TeachingEnglish

ELT Research Papers 19.05

SETTVEO: Evidence-based reflection
and teacher development
Steve Walsh

ELT Research Papers 19.05

SETTVEO: Evidence-based reflection
and teacher development
Steve WalshISBN 978-0-86355-945-7© British Council 2019 Design /K073
10 Spring Gardens
London SW1A 2BN, UK
www.britishcouncil.org

About the author
Steve Walsh is Professor of Applied Linguistics
and Communication at the School of Education,
Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle
University, UK, where he was, until recently, Headof Department. He has been involved in English
language teaching and teacher education for
more than 30 years in a range of overseas contexts.
His research interests include classroom discourse,
teacher development and second language teacher
education. He has published ten books and morethan 100 research papers. Currently, he is a
Visiting Professor at the University of Hong Kong.

About the author |Abstract
This article reports findings from a British Council
ELTRA-funded research project which looked at theuse of technology-enhanced learning in a CPD(continuing professional development) context. The
aim of the study was to provide English language
teachers with appropriate tools and procedures toenable them to reflect on and improve their practicethrough the creation and use of an app: SETTVEO.
This app extended previous work, using the SETT
(Self-Evaluation of Teacher Talk) framework (Walsh,
2006, 2011, 2013, 2017) and VEO (Video Enhanced
Observation) app (Miller, 2015). The central argumentof the study was that reflective practice (RP) would
be enhanced when reflections are evidence-basedby giving teachers something to reflect on andsomething to reflect with. Here, the focus ofreflection is classroom interaction, which underpins
much of what is learnt in any classroom. As previous
studies have shown convincingly, understandings of| Abstract

teaching and learning can be enhanced through adetailed understanding of interaction. Specifically,
the aim was to help teachers, through reflections
on their teaching, to develop their classroom
interactional competence (CIC; Walsh, 2013). Throughthe use of SETTVEO, and subsequent collective
dialogue and reflection, an online community ofpractice was established, enabling participants
to share and comment on examples of English
language teaching around the world. The goal was toestablish and evaluate a more dialogic, collaborative
approach to RP. Findings suggest that the use of
self-observation, with data and accompanied bysome kind of dialogue, can promote up-close anddetailed understandings of teaching and learning.
While technology helped to mediate this process inmost cases, for some, it created additional difficulties.

Contents
1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

2

Dialogic reflection .................................................................................................................................................................................... 53

Classroom interactional competence.............................................................................................................................................. 9

4

Methodology.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 115

Context.........................................................................................................................................................................................................13

6

Data analysis and findings...................................................................................................................................................................15
6.1 Theme 1: CIC – use of interactures and metalanguage..................................................................................................15
6.2 Theme 2: Use of metaphors........................................................................................................................................................17
6.3 Theme 3: Changes to practice and self-awareness..........................................................................................................17
6.4 Theme 4: The advantages of video..........................................................................................................................................19
6.5 Theme 5: Project evaluation.......................................................................................................................................................19

7 Discussion and conclusion......................................................................................................................................................................21
References .........................................................................................................................................................................................................23

Contents |1

2| Contents

1
Introduction
Few practitioners and teacher educators would
question the value of reflection and reflective
practice (RP). Professionals have been reflecting
on their practice for many years, since the inceptionof RP by Dewey (1933) and its subsequent elevation
to its present position, which, arguably, is one oforthodoxy or widespread acceptance (Mann andWalsh, 2013). In most professional education settings,
RP occupies a central position. ‘The best thing any
education can bequeath is the habit of reflection
and questioning’ (Grayling, 2003: 179).
The starting point for this study is that although
RP has established itself as a ‘ubiquitous presence
in professional education and practice’ (Mann andWalsh, 2013: 25), it is not being operationalised
in systematic and evidence-based ways, nor doteachers have access to appropriate tools to help
them reflect on their practice. There are three
aspects to this problem:
1.

There is both a lack of data-led researchon RP and a need for data-led practice in RP.
Essentially, there is a need for more evidence
from the perspectives of both research andprofessional development.

2.

Current thinking in teacher educationemphasises approaches that foster teacher
autonomy and self-development. For this to beeffective, there is a pressing need for teachers
to acquire the skills and practices which willallow them to develop, using evidence fromtheir own contexts.

3.

Following on from 1) and 2), the proposal hereis that teacher efficacy will be heightened whenteachers develop closer and better-grounded
understandings of their contexts. Evidencebased reflection is, I suggest, the mostappropriate means of ensuring that such
understandings occur.

Much of the work on RP over several years has
focused on written forms of reflection. In thisstudy, the focus is on dialogic reflection (Mann andWalsh, 2017), whereby professional development isenhanced through collaboration and dialogue with acolleague or critical friend. The claim is not so muchthat one form of reflection is in any way better thananother, rather that there needs to be a rebalancing
of written reflection – which tends to be solitary –towards something spoken, dialogic and collaborative.
The aim of this study is to enable teachers to reflect
on their practice through the use of SETT (SelfEvaluation of Teacher Talk) and VEO (Video Enhanced
Observation) – henceforth ‘SETTVEO’. The use of aneffective teacher development framework such as
SETT with the innovative video technology of VEO(i.e. its use of tags and an online portal) is designed
to help teachers gather and interpret their own
teaching evidence and that of others. Essentially,teachers gain the skills needed to identify andmake meaning of what is relevant and what canbe improved in their teaching through individualand collaborative reflective practice. RP will beenhanced when reflections are evidence-basedby giving teachers something to reflect on andsomething to reflect with. Here, the foci of reflection
are the interactions which take place and which
underpin much of what is learnt in any classroom;‘interaction is the most important element in the
curriculum’ (van Lier, 1996). Understandings ofteaching and learning can be greatly enhanced
through an up-close, fine-grained and detailed
understanding of classroom interaction.
In this study, teachers were encouraged to collectevidence through the SETTVEO app and then usethat evidence to both reflect on current practice andimprove their classroom interactional competence(CIC; Walsh, 2013). The advantages of video forreflecting on practice are well-established in theliterature. According to Kong (2010: 1,772):
The use of these video systems is considered
constructive in supporting student–teachers
to externalise their reflective thoughts, basedon accurate video-recorded data from theirteaching practice.

