 2006; Kasper 2004) and as the crafter of learners' emergent language use opportunities (Sert 2017).

That this practice reflects the tutor's orientation to her instructional role and the larger agenda of securing and maximizing the student's interactional space is further substantiated by an example in which the more explicit resources are not employed. We turn to this last example in Excerpt 4 below.

#### *5.4. A Contrasting Case: The Resolution of Overlap without the Enhanced Explicitness Strategy*

Excerpt 4 is a case in which the simultaneous start-up is solved *without* the enhanced explicitness strategy. It takes place half-way through the session. As Mari corrected Ivo's use of pronouns, they ended up talking about the adequacy of pronouns and their relation to sexist language. We join the interaction when Mari is telling Ivo about her M.A. dissertation, which she wrote in Portuguese. In line 1, Mari states that when writing her dissertation, she decided to use both the masculine and the feminine nouns to refer to groups that include both men and women, although mixed groups are commonly referred to by the use of masculine forms in Portuguese. This is what the indexical *that* in line 1 refers to.

Mari's telling about her dissertation is received with a continuer (line 5) followed by a change-of-state token (line 6). This change-of-state token (Heritage 2016), along with Ivo's raised eyebrows, displays Ivo's surprise on learning about Mari's dissertation topic, one Ivo, as he himself had stated previously, was interested in. During a pause of one and a half seconds (line 7), Mari seems to be inviting elaboration related to Ivo's display of surprise, which is indicated by her silence and nods. At the same time, Mari could be waiting for a transmission problem to be resolved, as Ivo's turn (lines 5–6) can only be heard, not seen (see Ivo's image freezing in line 4). After this silence, Ivo makes his interest on the topic of Mari's dissertation more evident through the initiation of a new sequence projected by a question (line 9). This new sequence clashes with a potential topic expansion by Mari (line 8), producing a simultaneous start up. The content of Mari's turn beginning suggests that she was going to advance the larger topic of the interaction at that point (sexism and language), instead of producing further talk on her dissertation.

As with most of the cases in our collection, what follows the overlapping talk is Mari's ongoing turn suspension. However, the design of her dropping out this time is considerably different from the previous examples. In Excerpt 4, the simultaneous start-up is resolved through the deployment of the most basic resource available to speakers in talk-in-interaction, i.e., to simply stop talking. The action of dropping out of the floor and thus yielding the floor to Ivo is not highlighted by the lip gesture nor does Mari employ the utterance *go ahead*. It is comprised solely of stopping the production of her turn, nodding, and halting her right-hand movement and its retraction to her shoulder, where she lets her hand rest (line 9). This movement signals her withdrawal of the floor and indexes her recipiency state (Oloff 2013).

While the design of Mari's withdrawal in this occurrence (halt of talk plus the hand gesture retraction) allows Ivo to continue (as the other designs do), it does this in a way that does not impose on him in the same manner as a fiercely closed mouth with pressing lips or a verbal *go ahead* would. Seemingly, in this particular example, as well as in the other two examples found so far in our data in which Mari is the one talking about personal affairs, Mari's role of interactional manager/instructor is backgrounded; that is, momentarily, Mari and Ivo are not primarily oriented to their deontically asymmetric roles, but rather to their roles as unacquainted interactional partners (Svennevig 2000) who are currently

engaged in learning more about each other's personal affairs. This example thus supports the claim that the backgrounding and foregrounding of the tutor's role of fostering learner participation is constituted by and reflected in how the simultaneous start-ups are oriented to and solved.

#### **6. Discussion and Implications: Overlap Resolution and the Management of Language Use/Learning Opportunities**

This paper has examined the resolution trajectory of simultaneous start-ups in videomediated L2 tutoring. With a decided focus on the cases in which the tutor withdraws and yields the floor to the student, we observed the mobilization of a set of resources comprising the timely termination of talk, mouth and lip gestures, smiles, hand gestures, and the use of the expression *go ahead*. We have shown that these resources, locally used to more explicitly mark the tutor's withdrawal from the floor, support the student's incipient talk and reflect how participants' conduct is shaped by the medium. Furthermore, we have argued that this practice of enhanced explicitness secures the learner's interactional space in moments of overlap in VMI, and thereby indexes the tutor's role as the *crafter* of emergent language-use opportunities.

The present paper has implications for both VMI and for CA-SLA research. Our analysis has unveiled the more prominent function that certain resources acquire in VMI. For example, we have shown how pressing the lips—a practice that has not been reported by previous studies in relation to overlapping talk—is recurrently used in our data. Through the prominence of her lip pressing gesture after dropping out of the floor, the tutor secures her recipient mode and makes use of her rights as interactional manager to influence the course of the overlap resolution. This finding supports earlier research (e.g., Heath and Luff 1993; Licoppe and Morel 2012) in suggesting that facial gestures gain prominence over hand gestures in VMI, which is an example of how participants exploit the 'talking heads' configuration (Licoppe and Morel 2012).

As this study is limited to one dyad, more research is needed in order to determine whether the enhanced explicitness strategy is likely to be encountered in interactions involving other conversational partners in VMI. Our analyses suggest that participants' deontic status may play a role in determining who can use the enhanced explicitness strategy for overlap resolution. Further research could verify whether this holds true for other contexts and with participants with more symmetrical deontic statuses. It would also be relevant to verify whether simultaneous start-ups are resolved differently over time, as Mari and Ivo become more familiar with the medium and more acquainted with each other. Future research could also investigate which other practices are used by L2 instructors and participants in VMI more generally to solve simultaneous start-ups as well as other types of interactional hurdles.

Another avenue for future VMI studies is the investigation of how micro-sequentiality (Deppermann et al. 2021) is accomplished in video-mediated interaction. The notion of 'micro-sequentiality' is a recent development in multimodal CA, and seems crucial to explaining participants' orientations to bodily–visual behaviors (Mondada 2014; Deppermann et al. 2021). Cases such as the one shown in Excerpt 3 suggest that linguistic and embodied resources may be mobilized across an increasing scale of 'explicitness' (from simply stopping talking to uttering the expression 'go ahead') in order to allow participants to micro-adjust to each other's conduct. This mechanism should be further explored by multimodal conversational–analytical studies on VMI.

Our study contributes new understandings to CA-SLA research. Previous studies have claimed that language use is "the driving force for language development and language learning" (Eskildsen 2020, p. 59) and that an integral part of the specialized work that teachers do involves successfully managing learners' initiatives and creating language learning opportunities (e.g., Waring 2011; Girgin and Brandt 2020; Sert 2017). Our close analyses of simultaneous start-ups illustrate how such management of learners' self-initiated turns and crafting of language use opportunities is done in the understudied context of adult

L2 tutoring with advanced learners. For one, it invites us to reconceptualize our understanding of 'language teaching'. In the context of L2 conversational tutoring, juggling the institutional roles of L2 teacher and student and that of conversational partner seems to be a pervasive concern for the participants. As the encounters are to a great extent designed to resemble everyday conversation, a calibration between being a teacher, with all the rights and obligations attached to it, and being a conversational partner, is presumably needed. Indeed, we observe that the categories of teacher and student may be brought to the surface of talk during moments when the progressivity of ongoing talk is at stake, which is the case with simultaneous start-ups. The negotiation that these events require, as the analysis of excerpts 1–3 shows, mobilize a set of practices that seem to actualize the institutional roles of teacher and student in what appear at first glance to be moments of everyday interaction with no fixed instructional agenda (e.g., a grammar point) in place.

All in all, our findings support the general claim that teachers are the "key designers" (Hall 2020, p. 12) of learning opportunities and reveal new facets of the embodied work of teaching (Hall and Looney 2019) that is mobilized in the increasingly popular videomediated L2 settings. Our findings also provide further evidence for the claim that a core principle of teacher–student interaction is adapting ongoing talk to interactional contingencies (Malabarba 2015; Waring 2016).

In line with the goal of "[m]aking visible the practices and actions of how L2 teaching is accomplished" (Hall et al. 2020, p. 36) in order to produce useful insights to L2 instructors, these findings could integrate evidence-based teacher reflection and professionalization programs (see Hall et al. 2020; Glaser et al. 2019; Sert 2021; Ekin et al. 2021) to leverage L2 instructors' *e-classroom interactional competence* (Moorhouse et al. 2021). Specifically, our finegrained analyses of how simultaneous start-ups are solved could help raise L2 instructors' awareness of the mechanics of dyadic L2 video-mediated instruction. Instructors who are less familiar with VMI should find these results relevant to understanding how pedagogical actions, such as leaving the floor to students in moments of overlap in video-mediated instruction, are accomplished by experienced instructors.

**Author Contributions:** Data curation, T.M.; manuscript conceptualization, methodology, analysis, original draft preparation, T.M., A.C.O.M., J.d.S.; writing—review and editing, T.M., A.C.O.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed written consent was obtained from the tutor and the tutee involved in this study.

**Data Availability Statement:** Due to privacy concerns, the data are not available to other researchers.

**Acknowledgments:** This paper began to gain shape in informal weekly data sessions held over Zoom during the COVID-19 pandemic. A big thanks to Revert Klattenberg, who joined the initial sessions and the analytical brainstorming that culminated in this paper. Our initial analyses were then sharpened with the help of the members of the Gesprächsanalyse in der Lehrer\*innenbildung (GeLb) group and our colleagues from the Center for Interactional Linguistics at the University of Potsdam in two separate data sessions in which the data and the transcripts were discussed at length. The editors of this Special Issue, Pia Sundqvist, Erica Sandlund, Marie Källkvist, Henry Gyllstad, Juana M. Liceras and Raquel Fernández Fuertes, have also done a brilliant job with helping us reach greater clarity in framing our contribution, sharpening our analysis, and interpreting our findings. And we are indebted to Christl Langer and Marie Will (University of Potsdam) for their invaluable support with the formatting of the paper. Finally, the first author would like to thank the tutor and the tutee for making their sessions available for scientific scrutiny.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **Appendix A. Transcription Conventions**




*Multimodal transcription abbreviations* EB eyebrows RE right eye RH right hand

fwd forward twd toward scr screen

## **Note**

<sup>1</sup> A complete list of the transcription conventions is found in the Appendix A.

#### **References**


## *Article* **"Good Foreign Language Teachers Pay Attention to Heterogeneity": Conceptualizations of Differentiation and Effective Teaching Practice in Inclusive EFL Classrooms by German Pre-Service Teachers**

**Ana Rovai and Joanna Pfingsthorn \***

Department of English Language Education, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany; ana.rovai@uni-bremen.de

**\*** Correspondence: pfingsthorn@uni-bremen.de

**Abstract:** This paper explores how pre-service EFL teachers perceive the variety of methodic-didactic and pedagogical forms of differentiation that they consider as acceptable in their teaching practice and which shed light on knowledge areas related to adaptivity competence. Our investigation looks into (a) qualitative questionnaire data that depict pre-service FL teachers' conceptualizations of what it means to be a "good" and "bad" foreign language teacher; and (b) pre-service FL teachers' quantitative evaluations of existing differentiation approaches designed for accommodating learners, especially ones experiencing specific learning differences such as difficulties with memorization, classroom communication, anxiety, or lexical and grammar confusion. Our results show that, despite expressing general agreement towards supporting individual learners' needs, participants' knowledge regarding how to respond to the needs of all FL learners appropriately is incomplete.

**Keywords:** foreign language education; inclusive education; teachers' adaptivity competence; learner diversity

### **1. Introduction**

The progressive implementation of inclusive education in Germany has heightened the need for foreign language (FL) education to find effective ways to embrace learners' diversity and avoid the contextual reproduction of learning barriers (Rossa 2015). The goal is to make learning and participation accessible to all (Booth and Ainscow 2003, p. 10). However, as teaching English as a FL to students with special educational needs was long regarded as not worth pursuing in Germany (cf. Dose 2019; Kleinert et al. 2007; Morse 2008) and because of the relatively long tradition of general segregationist schooling practice (Pfahl and Powell 2011), inclusive FL education in Germany has not yet completed the task of questioning previous beliefs about diversity and effective foreign language teaching and learning (Rossa 2015).

Given that teachers' actions can significantly influence the learning progress of students (Hattie 2009), their adaptivity towards heterogeneity is crucial to establishing inclusive learning environments. The concept of "adaptivity" is understood here as teachers' flexible use of various teaching approaches that offer appropriate support for individual learning processes (Gerlach and Leupold 2019, p. 93). It implies that FL teachers are in the position to take a step back from pre-established ideas of a "good method" or a "good teacher" and situationally respond to the needs of learners (Gerlach and Leupold 2019, p. 25).

Adaptivity competence is especially relevant for teaching languages to learners with specific learning differences (SpLDs) who may experience difficulties in phonological processing, word recognition, metacognitive language learning awareness, lack of attention

**Citation:** Rovai, Ana, and Joanna Pfingsthorn. 2022. "Good Foreign Language Teachers Pay Attention to Heterogeneity": Conceptualizations of Differentiation and Effective Teaching Practice in Inclusive EFL Classrooms by German Pre-Service Teachers. *Languages* 7: 162. https:// doi.org/10.3390/languages7030162

Academic Editors: Pia Sundqvist, Erica Sandlund, Marie Källkvist and Henrik Gyllstad

Received: 28 October 2021 Accepted: 10 June 2022 Published: 29 June 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

or anxiety, and demotivation (Heimlich 2016; Nijakowska 2010) or have a negative selfconcept and negative attitudes towards the target language (Csizer et al. 2010; Nijakowska 2010). This implies that teachers may be required to identify moments in which it is necessary to steer away from typical, open communicative tasks and to reflect on the individualization of measures and gradation of task complexity (Nijakowska 2010). They can, instead, choose, for instance, a sequential, systematic, and cumulative multisensory approach that includes systematic and recurrent drills targeting phonological awareness, the metacognitive component of vocabulary, or tasks that focus on explicit textual structure (Daloiso 2017; Kormos and Smith 2012; Nijakowska 2010).

Thus, in this study, we investigate the extent to which pre-service FL teachers, who are pursuing a graduate teaching degree for inclusive schools, acknowledge the potential positive effect of differentiated instruction on learning, even if some approaches may seem counter-intuitive to what traditional communicative FL teaching implies. In addition, we examine pre-service FL teachers' general conceptualization of what it means to be a "good" and a "bad teacher", which provides insights into teacher cognition. A consensus is that teachers' "mental lives", i.e., what they know and think, as well as their attitude and belief system, exert a substantial influence on their pedagogical practice and decision-making processes (Borg 2003, 2011). In line with Borg (2003, 2011), this study, thus, taps into aspects of teacher cognition through self-reports to shed light on how future English FL teachers, expected to teach inclusively, conceptualize "good" and "bad" teaching practice, as well as capture their perceptions of adaptivity competence in terms of differentiation approaches.

#### *1.1. Inclusion and Specific Learning Differences*

Inclusion, in contrast to integration, of people with special needs into regular schools assumes a broad understanding of accessibility and focuses on how barriers to learning are socially constructed in educational contexts (Booth and Ainscow 2003, p. 10). Wocken (2012) uses the metaphor of a pedagogical house, which requires a balance of double adaptation between the learning needs of children and both the pedagogical offers from the environment (didactic adaptation) and the competences of the teachers (professional adaptation) (Wocken 2012, p. 113).

This double adaption is especially relevant in Germany considering that about 40% of students in special schools were diagnosed in 2016 with a special need in learning, making up the largest group requiring special educational support (Ellger-Rüttgardt 2016). 'Special needs' or 'supportive education' and 'learning disabilities' or 'specific learning differences/difficulties' all relate to learners who experience some form of barrier to learning in regular schooling contexts (Heimlich 2016). This paper works with the concept of 'specific learning differences' to highlight the social-cultural aspect of learning where 'deviant behavior' and 'disorders' in the classroom mirror institutionally accepted standards for what is considered the norm or norm-deviant (Gerlach 2015, p. 93).

In the school context, specific learning differences refer to differences in students' responses to learning requirements in a way that learning cannot be tackled without specific pedagogical support within the existing school structure (Heimlich 2016). General areas of difference in learning an additional language are linked to memorization, anxiety, and lexical and grammar confusion (Difino and Lombardino 2004) and should not be understood as having a fixed cut-off point of diagnosis but rather as fluid and varied on a continuum of mild to severe (Gerlach 2019; Kormos 2017; Nijakowska 2010). According to Gerlach (2019), foreign language learners with reading and writing differences display reduced attention due to limited capacity of working memory, especially due to weakness in phonological processing. Reduced attention also negatively influences the use of metacognitive strategies such as planning and the structured processing of tasks (Gerlach 2019, p. 27).

Some SpLDs, such as dyslexia, are directly linked to the process of learning an additional language and include spelling and grammar issues, such as phonetic and inconsistent spelling, the misuse of homophones, transposing letters, the misuse or omission of punctuation, inappropriate grammar constructions and use of tense, or the use of an inappropriate

narrative mode (Westwood 2004). Learners experiencing an SpLD might fail to identify the main points of a text, misunderstand the stated question, or digress from the topic in their answers, their output might lack clarity and be repetitive, and they are often demotivated as a consequence of these difficulties (Kałdonek-Crnjakovi´c 2018; Westwood 2004).

Additionally, general language learning differences can result solely from exogenous factors, such as instructor or curriculum (Difino and Lombardino 2004, p. 393). Especially teachers' in-class behavior, i.e., their teaching methods and attitudes towards SpLDs, play a significant role in shaping learners' motivation and anxiety (Kormos 2017, p. 41). Additionally, an investigation by Markova et al. (2015, p. 2) showed that:

*Across many countries, students with immigrant backgrounds are disproportionally identified as having special educational needs [* ... *]. Evidence has shown that students from certain ethnic minorities and of lower socioeconomic status are over-represented in special education programs (Gabel et al. 2009) and under-represented in programs for talented students.*

It is, therefore, conceivable that manifestations of specific learning differences in the English language classroom remain unaddressed if the teaching approaches fail to create accessible learning conditions for all students (Cohen 2011, p. 272). Teacher education should, therefore, comprise training for adaptive forms of learning support, as well as have teachers reflect on their roles and actions in reproducing socially constructed barriers to learning (Heimlich 2016).

Adaptive teaching practice can be based on the differentiation of learning objectives, the level of difficulty of classroom tasks, and the degree of support offered (Kormos and Smith 2012, p. 12), as well as on varying teaching methodologies and materials (Daloiso 2017). Pre-service teachers training for inclusive schools should become aware of teaching methods that have been empirically tested and have shown effectiveness in teaching learners with SpLDs. Sparks et al. (1992), for instance, applied multisensory structured language (MSL) instruction for teaching additional languages to learners with SpLD, especially dyslexia. The approach consists of clearly structuring activities with frequent revisions, simultaneously emphasizing writing and pronunciation for the explicit teaching of phonology (Sparks et al. 1992). The results showed that learners improved their oral and written language abilities in both their first and the foreign language (Sparks et al. 1992). Later, a study by Nijakowska (2008), for instance, showed that dyslexic learners' word reading and spelling outperformed the control group after an intervention with the MSL approach (Nijakowska 2008).

Further, concrete, didactic-methodic approaches that have been shown to increase English language learning accessibility to students with SpLDs include creating opportunities for repetition, explicitly teaching phonological and orthographic information and working with mind maps, diagrams, bullet points, pictures, and models (Kormos and Smith 2012, pp. 112–13). Technology, such as computers, spellcheckers, audiobooks, visual presentation software, voice recorders, the internet, specific websites, speech-to-text software, listening aids with a microphone and headset, and voice output systems, among others, can offer essential support in the classroom (Nijakowska 2010, p. 148).

In short, inclusive teachers should not assume that there is a "best method" to teach all learners but have the methodic repertoire to respond to the needs of the learners even if that means relying on structured and gradual approaches to continuous (and, when necessary, repetitive) practice and explicit language instruction (Daloiso 2017; Gerlach 2015).

#### *1.2. Perceptions of Effective English Language Teachers*

Studies aiming at identifying good teachers, in general, have recognized three levels of teaching quality that directly impact learning processes: (a) instructional, which refers to learners' cognitive activation and engagement; (b) organizational, encompassing classroom management; and (c) emotional–interactional, which includes individual learning support, a positive learning environment, and constructive feedback on errors (Holzberger et al. 2019, p. 802). Lipowsky (2006, pp. 52–53) emphasizes, in addition, that professional experience

and beliefs shape the quality of teaching. He argues that teachers have a considerable influence on the learning development of students through the level of competence that guides teaching actions for cognitive and metacognitive activation and the right balance of direct instruction and cooperative learning (Lipowsky 2006, p. 64). This is in line with Borg's (2003, p. 81) review of studies on teacher cognition, which views teachers as "active, thinking decision-makers who make instructional choices by drawing on complex, practically-oriented, personalized, and context-sensitive networks of knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs". Narrowing the focus down to the ideal English language teacher, research has generally identified the following characteristics: (1) having knowledge and command of the target language; (2) having the ability to organize, explain, clarify, and create interest and motivation; (3) refrain from displaying any form of favoritism nor prejudice; and (4) being available to students (Brosh 1996). Also, Bell (2005) defined effective language teaching as "clear and enthusiastic teaching that provides learners with the grammatical (syntactical and morphological), lexical, phonological, pragmatic, and sociocultural knowledge and interactive practice they need to communicate successfully in the target language" (Bell 2005, p. 260).

In a questionnaire study on the beliefs and attitudes of effective foreign language teachers, Bell (2005) identified a trend in professional consensus related to communicative approaches to language teaching (CLT). CLT approaches were perceived as generally having a positive effect on learning, while error correction or focus on the grammatical form were seen as contributing less to the learning process (Bell 2005, p. 266). Similarly, Brown (2009) examined how teachers and students perceive good foreign language education. Interestingly, teachers agreed that communicative approaches have a positive impact on foreign language learning and that the teaching of grammar should not be done in isolation but within real-world contexts, while students expressed a preference for formal grammar instruction and showed less agreement about group work (Brown 2009, p. 53). Given the disparities between teachers' and students' perceptions, Brown (2009) concluded that teachers need to explicitly discuss learning preferences with their students (Brown 2009, p. 56).

Harris and Duibhir (2011) argued that, while CLT inspired a greater focus on "learner autonomy, the social nature of learning, curricular integration, focus on meaning, diversity, thinking skills, alternative assessment and teachers as co-learners" (Harris and Duibhir 2011, p. 61), it also rejected isolated practice through drills (Harris and Duibhir 2011, p. 69). However, isolated language practice could promote language learning through raising consciousness of grammatical constructions (Ebsworth and Schweers 1997, p. 242). In short, CLT requires learners to infer meaning from context without much focus on the explicit teaching of phonetics and phonology or grammatical rules. For learners experiencing SpLDs, this could mean having a lower chance of success (Nijakowska 2010, p. 127). On the one hand, CLT offers a "comprehensive view of language not restricted to grammatical correctness", which could be favorable for some learners with dyslexia, for instance (Daloiso 2017, p. 70). The stress on communication can still act as a trigger for language anxiety for learners who need explicit language instruction or more time to process information (Daloiso 2017).

Adapting teaching approaches to accommodate a wide variety of learners in the English language classroom might, therefore, require teachers to distance themselves from assumptions regarding the benefits of CLT for English language learning. This does not imply a rejection of the communicative approach, but rather that its implementation should be adjusted to the needs of the learners in a given teaching situation. Nonetheless, the dominance of communicative approaches seems to evoke the conviction among participants that it is a universally effective teaching approach, which carries the danger of making the implementation of inclusion measures in the classroom more difficult (Pfingsthorn 2021, in press).

#### *1.3. Differentiation as Adaptivity Competence*

The teacher is a central, contextual factor in students' learning processes as a person who can, willingly or unwillingly, directly impact the learning process of their students (Hattie 2009; Pfrang and Viehweger 2015, p. 295). While the individual cognitive factors of the learners or the influence of their family, peers, and school structural factors, which all interact in shaping learning processes, are robust and difficult to change, teachers can adapt their teaching to the given classroom situation (Hattie 2009). This means that structural school changes resulting from educational policies for inclusive education need to be accompanied by changes in the curriculum as well as in teacher education programs that train teachers to incorporate inclusive principles into their teaching practice (Zierer 2015, pp. 23–25). There is evidence to suggest that teacher education programs are necessary for pre-service teachers' professional development, as they stimulate the development of reflection on skills, intuition, and knowledge (e.g., Weinstein 1990). Therefore, the application of inclusive principles into teaching practice requires an understanding of teachers' competence development in terms of their adaptivity to heterogeneous classroom contexts (Beck et al. 2008) and reflexivity to deal with differentiation antinomies that arise from the tension between treating all students equally and the need to differentiate between the group of students and individual students (Helsper 1996).

In the literature on inclusive pedagogies, differentiation has long been identified as a didactic principle (Götz et al. 2015, p. 34) and as a central professional competence: "Differentiation competence is an integrated system of abilities and skills, stocks of thought and knowledge, as well as values and attitudes of an educator that make him/her capable of action to offer instruction adapted to individual learning prerequisites and paths" (Drinhaus and Werner 2015, p. 108). Internal differentiation, as opposed to external forms of schooling differentiation, such as class size and grade level, is the application of individual or selected group support within a learning group. Internal differentiation can include differentiation of goals, curriculum content, teaching formats, and materials. It can either be applied through a top-down and teacher-centered approach or through bottom-up methods, where the students themselves choose their materials and activities (Giesler et al. 2016, pp. 64–65).

In line with the reformist pedagogical ideas of the 1970s, bottom-up differentiation refers to the ways in which teachers prepare the learning environment and support learners if necessary—the teacher is placed in the background of learning and takes the position of an "advisor" to learning. English language education is here centered on communicative tasks and includes open and cooperative learning, such as weekly plan work, free working stations, and project work, placing a strong emphasis on learners' autonomy (Trautmann 2011, pp. 7–9). However, the application of bottom-up differentiation approaches, especially individualization, needs to be conducted in a way that does not lead to the isolation and labeling of individual learners (Wocken 2012, p. 119) as it carries the danger of sustaining exclusionary practices that focus on learners attempting to achieve their "optimal self" with the stated goal of fulfilling normative performance ideals (Idel and Rabenstein 2016, p. 16).

Differentiation competence, as a sub-category of teachers' adaptivity competence, requires not just subject knowledge but also pedagogical diagnostic competences to accurately assess individual learning prerequisites and outcomes to offer appropriate teaching formats (Beck et al. 2008, p. 41). According to profession theory, competence development takes place in an interplay with pedagogically relevant beliefs and teachers' actions (Baumert and Kunter 2006, p. 497). In this sense, teachers' beliefs are intertwined with and support teachers' professional knowledge acquisition (Baumert and Kunter 2006, p. 496). Following this rationale and given the discussion presented above, this paper is interested in: (a) preservice teachers' perceptions of what good English language education encompasses as a reflection of their professional beliefs; and (b) the extent to which pre-service teachers view various differentiation approaches as positive for the English language learning process. The results should shed light on the knowledge areas that need attention in the first phase of English language teacher professionalization.

#### **2. Methods**

Insights into participants' cognition of good teaching practice and differentiation approaches were gathered through a questionnaire consisting of two open and forty-eight closed questions. The two open questions of the questionnaire focused on the general conceptualization of "good" and "bad teachers". The rationale behind this choice was the intention to examine what characteristics or aspects of "good" and "bad" teachers are salient in the minds of the participants, without priming them with pre-existing categories. The closed items in the questionnaire examined the extent to which pre-service English language teachers perceived various approaches to differentiated instruction. This included consideration of those that are counter-intuitive to the basic assumptions of the CLT approach to language teaching dominant in the educational context of the participant as potentially having a positive effect on learning. The logic behind this choice of method was to include a wide spectrum of possible methodical classroom choices known and discussed in the literature, instead of relying on the methods salient or accessible to the participants' memory at the time of the study.

The questionnaire ran on an online platform and was filled out voluntarily by forty university students (N = 40) pursuing their BA and M.Ed. degrees in English, which comprise the first qualification phase in the state-certified teacher education program for different school levels in the German states of Bremen and Lower Saxony. The questionnaire was anonymous, and the participants were informed that they could abort their participation without any consequence at any point. Demographic information about gender, majors, levels being studied, and future school types was collected to gain an insight into the population sample of future English language teachers for this study.

The results showed that thirty-five participants were female and five male; no one identified as non-binary. Half of the participants were studying towards a BA degree and the other half towards a M.Ed. degree, all majoring in English and a second or third major. German was the most cited second subject of study, followed by inclusive pedagogy and religion. Most of the participants were studying towards becoming teachers in secondary school forms (Table 1).


**Table 1.** Participants' future school type in total numbers (N = 40).

<sup>1</sup> Lower schools refer to the German *Haupschule* and *Realschule*, which are school forms that lead to vocational training and do not qualify for tertiary education.

The demographic information collected showed that about a third of the participants were studying to become vocational, lower school, or primary education teachers. The remaining participants were studying to become high school teachers.

The forty-eight closed items comprised approaches to differentiated instruction in the four competences (reading, listening, speaking, and writing) and grammar, as well as general forms of pedagogical and didactic differentiation practice, and presented the participants with the answer options as a 5-point Likert scale of agreement. The items were adapted from the suggestions for differentiation in English language teaching by an Oxford Experts' (Daloiso et al. 2018) publication and validated for correctness and comprehension by two peer researchers. The questionnaire also included some validated items from Bell's (2005) study that measure the behaviors and attitudes of effective English language teachers, as well as some from Kojima's (2017) paper on good English language teacher characteristics. The statistical analysis consisted of descriptive statistics including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations. The categories were all above the minimum threshold of a Cronbach's alpha of 0.60, displaying internal consistency (Table 2).

**Table 2.** The summed variables and Cronbach's alpha.


The qualitative part of the questionnaire asked participants to state if they think that it is possible to talk about "good" and "bad" foreign language teachers and, if so, how these two categories could be defined. The results were analyzed through content analysis based on Mayring's (2003) methodology and followed an inductive systematic analysis of the material. The categories were formed following the seven analytical steps of (1) determination of the units of analysis; (2) paraphrasing the text passages that are important for the content; (3) determining the level of abstraction; (4) reduction by selection, deletion of paraphrases with the same meaning; (5) reduction through bundling; (6) compilation of the new statements as a category system; and (7) re-examination of the summarizing category system using the source material (Kuckartz 2010). The content analysis revealed a total of six categories, three for "good teachers" and three for "bad teachers", which are discussed in the results section below.

#### **3. Results and Discussion**

#### *3.1. Conceptualizations of "Good" and "Bad" English Language Teachers*

From the total of 40 participants who filled out the questionnaire, 39 answered the open question on whether they think there are "good" and "bad" foreign language teachers and, if so, how they could be described. Only two participants answered that there are no "bad" FL teachers, and one participant answered that there are no "good" FL teachers. The questions and the answers were given in German, which is the official, local language in which their teacher education program is conducted. Content analysis of the remaining answers revealed conceptualizations of "good" foreign language teachers according to the identified categories below:

*"Good" FL teachers* ... Category 1: teach inclusively; Category 2: are instructionally competent; Category 3: motivate.

The first category refers to teaching inclusively. An inclusive teacher, according to the German Society of Foreign Language Research (Gerlach et al. 2021), needs to have knowledge related to the different dimensions of heterogeneity and individual learning requirements and to reflect on their own teaching actions, leading to the adaption of teaching practice to reduce learning barriers (such as materials and didactic methods). Also, teachers should prepare well-structured lessons and offer support to all learners. For inclusive education to properly function, inclusive teachers need to receive professional support from and cooperate with special educators and other professionals (Gerlach et al. 2021). Taking these requirements into consideration, we identified three main aspects in the category "Good FL teachers are inclusive": didactic/methodic knowledge, self-reflection combined with adaptivity of teaching practice, and communication in teams. This can be exemplified by the answers below1:

P28: "Good foreign language teachers pay attention to the heterogeneity of their students, strive for a communicative and open teaching culture."

P32: "Reflective, self-aware, communicative, inclusive attitude, knowledge of learning processes, tolerant of ambiguity, self-concept as a facilitator and architect of learning arrangements rather than an instructor."

P30: "Can flexibly adapt themselves and their language to the situation and the learners are willing to express examples differently, communicative cooperative approach, allow learners to make mistakes."

The statement that inclusive teachers "pay attention to the heterogeneity of their students" displays awareness that a classroom is never homogenous and that differences in competences need to be taken into consideration. The participants went on to mention the need for communication or establishing a communicative culture, which highlights the importance of discussion and exchange—possibly with students, potentially also with colleagues. If we assume that "communication" could refer to the interaction in the FL classroom itself, participant 32 seems to have awareness of their role as a facilitator and architect of these processes.

The critical-reflexive posture of the teacher is in line with adaptivity competence and professional identity development perspectives. The participant showed awareness of professionalization discourses for teachers, such as the need to have knowledge of learning processes and being self-aware (cf. Gerlach and Leupold 2019). Still, the participant did not clarify what an "inclusive attitude" entails.

The second category refers to "good" teachers as being "instructionally competent". This is understood here in line with Holzberger et al.'s (2019) findings that good teaching at an instructional level entails being able to activate learners cognitively, being organized and managing the classroom, and giving constructive responses to errors (Holzberger et al. 2019, p. 802). The statements below reflect these findings:

P4: "A good foreign language teacher should have good subject knowledge, be able to explain well, be fair, organized, student-centered, motivating, and available. Also, be in control of the class, be able to activate and use different methods."

P17: "Yes, good foreign language teachers respond to the needs and interests of students, make the lessons varied, and emphasize the teaching of important basics (vocabulary, grammar). They create many opportunities to speak and a positive culture of mistakes."

Both statements refer to teachers responding to the needs and interests of the students, as well as the application of different methods and fair treatment of errors. Participant 17 specifically mentioned the teaching of vocabulary and grammar as "important basics" and was the only participant to make reference to the teaching of these skills, which contradicts, for instance, Bell's (2005) identified effective FL teacher as one who provides learners with grammatical, lexical, phonological, and pragmatic forms of language knowledge and skills (Bell 2005, p. 260).

Additionally, some participants recognized the role of the teacher in making the subject matter accessible, as in the example from participant 1 below. Creating accessibility in learning and recognition of learners' variability and the necessity for teachers to be adaptive to this variability reflects some of the inclusive principles behind the Universal Design for Learning (cf. Meyer et al. 2014):

P1: "Because these are the teachers who have the tools to make language accessible and interesting. No student wants the tenth theory-heavy subject, in which only rules are crammed. Teachers who design language lessons in such a way that they meet the learners where they are oriented to their world and current topics, and also include new methods and concepts, such as task-based or supported learning. Nobody wants to read 20 old novels, but maybe speeches are more interesting and also suitable for learning linguistic means and rhetoric."

Also, the statement could be interpreted as a reference to scaffolding according to Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (Heimlich 2016), in which the participant defined good teachers as those who "meet learners where they are". The participant went on to mention task-based learning, which requires a higher level of autonomy from language learners, but they also referred to the inclusive notion of supported learning.

The third category is about teachers being motivated as well as able to motivate their learners. Motivation is a key issue in teaching inclusively given that learners with an SpLD often suffer from anxiety or develop a negative attitude towards the target language, as mentioned in the discussion above (cf. Kormos 2017). The participants' references to motivation focused on fostering the affective aspect of FL learning ("arouse enthusiasm", "motivate"), as the following quotes depict:

P13: "Good foreign language teachers design teaching that is varied and up-todate and should be able to inspire learners to learn new things and to arouse enthusiasm for the foreign language."

P7: "Good foreign language teachers are open and motivate their students to learn the language."

To sum up, the participants' answers displayed an underlying inclusive orientation throughout by acknowledging the need for self-reflection that leads to adaptive teaching actions and oriented actions, as well as increased accessibility in the classroom. The participants' perceptions of "good" FL teachers reflect a shared knowledge of current discourses on best practices and are in line with the results of previous research on perceptions of good teachers, especially concerning classroom instruction, classroom management, and general didactic knowledge. The teacher as a central factor of learners' extrinsic motivation was often mentioned by the participants, and the category co-occurred with different categories, such as that concerning instructional competence, displaying awareness of the relationship between affective and cognitive processes in learning a FL. Nonetheless, too little attention was given to language forms and the teaching of specific language skills.

The categories identified that describe "bad" foreign language teachers were consistent and, thus, mirrored their characterizations of "good" teachers, whereby a focus on grammar became visible as having a negative effect on FL language learning:

*Bad Fl teachers* ...

Category 1: lack didactic-methodic competence;

Category 2: create anxiety;

Category 3: focus mostly on grammar.

Teachers who lack didactic-methodic competence are perceived as being "bad" teachers. Methodic-didactic knowledge and competences are understood here as teachers' capacity to assess the advantages and disadvantages of possible methods and to know when to apply them. This is key to the development of adaptivity competence (Gerlach and Leupold 2019). This category also aligns with the standards of teacher education put forward by the Ministry of Education (2008), which sees, among other things, the necessity of competence development in the areas of language knowledge and didactic design (KMK 2008):


The participants mentioned failure to properly structure a lesson or differentiate and being incompetent or lacking interest in the FL, as well as not incorporating new or varied methods into their teaching, as concrete examples. These statements especially exemplify many of these expected competences that teachers today should develop:

P1: "In my opinion, these are the teachers who live in the past with their concept of foreign language teaching. The students are so often in contact with Englishlanguage content on social media in their free time that they often know much

more about slang or trends than teachers do. Teachers who do not address this but insist on the standard program are bad."

P20: "When old patterns are persisted in and attempts are made to adapt learners to these patterns instead of vice versa."

P22: "No consideration of didactic concepts (no step-by-step explanation, but tendency to self-study) and starting from homogeneity."

The participants expressed the conviction that adhering to a standard teaching program is not desirable. They rejected the idea of a homogenous classroom, which implies a certain expectation that good teachers need to be open to methodological ideas that exceed the established traditions. Participant 1 made references to different aspects of the standards for teacher education, including the need for teachers to constantly update their FL language competence. The participants seemed to have a broad understanding of what is expected of them by the educational policy in terms of didactic-methodic knowledge, as the statements displayed awareness of central didactic competences.

The second category relates to participants' classifications of "bad" FL teachers as those who make the learners feel anxious. The category "creating anxiety" refers here to the anxiety generated by the teacher, referred to as "state anxiety", which occurs when learners feel threatened by particular tasks and situations that generate feelings of stress and tension (Nijakowska 2010). Participants related that "bad" FL teachers create a "tense learning atmosphere", "scare students", or are "frightening":

P27: "A bad foreign language teacher creates a tense learning atmosphere, is

unfriendly."

P39: "Teachers who scare students."

P11: "Frightening, paying too much attention to grammar."

These statements show that what generates state anxiety in students can be different for each participant. While, for P27, anxiety was related to the teacher being unfriendly to the students and, thus, promoting a negative learning atmosphere, the others linked anxiety to the teacher's too strong attention to grammar. Participant 39 did not clarify what is meant by teachers who scare students, so this could be related to any teacher action that results in stress.

The last category identified "bad" teachers as those that "focus mostly on grammar". A strong grammar focus was perceived by the participants as the correction of errors and decontextualized grammar practice. For instance, participants stated that "bad" teachers are:

P13: "Only concerned with correctness in grammar and pronunciation. Ingrained teaching according to 'Formula X'."

P24: "Bad teachers place more emphasis on pure grammar. Bad teachers condemn students who may not find this so easy."

P36: "Teachers who only pay attention to grammar and writing, but do not practice free speaking."

Grammar and correctness were rejected by the participants as they seemed to prefer more open, communicative teaching formats. In this case, the participants did not consider the specific needs in inclusive settings, in which paying attention to grammar or pronunciation might benefit learners who cannot inductively learn these skills.

The results show that there is consensus in viewing good teachers as being didacticmethodically competent, as well as being inclusive in terms of considering learners' interests and generating an accepting and open learning environment. A focus on grammar and form was generally seen as negative, which potentially leaves learners who might need the explicit teaching of form at a disadvantage.

recognizes that not everyone in the class will produce the same

accepts that the learning process is more important than the finished

spends time with learners who need more encouragement or

amount of work.

product.

clarification.

#### *3.2. Pre-Service Teachers' Perceptions of Differentiation Approaches*

The quantitative part of the questionnaire included 48 items that described concrete practices of differentiation, as well as pedagogical and subject-related teacher competences, in the FL classroom. Participants were asked to decide on a Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) how much each item contributes to effective foreign language teaching. A strong, positive agreement was shown for all items in the pedagogical differentiation categories (Table 3). Items that met with the highest degree of agreement included the notions that effective FL teachers are sensitive to different cultural traditions of learners, recognize that not everyone in the class will produce the same amount of work, spend time with learners who need more encouragement or clarification, value the different skills of the learners, and exchange ideas with other teachers:

> **Uncertainty %**


**Table 3.** General pedagogical competence.

The estimate of general didactical differentiation as having a positive effect on learning a foreign language on a Likert scale (1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = partially agree; 4 = do not agree; 5 = strongly disagree). Results as a percentage, whereby 1 and 2 = agreement; 3 = uncertainty; 4 and 5 = disagreement.

100 1.28 0.51 97.5 0 2.5

100 1.38 0.63 92.5 0 7.5

100 1.33 0.47 100 0 0

A strong, positive agreement was also shown for most items in the general, subjectrelated differentiation categories (Table 4), except for "arranging group work so that there is a balance of abilities" and "letting learners choose the topics to be covered", with which the participants agreed slightly less strongly. In addition, the participants agreed with the idea that the effectiveness of FL teachers can be associated with their ability to identify different types of (possible) barrier to learning and with the provision of a variety of tasks at different levels in the classroom.


**Table 4.** General subject related differentiation.

The estimate of general, subject-related differentiation as having a positive effect on learning a foreign language on a Likert scale (1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = partially agree; 4 = do not agree; 5 = strongly disagree). Results as a percentage, whereby 1 and 2 = agreement; 3 = uncertainty; 4 and 5 = disagreement.

The Cronbach's alpha revealed sufficient internal consistency (0.62) among the following items for them to be perceived as aspects of the construct "differentiation approaches to listening" (Table 5). Participants agreed with almost all items of the listening differentiation category with an agreement of at least 67.57% on all items except "lets learners know in advance what questions will be asked so they can prepare" which had 58.97% agreement.



The estimate of differentiation approaches for listening as having a positive effect on learning a foreign language on a Likert scale (1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = partially agree; 4 = do not agree; 5 = strongly disagree). Results as a percentage, whereby 1 and 2 = agreement; 3 = uncertainty; 4 and 5 = disagreement.

There was relatively strong agreement that measures that alleviate potential learning difficulties in listening comprehension and following instructions, such as repeating and rephrasing questions in simpler language, offering visual instructions, highlighting structure in terms of keywords, or guiding learners' attention to concrete aspects of the text are indeed welcome in the FL classroom. This is in line with some of the suggestions made in the Oxford ELT Expert Panel's position paper on inclusive education (Daloiso et al. 2018).

Pre-service teachers also agreed with all items related to the differentiation categories for reading (Table 6), and the item with the least agreement (69.23%) was 'lets learners select reading material that matches their competence level'.


**Table 6.** Differentiation approaches for reading.

The estimate of differentiation approaches for reading as having a positive effect on learning a foreign language on a Likert scale (1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = partially agree; 4 = do not agree; 5 = strongly disagree). Results as a percentage, whereby 1 and 2 = agreement; 3 = uncertainty; 4 and 5 = disagreement.

The results presented in Table 6 show relative agreement with most of the differentiation techniques that can address various needs of learners. The Oxford ELT Panel (Daloiso et al. 2018, p. 39) suggests that teachers "encourage discussion of the topic before reading; help students to make use of all the contextual information available; highlight cultural elements of the text to make them clear for all" when reading processes are inaccurate or comprehension is incomplete. Breaking down the text into smaller parts and directing learners' attention to comprehension tasks directly after reading have been shown to be promising strategies for learners who need more time to process a text than their peers (Daloiso et al. 2018, p. 40).

However, the practical classroom application of differentiation that contrasts with dominant communicative methodologies showed less general acceptance among the participants involved in this study. This is especially the case for differentiation approaches for speaking (Table 7), where the participants only partially agreed that spending time on wording can have a positive impact on foreign language learning (48.72%), and the vast majority (95%) agreed with the potential of employing project work to help learners achieve communicative goals. Also, 70% agreed that fluency should be prioritized over correctness.


**Table 7.** Differentiation approaches for speaking.

The estimate of differentiation approaches for speaking as having a positive effect on learning a foreign language on a Likert scale (1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = partially agree; 4 = do not agree; 5 = strongly disagree). Results as a percentage, whereby 1 and 2 = agreement; 3 = uncertainty; 4 and 5 = disagreement.

Interestingly, in the differentiation approaches for the development of written competence presented in Table 8 below, the participants disagreed with the use of technology to support foreign language learning; only 33.33% of participants thought that speech-to-text software has a positive effect on learning, and only 42.86% agreed that using technologies, such as word processing instead of handwriting, can foster learning. Also, they expressed ambiguous views about the use of paper with guiding elements such as margins (37.14%). Nonetheless, teachers generally agreed with helping learners develop planning strategies to first capture and later write down their ideas (89.19%), providing memory cues to help learners remember difficult parts of irregular words (94.74%), and teaching common spelling patterns (84.21%). Slightly fewer agreed to drawing attention to patterns of morphology and syntax, with 62.6% agreement.


**Table 8.** Differentiation approaches for writing.

The estimate of differentiation approaches for writing as having a positive effect on learning a foreign language on a Likert scale (1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = partially agree; 4 = do not agree; 5 = strongly disagree). Results as a percentage, whereby 1 and 2 = agreement; 3 = uncertainty; 4 and 5 = disagreement.

These results point towards a lack of awareness that, in some cases of specific learning differences, learners might benefit from the use of technological support (Wood et al. 2018; Nijakowska 2010).

In relation to the differentiation approaches for grammar (Table 9), the results are in line with the answers to the open questions of the questionnaire. Here, too, the participants did not share the belief that grammar teaching has a positive effect on foreign language learning. Only 53.85% agreed with creating lesson plans that emphasize grammatical aspects, and 38.46% agreed with teaching grammar deductively. On the other hand, 87.18% agreed that teachers should give activities that focus learners' attention on specific grammar features. In terms of using the senses to make grammar learning more accessible, 79.49% agreed that it is good to create mind maps for the visualization of language information. On the other hand, only 40% seemed to think that singing example sentences with the grammatical structures to be learned helps learners learn grammar.

**Table 9.** Differentiation approaches for grammar.


The estimate of differentiation approaches for grammar as having a positive effect on learning a foreign language on a Likert scale (1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = partially agree; 4 = do not agree; 5 = strongly disagree). Results as a percentage, whereby 1 and 2 = agreement; 3 = uncertainty; 4 and 5 = disagreement.

To sum up, even though there was a strong agreement with the items on general pedagogical competence, the questionnaire seemed to generally point towards a limited knowledge of the specific techniques that could be beneficial in supporting FL education to learners with SpLDs. In general, the participants seemed to be aware of broad, inclusive principles but expressed skepticism towards specific support, such as working with paper with guiding elements or the use of supportive technology. Also, their reluctance towards teaching grammar deductively could be interpreted as a reflection of the assumptions of CLT in their perceptions of good FL teaching practice.

#### **4. Conclusions and Recommendations**

The results of the study point to the conclusion that the participants generally have an inclusive orientation and share a positive stance towards several inclusive principles, such as recognition and acceptance of diversity (Gerlach et al. 2021). There was a consensus among the participants that good FL teachers need to adapt to learner needs and interests in a motivating way. The participants also accepted the notion that spending time with learners who need more encouragement or clarification can have a positive effect on the learning process. They also accepted the assumptions that not all students will produce the same amount of work and that different skills of learners should be valued. In addition, the participants viewed the ability to self-reflect and be open to criticism as important. They

also seemed to believe that good FL teachers need to be equipped with a diversified, subjectrelated methodic repertoire and know how to deal with language errors in a productive manner.

The participants' conceptualization of "good" and "bad" foreign language teachers reflects traits identified in previous studies, such as the importance of teachers' command of the target language, their ability to create interest and motivation, and their availability to students (Brosh 1996). They seem to strongly reflect Holzberger et al.'s (2019) emotional– interactional aspect of quality teaching in terms of creating a positive learning environment and focusing on constructive responses to error correction (Holzberger et al. 2019, p. 802). This shows that their existing beliefs about differentiation, which form the basis of their adaptivity, relate mainly to more traditional, mainstream teacher qualification and foreign language didactic discourses, such as those focused on communicative tasks.

The data revealed indications that communicative language teaching acts as the guiding principle that influences how the participants view various methodological classroom choices. While, for instance, project work was readily accepted as a valuable approach to foster the achievement of communicative goals, placing fluency over accuracy, a more explicit, deductive focus on grammar and spelling patterns was less favored but not completely rejected.

These findings are likely due to the relatively low awareness of specific learning differences and their possible manifestations, as well as of the possible positive effect of top-down differentiation approaches (e.g., Wocken 2012). The quantitative part of the questionnaire showed that the participants' understanding of differentiation itself was, indeed, framed around ideas of bottom-up differentiation, implying that learners are autonomous and able to decide on their own what is to be learned. This assumes a metacognitive and self-structuring capacity for foreign language learning that many learners experiencing SpLDs may lack (e.g., Heimlich 2016).

There are a few methodological issues that suggest caution in the interpretation of the data. Firstly, as the participation in the study was voluntary, the obtained data set is comprised of the responses of the individuals who were willing to grant this form of indirect access to their cognition related to the concept of "good" and "bad" FL teachers and differentiation techniques. This limits the generalization of the conclusions to those individuals willing to share their thoughts. Secondly, while teacher cognition is an important element influencing actual teaching practice (Borg 2011), teacher beliefs and convictions alone are not sufficient pieces of information to predict actual classroom choices. It is important to emphasize that it may be easier to accept propositions on a conceptual level than to implement them in educational practice. Haug (2016) describes this discrepancy in connection to the implementation of inclusive principles in education as an ideal that is "easy to accept and difficult to be against or even criticize" (Haug 2016, p. 207). The intricacies of the relationship between FL teachers' cognition and their behavior in inclusive classrooms are a research area that still seems to be relatively underexplored.

Thirdly, any form of educational data interpretation, as well as recommendations to be made for teacher education, must first consider the structural limitations that might be in place for its implementation. Since Germany's educational system follows a federalist structure, there is strong variation in the application of inclusive schooling in the different states. Pre-service teachers who receive their education elsewhere are trained to respond to the needs of the local educational systems, which may differ from the one in which this study was set. The state of Bremen, where this study was conducted, has been successively implementing inclusion in all schools, including the establishment of centers for supportive pedagogy (ZuP) in primary and secondary schools. A ZuP offers general special education support, including dyslexia and language learning support. Even though ZuP teachers can offer specific support to learners and teachers, no clear guidelines have been set specifically for teaching foreign languages, and not every school has its own ZuP2.

Nijakowska (2010) argues that the negative consequences of failing to properly implement regulation into inclusive teaching practice could lead to learners' being exempt from

having to take a FL at school to avoid failing at it in the first place (Nijakowska 2010, p. 146). This is extremely problematic, especially in light of Halliday's (1999, p. 269) assertion that, since all educational learning is mediated through language, either as "a medium of learning" or as "the substance of what is being learned", language is a key competence in all education. Exclusion from language learning can generate wideset negative consequences for the learners, such as missing out on developing valuable FL competences or being denied further educational opportunities at university level. Thus, teachers' adaptivity competence development should be coordinated with legal recommendations targeting the implementation of inclusive FL education specifically.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, A.R. and J.P.; methodology, A.R. and J.P.; validation, A.R. and J.P.; formal analysis, A.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R.; writing—review and editing, J.P.; project administration, J.P.; funding acquisition, J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was supported by the Central Research Funds of the University of Bremen.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data supporting reported results are archived at the University of Bremen.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **Notes**


#### **References**


Booth, Tony, and Mel Ainscow. 2003. *Index für Inklusion*. Halle: Martin-Luther-Universität.

Borg, Simon. 2003. Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: A Review of Research on What Language Teachers Think, Know, Believe, and Do. *Language Teaching* 36: 81–109. [CrossRef]

Borg, Simon. 2011. The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers' beliefs. *System* 39: 370–80. [CrossRef]

Brosh, Hezi. 1996. Perceived Characteristics of the Effective Foreign Language Teacher. *Foreign Language Annals* 29: 125–36. [CrossRef] Brown, Alan V. 2009. Students' and Teachers' Perceptions of Effective Foreign Language Teaching: A Comparison of Ideals. *The Modern Language Journal* 93: 46–60. [CrossRef]

Cohen, Andrew D. 2011. *Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language*. London and New York: Routledge.


Dose, Julia. 2019. *Inklusiver Englischunterricht. Eine empirische Studie zum Status quo in der Sekundarstufe I*. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Drinhaus, Mareike, and Birgit Werner. 2015. Zur Entwicklung von Differenzierungskompetenz von Lehrkräften—Konzept und erste Befunde. In *Perspektiven auf Inkluisve Bildung. Geminsam Anders Lehren und Lernen*. Edited by Daniel Blömer, Michael Lichtblau, Ann-Kathrin Jüttner, Katja Koch, Michaela Krüger and Rolf Werning. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 107–13.

Ebsworth, Miriam Eisenstein, and C. William Schweers. 1997. What Researchers Say and Practitioners Do. Perspectives on Conscious Grammar Instruction in the ESL Classroom. *Applied Language Learning* 8: 237–60.

Ellger-Rüttgardt, Sieglind Luise. 2016. *Inklusion. Vision und Wirklichkeit*. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.


Gerlach, David. 2019. *Lese-Rechtschreib-Schwierigkeiten (LRS) im Fremdsprachenunterricht*. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.

Gerlach, David, and Eynar Leupold. 2019. *Kontextsensibler Fremdsprachenunterricht*. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.


Heimlich, Ulrich. 2016. *Pädagogik bei Lernschwierigkeiten*. Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt.


Kormos, Judit. 2017. *The Second Language Learning Processes of Students with Specific Learning Difficulties*. London: Routledge.


Mayring, Philipp. 2003. *Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken*. Weinheim: Beltz.

Meyer, Anne, David Howard Rose, and David T. Gordon. 2014. *Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice*. Wakefield: CAST.


Nijakowska, Joanna. 2010. *Dyslexia in the Foreign Language Classroom*. Bristol and Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. [CrossRef]


## *Article* **Insights into Teacher Beliefs and Practice in Primary-School EFL in France**

**Shona Whyte 1,\*, Ciara R. Wigham <sup>2</sup> and Nathalie Younès <sup>2</sup>**


**\*** Correspondence: shona.whyte@univ-cotedazur.fr

**Abstract:** Teacher beliefs affect choices of methods, representations of learning, and classroom practice, and are important in understanding primary EFL teaching in France, where language teaching has been a compulsory subject entrusted to generalist class teachers for 20 years. This quantitative study explores questionnaire data from 254 primary teachers, associating teacher beliefs and classroom practice. With respect to views of language teaching and learning, the study reveals a three-way division of teachers between grammar-oriented teaching (PPP), communicative-language teaching (CLT), and 'sceptical' teachers. The PPP (*n* = 72) group employed the smallest range of teaching activities and rarely taught older pupils. The CLT group (*n* = 60) tended to have higher English proficiency and more in-service training and offered the widest range of oral activities. The sceptical group (*n* = 85) took no strong theoretical position, had lower English proficiency, and focused on listening and speaking skills. We found no correlation between teacher age and language learning beliefs or teaching practices. However, teachers who offered a wider range of activities in any of the five competences tended to have more in-service training and higher English proficiency. Further correlations were found between oral language teaching and technology integration, and written language teaching and teaching experience. The paper concludes with links to previous teacher cognition research and suggestions for teacher education.

**Keywords:** primary education; young learners; English-as-a-Foreign Language (EFL); teacher beliefs; classroom practices; language education; language teacher education; language proficiency; educational technology

### **1. Introduction**

Johnstone (2009, p. 33) considers that the introduction of modern languages in primary schools is "possibly the world's biggest policy development in education". Copland et al. (2014) suggest that this trend is linked to the assumption made by education stakeholders that 'earlier is better,' despite research in second language acquisition increasingly questioning the Critical Period Hypothesis (Muñoz 2008; Kihlstedt 2019; Singleton and Le´sniewska 2021). One major challenge to this policy development relates to the teacher education that has accompanied the introduction of languages, including English, as a compulsory subject at primary school. Copland et al. (2014) report a lack of consideration of who will teach English to young learners that has resulted in a global tendency for one of two difficulties: (a) teachers may have sufficient language proficiency and pedagogical training but lack specific competence with young learners, or (b) they may be (pre-)primary education specialists without adequate language skills or language-specific training. The present study focuses on young English language learners in French primary schools, where institutional policy over the past decade has switched reliance on visiting specialists (corresponding to (a) above) to generalist class teachers (b). It seems important to investigate the practices and beliefs of teachers undertaking this new responsibility.

**Citation:** Whyte, Shona, Ciara R. Wigham, and Nathalie Younès. 2022. Insights into Teacher Beliefs and Practice in Primary-School EFL in France. *Languages* 7: 185. https:// doi.org/10.3390/languages7030185

Academic Editors: Pia Sundqvist, Erica Sandlund, Marie Källkvist and Henrik Gyllstad

Received: 15 November 2021 Accepted: 6 June 2022 Published: 19 July 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

As part of a collaboration on technology-mediated primary EFL involving academics and education authorities, the present study was conducted within a two-year project financed by the French Ministry of Education: RAVEL (*Ressources pour l'Apprentissage en classe Virtuelle et l'Enseignement des Langues*; learning resources for technology-mediated language teaching). This project aimed to compile a systematic overview of research on a specific topic relating to digital technologies in education; combine research contributions on a specific topic with feedback from practitioners, teacher educators and inspectors; create learning scenarios that incorporate the use of digital technologies; and disseminate project results as open-access resources to create a sustainable knowledge base on the topic. We began with a survey of generalist primary teachers currently teaching English, which investigated teacher beliefs and teaching practices in relation to a range of contextual factors including language proficiency, training, experience and classroom equipment. Our paper opens with a review of research on teacher beliefs regarding languages and technology, followed by a short presentation of the French primary school context.

#### **2. Teaching Beliefs in Language Education**

There is strong evidence to suggest that teaching beliefs are powerful predictors of teachers' classroom behaviours (Pajares 1992) and that teachers' lesson preparation and classroom practice are more influenced by their teaching beliefs than by their disciplinary knowledge (Williams and Burden 1997). In the field of language education, Borg (2003, p. 81) defines teacher cognition as the "unobservable cognitive dimension of teaching" which refers to what teachers think, know, and believe, as well as the relationship between these mental constructs and what teachers do in the language classroom. He describes four main areas to be considered: (a) 'schooling' or teachers' prior experiences in the education system as learners coupled with their own educational background that together inform their initial perceptions of teacher training whilst also continuing to exert an influence throughout their career, (b) professional preparation and training, (c) contextual factors that play an important role in determining the extent to which teachers are able to implement teaching which is congruent with their cognitions, and (d) classroom practice, which can influence cognitions unconsciously and/or consciously through reflective activities. As authors including Farrell (2006); Löfström and Poom-Valickis (2013) and Lin (2013) underline, teacher beliefs, or the personal pedagogical theories held by teachers, affect their choice of methods, representations of how learners learn, decision-making in the classroom and, thus, their actions and responses in the classroom. That is to say, teachers' cognitions affect the activities they offer, how they implement them, and therefore the learning opportunities made available to pupils. Teacher cognition is "often personal, leading to a vast variety of beliefs held by individual teachers" (Reynolds et al. 2021, p. 2); teachers are also emotionally invested in these beliefs, rendering them more difficult to define and measure.

Studies of English language teachers' beliefs have primarily examined secondary school teachers (Cirocki and Farrell 2019; van den Broek et al. 2018) and university lecturers (Farrell and Guz 2019; Farrell and Yang 2019). Others have investigated teacher cognition with respect to specific language skills (Bai and Yuan 2019; Borg and Burns 2008; Ngo 2018; Sato and Oyanedel 2019). Copland et al. (2014) note that few studies have yet examined language teacher beliefs in the primary sector despite research showing that primary and secondary school teachers often hold differing views. Pre-primary teachers in an interview study by Jacoby and Lesaux (2019) cited a number of essential factors in teaching very young learners, including appropriate support for learners to develop social-emotional skills, and mother tongue use to help both L1 and L2 language and literacy development. These in-service teachers also attached great importance to the classroom environment and resources to encourage what they termed 'natural' learning. Reynolds et al. (2021) also explored pre-primary EFL teacher beliefs among pre-service teachers using writing prompts to collect data. Their participants stressed the importance of content-rich and ageappropriate activities to accommodate the specific characteristics of very young learners, develop positive emotions towards the target language, and exploit the inquisitive nature of young learners by using their interests to create learning opportunities. Participants prioritised listening and speaking skills over reading and writing skills and the authors noted that teacher beliefs in their study were coherent with early childhood education research and linked to learning through play and non-teacher-centred approaches. Very few participants in the study, however, described beliefs relating to learning to teach, the teacher education programme or about 'self': their own self-efficacy or teacher emotions. When participants did evoke the latter category, beliefs focused on how to successfully achieve professionalism by improving their own personal qualities to become qualified English teachers, including their level of English.

Two studies of teachers of older primary learners highlight the often negative impact on teacher beliefs and practice of contextual factors such as institutional norms and expectations. Bai and Yuan (2019, p. 141) investigated attitudes to teaching pronunciation among Hong Kong English teachers and found "a wide range of personal and contextual obstacles, which not only created a gap between their teaching beliefs and practices, but [also] reduced their self-perceived efficacy in pronunciation teaching". Moodie and Feryok (2015) observed and interviewed four primary EFL teachers in Korea over an 18-month period and identified a number of organisational obstacles, which meant that none of the participants "consistently and effectively addressed communicative competence in their students" (Moodie and Feryok 2015, p. 466). They noted, however, that the teachers were sustained by enjoyment in their own learning of English: "positive emotions associated with learning English endured through teaching assignments that threatened it" (Moodie and Feryok 2015, p. 466).

Research on teaching beliefs and technology integration in general primary education shows an impact for teachers' views of technology on its uptake in the classroom: unsurprisingly, positive attitudes towards technology lead to greater integration and negative attitudes discourage it (Prestridge 2012; Jimoyiannis and Komis 2007; Ward 2020). Technological barriers including limited access to technology have also been linked to teachers' beliefs about the role of technology (Ertmer et al. 1999; Mama and Hennessy 2010). Niederhauser and Stoddart (2001) report that when presented with a large palette of different technologies which afford different activities and approaches, teachers will choose those technologies that help accommodate their own perspectives on teaching and learning.

Sacré et al. (2021) conducted a systematic literature review regarding technology integration in the young English learner classroom (5–13 year-olds). Results revealed that empirical research could be categorised under six technology types: virtual exchange programmes, digital narration, mobile technologies, virtual reality, games and simulations, robots, and interactive whiteboards. Without demonstrating specific learning gains, the literature provides examples of technology affording access to authentic communicative situations and suggests positive effects on pupils' oral skills and motivation. The systematic literature review agrees with Whyte and Cutrim Schmid's claim that "the field of technology-mediated language education with young learners [is] somewhat bereft of both theoretical underpinning and empirical findings" (Whyte and Cutrim Schmid 2018, p. 338). This finding provides impetus for the present investigation of teachers' technology use in primary EFL and its relation to their beliefs and practice.

#### **3. Language Education in French Primary Schools**

Modern languages became a compulsory subject in French primary schools in 2000. To improve language education, the Ministry of Education focused on the major European foreign languages (MFL) while also developing bilingual education in some regional languages. Teaching guidelines in France are published in the form of official legal documents known as national programmes, which set out learning objectives without the level of pedagogical specificity found in national curricula in other countries. For languages, the programmes are based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and the European Language Portfolio (Council of Europe 2001) which divide language

competences into five areas: listening, speaking, reading, writing, and interaction. Modern languages are introduced in *Cycle 2* (learners aged 5 to 8) as a specific discipline in the overall curriculum, to be delivered in two 45-min lessons per week, for an annual total of 54 h. The goal is to lay the groundwork for the initial development of students' plurilingual competence and prioritises speaking skills. By the end of *Cycle 3* (learners aged 9–11), pupils are expected to have reached a CEFR A1 proficiency level in all five language competences. Table 1 shows the different aims of the two cycles.


**Table 1.** MFL programme descriptors for younger and older primary learners in France.

We can note the very broad nature of these descriptors and the frequency of the adjectives 'short' and 'simple', which allow for a wide variety of interpretations (see Valax 2011 for an interesting critique). The descriptors are intended to be methodologically neutral, and although an action-oriented approach (Piccardo and North 2019) is generally promoted, both grammar-oriented and communicative approaches are compatible. Some teachers favour a structural, or grammar-based method sometimes referred to as PPP (presentation-practice-production; cf. Anderson 2016) while others take a meaning-based approach, as in communicative or task-based language teaching (Ellis 2018). The national programmes also include details of evaluation, specifying that assessment should be separate from learning activities; only vocabulary already used in teaching should be included in assessment; and skills should only be assessed when learners are ready.

Pre-service teacher education in France is currently conducted at Master's level in Higher National Institutes of Teaching and Education (*Instituts nationaux supérieurs du professorat et de l'éducation*) which are associated with both universities and local education authorities. Students with an undergraduate degree in any subject complete a two-year course in primary education, which includes education studies, technology training, and specific modules in the different disciplines of the primary curriculum. Students also have school placements where they observe mentor teachers and teach pupils. They take a national competitive exam in addition to this Master's in Education in order to become qualified teachers. The time devoted to language teaching is necessarily limited, with perhaps 40 h each for language development and pedagogical preparation over the 2-year programme. Since English is by far the most commonly taught language in French primary schools, students who may be stronger in other European languages are nevertheless expected to learn to teach English. Once in post, teachers can request a place on in-service courses in any disciplinary area including English language teaching; some teachers have the advantage of an undergraduate degree in English studies.

#### **4. Research Questions**

The present study thus has a two-fold aim. We seek to contribute a growing body of research on the relationship between teachers' beliefs and classroom practice with a study of primary language teachers. On a more practical level, we consider that understanding teachers' pedagogical beliefs and practices is crucial to the success of our teacher education project. We thus developed a preliminary questionnaire to identify potential teacher profiles, which might helpfully inform workshops to co-design the pedagogical scenarios in the later phases of our project. Following the previous research reviewed above, the survey covers four areas: (a) teachers' reported pedagogical practices, (b) their use of technology in the classroom, (c) their beliefs about second language teaching and learning, and (d) background information about professional development and teaching contexts.

Our study explores three research questions:


#### **5. Methodology**

In this section, we describe the questionnaire designed to conduct our review of teaching beliefs and practices in primary EFL and its dissemination. We then give an overview of the in-service primary EFL teachers who participated in the study before detailing the data analysis methods used to explore the questionnaire results.

#### *5.1. Instruments*

The questionnaire was elaborated in a focus group (Finch and Lewis 2003) in November 2020, comprising a small working group of 9 researchers and 12 local education authority staff (language and technology coordinators, inspectors). It was created in LimeSurvey (Limesurvey GmbH n.d.), validated by Université Clermont Auvergne's ethics committee, and pre-tested with 8 primary teachers and coordinators. The final version of the questionnaire included 45 closed and open questions structured in 4 parts after an introductory consent section:

	- a. class levels
	- b. pedagogical practices
		- i. language competences
		- ii. frequency of use of activity types
		- iii. pedagogical planning (projects, lessons in teaching units, or stand-alone activities)
	- a. digital tools in school
		- b. tools used for English teaching, frequency of use
	- c. obstacles to technology use
	- a. previous teacher training


**Table 2.** Summary of teaching and learning items (adapted from Lightbown and Spada 2013).

The lists of sample language activities and tools were drawn up by the language and technology coordinators for languages, and open questions were provided to allow teachers to make additions or include explanations, as well as sample materials from their recent teaching.

The full questionnaire took some 20 minutes to complete and was administered by the local education authorities in March 2020, sent via the digital technologies delegation to each primary school's headteacher in the regions of France involved in the project.

#### *5.2. Participants*

A total of 254 in-service primary EFL teachers answered the questionnaire, 91% were women.2 Ages and professional experience varied, but the majority (80%) had more than 10 years' teaching experience and 76% were aged 36–55. Classes from pre-school to the end of primary school were represented, however, the largest proportion of teachers taught at the highest levels of primary school to pupils generally aged 9–11 years old (30–38%). A total of 27% of respondents had previous English language training but only 17% noted an extended stay in an English-speaking country. Similarly, a minority of respondents had received training in the use of digital technology (22% C2i; 21% C2i2e)<sup>3</sup> and almost none (0.5%) had received specific training in technology-enhanced English teaching.

#### *5.3. Data Analysis*

Following the descriptive analysis above, two types of statistical analysis were employed to investigate the relationship between teachers' responses to different sections of the questionnaire. Here we report at times on the full cohort of 254 respondents, and sometimes on a smaller dataset (*n* = 217) due to incomplete responses.

Principal component analyses (PCA) were used to examine variables related to (a) teachers' perceived pedagogical practices, (b) the integration and appropriation of digital technologies, and (c) L2 teaching beliefs as covered in the questionnaire. This exploratory factor analysis was selected with the goal of reducing the number of variables in the absence of particular expectations about the number of factors involved (Loewen and Gonulal 2015). The factorability of each analysis was verified using the respondent ratio (number of respondents divided by number of variables; min = 10 and max = 80), and testing for multicollinearity (0.1 < d < 0.7), followed by Bartlett's test of sphericity (for the main analysis, χ<sup>2</sup> = 639.27, df = 210, *p* < 0.001), and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure (0.67 < KMO < 0.82). Kaiser's criterion and scree plots were used to choose the number of factors retained, with the cumulative percentage of variance ranging from 50% to 77%. Cluster analyses (Ascending Hierarchical Classification; AHC) were then used on the same themes to identify classes or groups sharing similar views and practices. Finally, bivariate analyses (Chi-squared tests) were performed to identify significant correlations between these clusters and other teacher characteristics.

#### **6. Results**

The main focus of our study is teacher beliefs about language learning and teaching, and how these relate, on the one hand, to contextual variables such as age, education, and views of the role of technology, for example, and on the other to reported classroom practice. In this section, we analyse questionnaire responses in three areas: teacher beliefs about language teaching and learning; correlations between beliefs and contextual variables including teacher background, technological factors, and reported teaching activities; and finally the relationship between the teaching activities proposed and other contextual factors.

#### *6.1. Teacher Beliefs about Language Teaching and Learning*

Our analysis of teacher beliefs about language learning and teaching is based on responses to 21 statements translated in summary form in Table 2 above. The PCA analysis looks for patterns in all responses taken together: eight principal components, or main factors, emerged from the data, accounting for 61% of observed variance. These are shown in Table 3, alongside a second, AHC analysis, which examined patterns in individual teachers' responses: it revealed three clusters of teachers with distinct views of language education, and which corresponded closely to the PCA results.

The strongest correlation among the 21 items on teacher beliefs is a class of 5 items focusing on language **Structure** (T1, T3, T5, T6, L3). Teachers who agreed with these items believe in the importance of direct teaching and correction, using a presentationpractice-production model based on an explicit grammar syllabus and involving immediate attention to errors. A second class, also involving an explicit grammar syllabus (T3), was associated with two error items (T8, T9) and **Motivation** (L5). Another **Error** class showed a correlation between two items about the source of learner errors (T7, L8). We might consider these classes as fairly traditional or conservative approaches to language teaching predating the communicative turn of the latter part of the 20th century, but which are still alive in many of today's textbooks and classrooms.

*Languages* **2022**, *7*, 185


**Table3.**Teachingandlearningbeliefs:principalcomponentsandclusters.

three distinct clusters which emerged from HCA analysis. A plus sign indicates that class members showed statistically more frequent agreement with a given proposition (v-test > 2), a

minus sign disagreement

 (v-test < −2), with a double sign indicating a stronger tendency (v-test > 4 or v-test < −4).

Regarding communicative language teaching, our data also show three partially overlapping classes, all of which contrast with the previous three. The **Implicit** class is most distinct: these items relate to communicative language teaching from the earliest stages of classroom learning, communicative activities without systematic pre-teaching of forms, and the inclusion of unknown elements in teaching materials (T2, T4, T10). However, this class did not intersect two other overlapping classes: an **Interactive** class (L6, L10, L2), and a **Natural** class (L1, L2, T8). The remaining two classes emerging from this initial analysis are less well-defined in both statistical and conceptual terms. Teachers' views on **Aptitude** were related to no other items or classes, while the last **Immersion** class links early start (L7) and L2 only (L9). These classes seem theoretically compatible with either Structure/Error classes or Implicit/Interactive groupings, though we might have expected Immersion and Natural classes to intersect (i.e., that responses to items in one class might correlate with those in the other).

During our exploration of these data, we also ran separate PCA calculations for both the learning and the teaching sets. The learning analysis revealed four classes accounting for 56% of observed variance. The first was an Interactive class including the same three learning items (L6, L2, L10) which emerged from the combined analysis. However, none of the other correlations overlapped with the classes in Table 3. The teaching item analysis also yielded four classes accounting for 58% of variance; three overlapped with the combined analysis shown in Table 3. This analysis provides support for the Implicit class, since the first group included the same items identified (T2, T10, T4) but also included negative correlations for two Structure class items (T1, T3). This result increases our confidence in the Structure versus Implicit opposition. The second teaching class is close to the Structure one (T1, T5, T6) but also includes a negative correlation for T8 (not interrupting to correct). The third class in this analysis confirms the Error class (T11, T7).

Turning from our analysis of items to consider individual teachers' responses, we performed a cluster analysis on the slightly smaller population of 217 individuals who responded to all questionnaire items. The first cluster is composed of PPP teachers (*n* = 72/217 or 33%). The second is composed of teachers who espoused Communicative language teaching (CLT; 60/217 = 27%). The largest cluster (85/217 or 40%) we label 'Sceptical', since it was composed of teachers who generally disagreed with propositions. Table 3 shows that the PPP cluster is identical to the Structure class: all five items previously identified are associated with this cluster and not the others, and in four cases the association is strong. Other items strongly associated with the PPP cluster concern motivation, aptitude, and errors. Two other negative associations, with communicative teaching and the inclusion of unknown elements in teaching materials, serve to further distinguish these respondents from the CLT cluster.

The CLT cluster contains the Implicit class (strong associations for CLT, incidental learning, learning without presentation) and the Interactive class including expression, group work, and interaction (although interaction (L2) is also associated with PPP teachers). Confirmation that this cluster can be considered in opposition to the PPP cluster is provided by negative values for Structure items T1, T3, and T5. The CLT cluster is also strongly associated with error correction outwith communicative activities (i.e., not interrupting and post-remediation). Finally, both PPP and CLT clusters agreed on the importance of imitation (L1) and early start (L7) in addition to interaction (L2), while the item concerning whole-class teaching (T11) did not discriminate across clusters.

Taking these results together, the following key findings regarding the groups (classes or clusters) of teachers emerge:

• Imitation-interaction: the majority of the primary teachers who responded to our questionnaire (60%) took an identifiable position with respect to their beliefs about language learning and teaching, corresponding to either a PPP or a CLT approach. However, both groups agreed on three items: they all view language learning essentially as a process of imitation, best begun early, and in which interaction plays a central role;


Using this three-way division of teachers across CLT, PPP and Sceptical orientations with respect to language teaching and learning, we can now ask whether particular sets of beliefs are associated with other contextual variables (Section 6.2) or particular teaching practices (Section 6.3).

#### *6.2. Correlations between Teacher Beliefs and Contextual Variables*

A first set of links between teacher beliefs and contextual variables is shown in Table 4. Responses to items relating to teaching level (the last three years of primary school), teachers' own education, their proficiency in English, planning of English teaching, and practices and views with respect to technology in EFL are listed. Significant correlations (*p* < 0.05) with teacher beliefs (PPP, CLT and Sceptical teachers) are highlighted, and cells with none are left blank for clarity.

With regard to language proficiency and education, Table 4 shows that CLT teachers score consistently higher than the Sceptics, and PPP teachers significantly lower. A total of 77% of CLT teachers place themselves at least at CEFR level B (PPP 44%, Sceptics 68%). A total of 50% have additional training (PPP 13%, Sceptics 23%), and 27% have spent at least six months in a target community (PPP 10%, Sceptics 15%). CLT teachers were much more likely to have more advanced classes, accounting for approximately one half of CM1 and CM2 teaching, compared to around one quarter to one third for PPP teachers and over a third for the Sceptical group. There were no correlations with age, initial teacher education, or length of teaching experience.

Our data reveal that the use of digital tools for teaching English is relatively undeveloped among our respondents. Only half of the teachers regularly or frequently use online resources and 40% use videos and audio documents from textbooks. The Ministry of Education's resources are not widely used and synchronous communication via telecollaboration is very rare. Teachers cited lack of equipment and lack of training to explain the lack of digital uptake, and Table 4 shows some differences in views depending on teachers' beliefs. CLT teachers identified the main challenge in implementing technology-mediated English teaching as their own lack of competence (33%). The Sceptical group were divided over this variable (32%) and lack of time (34%), while the PPP teachers incriminated equipment (37%) followed by time (31%). Many more CLT teachers suggested other reasons for difficulties (24% compared to 5–9%).

*Languages* **2022**, *7*, 185

**Table 4.** Significant correlations between teacher beliefs and contextual variables.4


*Languages* **2022**, *7*, 185



202

indicate

overrepresentation

 of the associated category.

A second set of correlations concern the specific language competences targeted by respondents in their EFL classes. In the section of the questionnaire concerned with pedagogical practices, respondents were asked to choose from a closed list the teaching activities they generally used with their learners for each of the five language competences (e.g., for listening comprehension: Simon says, bingo, audio-recordings on tablets). Using the same statistical procedures, our analysis revealed the existence of three main categories in participants' responses: 26% of respondents reported a narrow range of activities, 28% used a wider range of activities but no reading or writing, while the remaining 46% used a wide range of activities covering all five oral and written competences. In Table 5, links between the same teacher variables examined earlier and these three categories of EFL teaching are shown.

We found a significant correlation between teacher beliefs and the reported range of teaching activities used with pupils, although the correspondences were never greater than 50%. A total of 46% of Sceptical teachers reported using oral but not written activities (PPP 29%, CLT 25%). A total of 47% of PPP teachers reported the narrowest range of activities (Sceptics 40%, CLT 13%), while the largest proportion of CLT teachers (37%) used the widest range (Sceptical 35%, PPP 28%). We consider teaching activities in more detail below (Section 6.3). Otherwise Table 5 shows that our respondents were more likely to use a range of oral and written activities with older pupils (56% in Years 4 and 5 as against 46% in Year 3) and if they had taken an in-service course in EFL teaching. A wide range of oral or oral and written activities was also associated with planning lessons in units, regular internet use, more frequent use of an interactive whiteboard and a class computer, and use of speakers to play audio or video material.

To summarise the findings from this analysis, we note that



**Table 5.** Significant correlations between teacher beliefs and teaching practice.


indicate

overrepresentation

 of the associated category.

#### *6.3. Classroom Teaching Activities in Relation to Other Contextual Variables*

In the final section of our analysis, we return to the connection between teacher beliefs and other contextual variables on one hand, and teaching practice on the other. We first consider activities involving listening, speaking, or interaction (Section 6.3.1), and then those which concern reading and writing (Section 6.3.2). Our analysis showed that respondents fell into three categories with respect to each of the five language competences: some teachers declared that they used very few if any of the activities suggested in our questionnaire (Group 1), others claimed to use only a subset of these activities (Group 2), and a third reported using all the activity types proposed (Group 3).5 The full table of results with a breakdown of correlations for Groups 1, 2, and 3 with teacher beliefs and contextual variables is available in the Supplementary Materials.

#### 6.3.1. Listening–Speaking–Interaction

When we consider all oral/aural/interactive activities together, the majority of respondents fell into Groups 2 and 3: 40% offered only the simpler listening and speaking activities, without interaction (Group 2), while 45% of teachers used a wide range of listening, speaking, and interactive activities (Group 3). Correlations with many other variables were significant: Group 3 had more training (44% versus 19% for Group 2) and higher English proficiency (40% B2 or higher versus 19%). They were most likely to plan lessons in units (85% versus 79%) and to work with older pupils (49–54% versus 30–32%). They tended to have better internet access (72% versus 53%) and used speakers more regularly (70% versus 53%); they also reported fewer difficulties with technical equipment (24% versus 30%) and greater self-efficacy with respect to technology use (only 22% cited lack of know-how versus 38%). Their pedagogical orientation was most frequently CLT (42% versus 29%).

Similar correlations are observable for each of the three separate language skills. For listening, Group 2 comprised 58% of teachers using a limited range of simple activities (pointing and naming objects, flashcards, ritual question-answers) while Group 3 included 19% of respondents who reported a wider range of more complex activities (reading stories, playing games, individual listening with tablets, and phonetic awareness activities). These groups correlated with teacher proficiency, pedagogical planning, and technology-related difficulties. Group 3 teachers had higher proficiency (22% level C, against 12% for Group 2). Similarly, 90% of Group 3 teachers planned lessons in units, (versus 78%); conversely 17% of Group 2 respondents designed their English teaching around unrelated learning activities (versus 6% for Group 3). Finally, the most common technological difficulty cited by Group 3 teachers was lack of time (34% versus 22%), while in Group 2 it was lack of know-how (38% versus 22%).

With speaking activities, Group 3 was the largest (43%): these teachers offered many activities (songs, poems, pronunciation practice, group work), while Group 2 (40%) tended to use only ritual question-and-answer activities. Compared to Group 1, the 17% of respondents who offered few or no speaking activities, Groups 2 and 3 were much more likely to have been teaching longer (60–61% over 10 years, compared with 40%), to teach higher levels and to plan by lesson as opposed to individual activities (71–84% against 58%). A total of 32% of Group 3 teachers estimated their level at B2 or beyond, compared with 21% for Group 2 and 5% for Group 1. Group 3 were twice as likely to have university training in English or language teaching and in-service training (22% compared with 5–13%), to have spent several months in an English-speaking country (40% versus 11–12%) and to espouse CLT principles (40% versus 5–25%). Regarding technology, this group tended to have more access to the internet (69% versus 44–57%) and to use speakers regularly (68% versus 42–56%); these teachers were also the least likely to cite insufficient competence as a challenge in this domain (20% versus 23–38%).

Concerning the teaching of interaction, Group 1 (40%, *n* = 98/247) reported minimal activities, while the others were evenly divided into Group 2 (memorisation only) and Group 3 (all activities). Group 3 teachers were much more likely to have had specialised pre- or

in-service training (45% against 19–22%). A similar percentage taught upper levels (45–48% compared with 25–42%). Regarding technology, they used speakers much more regularly (72% versus 42–62%) and in methodological terms 39% of Group 3 teachers espoused CLT (versus 20–25%) while 40% of Group 2 respondents belonged to the PPP group.

#### 6.3.2. Reading–Writing

Turning to reading and writing, fewer teachers reported working on these competences with their pupils, as we might expect in earlier stages of primary language education (Jacoby and Lesaux 2019). Considering reading and writing activities together, our analyses again revealed one group using a wide range of activities (Group 3: 48/126 = 38%) a second using a smaller number of simpler activities (Group 2: 34%); the remainder reported few reading–writing activities (Group 1). Group 3 teachers were more experienced (91% had taught for more than 10 years, versus 70–74% for the other groups) and trained at a time when teacher training colleges were largely separate from the university system (85% versus 65–75%). Group 2 teachers were more likely to be recently trained (ESPE/INSPE 22% versus 5–10%). Group 3 teachers tended to be more proficient (39% B2 or above, against 13–29%) and almost one in two had in-service training (49% versus 26–31%). Finally, we found a correlation with class level: Group 1 generally taught younger levels (CE2 64% against 29–55%) and conversely Group 3 tended to teach upper levels (CM1-2 66–71% against 35–61%).

Regarding respondents' practice of reading with pupils, the use of a wide range of activities (reading comprehension activities, picture matching, hangman) occurred only with a small Group 3 (34/168 = 20%), while a larger Group 2 (42%) used fewer, simpler activities such as comprehension questions and matching text and images. Group 3 teachers tended to have much more teaching experience (60% over 20 years, compared to 29–42%), and to have more in-service training (53% versus 25–33%). While over 80% of all teachers who responded here planned lessons in units, the Group 3 teachers were four times as likely to integrate English into other projects (12% versus 3%) and least likely to offer isolated activities (3% versus 14–17%). These teachers overwhelmingly taught the final year of primary school (73% compared with 35–54%).

Finally, concerning writing, 38% (49/130) of respondents belonged to Group 3, offering a wide range of activities, while 20% fell into Group 2, but the only correlation here was with class level. Group 3 was much more likely to teach the oldest pupils (73% versus 44–45%) and less likely to teach younger classes (CE2 32% versus 55–60%).

To summarise these results, we can note the following key points:


#### **7. Discussion**

Returning to the research questions which guided our study, we are now in a position to provide some overall answers. Regarding the question of French primary teachers' beliefs about language learning and teaching, the approximately 250 primary teachers in our survey fell into 2 broad categories: 60% consider languages to be learned through imitation and interaction, and favour an early start to instruction. These teachers then take one of two positions on teaching: either they favour a structured approach using a grammar syllabus with a strong focus on error correction, or they adopt communicative language teaching principles based on learner exchanges in small groups and a more flexible approach to learning materials and activities. Both these subgroups are distinguished from a third group of teachers representing 40% of our sample, who expressed disagreement with all the above-mentioned principles. As noted earlier, we were struck by the size of this last sceptical or agnostic group given the fact that participants responded to the questionnaire voluntarily and might therefore be expected to be more interested and involved in English language teaching than average. We speculate that these teachers may be working from a somewhat atheoretical, eclectic perspective, and/or might take a more nuanced position on the necessarily very direct, simple propositions in our questionnaire. The very broad descriptors of the official programmes which offer little guidance on language education theory may also play a role Valax (2011).

With respect to our second research question concerning potential links between teacher beliefs about language education and their reported classroom practice, we found a number of correlations which suggest that teachers' beliefs affect the types of activities they are likely to offer their learners, as Borg (2003) and others have suggested. When we considered all five language competences together, we found that the teachers who offered the widest range of activities were more likely to espouse CLT principles, while a majority of those who reported a limited, basic activity set were PPP teachers. Between these two extremes, teachers who proposed mainly listening and speaking activities (to the exclusion of reading and writing) were most likely to fall into the third group of sceptical practitioners. However, the representation of each attitudinal profile was only between one third and one half of all teachers reporting a particular pattern of teaching activities. This suggests a large degree of variation in reported practice. Thus, while there is a clear relationship between what teachers say they believe about language learning and teaching and what they say they do in the classroom, the correspondence is far from one-to-one.

Our third research question addressed connections between these teacher beliefs about primary EFL and reported practices, on the one hand, and other contextual variables such as teacher age, education, experience, and technological factors on the other. As we have seen, we found no correlation between teacher age and initial education (also a proxy for age) and either beliefs about language learning and teaching or reported classroom practice. However, our data do show an effect for in-service training and English proficiency. Across the board, teachers who offered a wider range of activities in any of the five competences tended to have more in-service training and higher proficiency: more of these teachers had taken specialised courses, spent time in English-speaking countries, and reported a language level of at least B1, often B2 and above. Regarding pedagogical organisation, the teachers who used a greater variety of activities also generally taught upper-level classes and planned their teaching as lessons in a teaching unit, rather than activity by activity.

We also found correlations between reading and writing activities and experience: that teachers who offered a wide range of reading/writing activities were overwhelmingly the most experienced teachers (over 10 years' classroom experience); there were no interactions here with either teacher beliefs or technological environment. Our survey reveals limited use of digital tools and resources overall, with only around half of teachers using online resources with any regularity and some 40% using the video and audio resources included in textbooks. Use of individual devices (e.g., tablets) and videoconferencing are extremely rare. The teachers who used technology most (e.g., internet and speakers) offered the widest range of oral activities, and tended to report fewer problems with equipment, and more frequent use of the internet and speakers. They were more likely to cite lack of time as an obstacle to technology use rather than technical problems, their own self-efficacy, or pupil proficiency. Those who blamed their own technical skills for lack of use were most likely to be CLT teachers, while deficient equipment was most frequently incriminated by those with a PPP profile. Previous research (Ertmer et al. 1999; Mama and Hennessy 2010) has shown that despite limited access to technology, some teachers still try to exploit the available resources in a pedagogically effective way while others make no attempt to use them—the essential difference lying in a differential appreciation of technology's role in teaching and learning. Here we might suggest that a more flexible pedagogical approach may also support a can-do attitude with respect to technology integration.

#### **8. Conclusions**

In conclusion, we consider some limitations of this research alongside implications for teacher education and perspectives for ongoing research. One question our analysis of correlations among teacher beliefs, classroom practice, and contextual variables is unable to answer concerns directionality or causality. We do not know, for example, whether teachers' reported preference for CLT is a consequence of their higher proficiency in English and additional in-service training, which might increase confidence with more challenging, open-ended activities, or whether this belief might have caused them to seek opportunities to improve their own language and pedagogical skills. Regarding technology, as just noted, do teachers report limited use and low self-efficacy because their classrooms are poorly equipped, or are classrooms where technology is present and well-used the result of bottom-up efforts by practitioners with particular views about the development of speaking/listening skills? Our project addresses this issue with semistructured interviews of a number of questionnaire respondents where teachers are invited to expand on their answers. A second limitation is common to all survey data in its reliance on self-reporting. Teachers may have felt a need to conform to certain expectations, particularly since our project involves institutional actors. Respondents may have answered based on their perception of priorities in the national programmes or teacher education instead of reporting genuine beliefs (Di Santo et al. 2017). To examine the relationship between self-reporting and in-class practices (Farrell and Guz 2019) our project also works with volunteers among the respondents to develop teaching materials and observe their implementation with pupils.

Nevertheless, the findings with respect to teacher beliefs about language learning and teaching revealed in our study appear to be particularly robust. The data from our sample of over 200 practising teachers from 3 separate educational authorities in France reveal 3 distinct teacher profiles: CLT, PPP, and 'Sceptics'. In our ongoing project we are working with these profiles in designing templates for the co-construction of pedagogical scenarios with our teacher participants. It seems clear that teachers fitting each of these three profiles are likely to have different strengths and weaknesses in their planning and implementation of English activities and may respond differently to various types of support and guidance. This last point raises the wider question of teacher education for EFL at primary level in France and no doubt a number of other European countries with similar teacher populations and institutional settings. Our figures suggest that around one third of those teaching English in primary schools today are structure-oriented teachers working with a rather restrictive view of language education, which has repercussions for both the range of activities offered to learners and the way these activities are implemented in class. Again, the issue of directionality seems relevant: do teachers espouse PPP beliefs because it offers a reassuringly manageable framework when confidence in their own language skills and pedagogical know-how is low? Or is their own lack of proficiency and confidence a result of a restricted view of what language competence entails and how languages are actually learned (as opposed to how they are often taught in school settings)? Moodie and Feryok (2015, p. 466) suggest that "persistent efforts to learn language" among their generalist primary EFL teachers in Korea "may become persistent efforts to

learn to teach language". This question raises the intriguing possibility for pre-service teacher preparation of simply focusing on the language skills of future teachers, rather than providing theoretical background in an effort to change beliefs about language education. It may be that the best way to foster teacher development in this area is to support future EFL primary teachers in their own journey with the target language as a model for the language education dimension of their future careers.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/languages7030185/s1.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, S.W., C.R.W., N.Y.; methodology, S.W., N.Y.; formal analysis, S.W., N.Y.; investigation, C.R.W., N.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, S.W., C.R.W.; writing—review and editing, S.W., C.R.W.; project administration, C.R.W., N.Y.; funding acquisition, C.R.W., N.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** The digital thematic groups (GTnum), led by university research laboratories and other public operators, are coordinated by the office of support for digital innovation and applied research of the Direction of Digital Education (subdirection of digital transformation—TN2 office) of the Ministry of National Education, Youth and Sports (grant number 2103081117). The GTnum's objective is to make available to educational teams, in an accessible and open way, state-of-the-art research on some major themes related to digital education.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Université Clermont Auvergne (protocol code IRB00011540-2021-49: date of approval 11 June 2021).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The full questionnaire, data, and data analysis will be deposited in an open-access repository prior to article publication and information will be detailed here.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

#### **Notes**


#### **References**

Anderson, Jason. 2016. Why practice makes perfect sense: The past, present and potential future of the PPP paradigm in language teacher education. *ELTED* 19: 14–22.

Bai, Barry, and Rui Yuan. 2019. EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Practices about Pronunciation Teaching. *ELT Journal* 73: 134–43. [CrossRef] Borg, Simon. 2003. Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and

do. *Language Teaching* 36: 81–109. [CrossRef]

Borg, Simon, and Anne Burns. 2008. Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms. *Applied Linguistics* 29: 456–82. [CrossRef]

Cirocki, Andrzej, and Thomas Farrell. 2019. Professional development of secondary school EFL teachers: Voices from Indonesia. *System* 85: 102111. [CrossRef]


Prestridge, Sarah. 2012. The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. *Computers & Education* 58: 449–58. [CrossRef] Reynolds, Barry Lee, Sylvia Liu, Xuan Van Ha, Xiaofang Zhang, and Chen Ding. 2021. Pre-service Teachers Learning to Teach English

as a Foreign Language to Preschool Learners in Macau: A Longitudinal Study. *Frontiers in Psychology* 12: 3327. [CrossRef]


MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel Switzerland Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 Fax +41 61 302 89 18 www.mdpi.com

*Languages* Editorial Office E-mail: languages@mdpi.com www.mdpi.com/journal/languages

MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel Switzerland Tel: +41 61 683 77 34

www.mdpi.com ISBN 978-3-0365-5968-1