Introduction |3

The VEO app was developed by teacher educators
and allows users to record and tag videos which
can be uploaded and saved into a portal. Teachers
can then build online communities in order to shareand reflect on their videos to improve the quality of
their teaching in a sustainable manner. By enabling
the live-tagging of video, the VEO app goes further,
generating data and evidence which is bothquantitative and qualitative in nature. Predefinedtags are used by practitioners to time-stamp video
and classify moments in a manner that allows theiraggregation and quick recall. On review, automatic
categorisation of these micro-events builds up a
profile of practice for the entire episode, while
facilitating easy access to each individual moment.
The tags allow the user to jump to the exact instancewithin the video, presenting a rich view of action,interaction and context that can be shared forfurther analysis and evaluation.
This tagging functionality allows for systematic
data collection over time, supported by illuminating
video evidence that can be interpreted and analysedby multiple practitioners and researchers. An
intuitive, easy-to-use system enhances teachers’
understanding by presenting data in a readily
understandable format, providing a base on whichreflective processes can occur. The data tags pick apath through the relative chaos of a teaching episodewhile maintaining access to video for situatedrecall of interactions. Resultant conversations canheighten awareness to drive changes in, and build
understanding of, interaction for professional practice.
VEO has been trialled in numerous geographicallocations and educational contexts across the globe
for various purposes, including improving initialteacher education in the UK and Finland; enablingongoing teacher CPD (continuing professional
development) in the USA, China and Ghana;researching university-level medical education; andevaluating pupil understanding of taught concepts.
The advantages that VEO brings to analysing
complex situations make it highly appropriate forstudying interaction, where multiple perspectives
are possible and where relevant frameworks canclarify and enhance its understanding.
The SETT framework has been used in a range ofeducational settings since its publication in 2006
and further development in 2011 and 2013. These
include initial teacher education programmes (PGCE)
for English and drama teachers; INSET courses forexperienced teachers; a study evaluating the valueof classroom observation in the Middle East (Howard,

4| Introduction2010); CELTA (Certificate in English Language
Teaching to Adults) programmes around the world; aprimary science classroom; various secondary EFL
contexts around the world; two university classroom
contexts; and an Irish medium secondary classroom.
In short, the framework has been used extensively topromote awareness and understanding of the role ofinteraction in class-based learning and to help
teachers improve their practices.
The SETT framework comprises four classroom
micro-contexts (called modes) and 14 interactionalfeatures (called interactures). Classroom discourse
is portrayed as a series of complex and inter-related
micro-contexts or modes, where meanings are
co-constructed by teachers and learners and wherelearning occurs through the ensuing talk of teachers
and learners (Walsh, 2013). The key to developing
good practice is for teachers to acquire detailed
profiles of the interactions that take place in theirclasses as a means of understanding how learning
opportunities are created and how ‘space for learning’(Walsh and Li, 2012) can be opened up, and to create
the kind of dialogic, engaged learning environments
which have been advocated in UK primary andsecondary classrooms for more than ten years (see,for example, Mercer, 2009; Alexander, 2008).
In the current study, SETT and VEO were combined tohelp teachers profile their interactions, improve their
CIC and enhance learning and learning opportunity.
By sharing their reflections in an international online
community of practice (CoP), it was possible todevelop a global network of reflections, with teachers
identifying and talking about common problems andissues in a range of English language contexts.
Online communities were formed between teachers
sharing videos of interactions, evaluated according
to the SETT framework and using the SETTVEO’s
tagging function. In this way, it was possible to share
understandings of CIC – which is highly contextspecific – and acquire insights into professional
practices from a range of contexts. By making
comments and comparisons and by engaging inreflective accounts, the goal was to increaseawareness and understanding of the types ofinteraction that help learning. The process wasengendered by classifying, aggregating, sharing,comparing and discussing practice in an iterative,reflective process. Communicating via the VEO
social/professional network, these processes andthe communities involved were able to operate at
distance, thus exposing practitioners to a wider
range of different interaction styles and offering
a clearer view of their own practice.

2
Dialogic reflection
Dialogic reflection (Walsh, 2006; Walsh and Mann,
2015; Mann and Walsh, 2017) is a collaborative
process of professional learning which entails
interaction, discussion and debate with anotherprofessional. Dialogic reflection emphasises learning(and professional development more broadly)
as a social process whereby meanings and newunderstandings of complex phenomena are
mediated by language. Dialogue allows meanings
to be co-constructed, new understandings to
emerge and professional learning to develop.
Dialogic processes can either be intrapersonal orinterpersonal (private or public; cf. Vygotsky, 1978),entailing interactions between individuals or between
an individual and an artifact or tool. It is a processthat draws heavily on sociocultural theories oflearning, which highlight the importance of language
as a mediating tool and stress the value of social
interaction in professional learning.
Current thinking on best practice in professional
learning emphasises discovery-based learning
through problem-solving, the value of ‘talk’ inpromoting new understandings and the importanceof publicly derived knowledge becoming privatelyinternalised or appropriated. Much of the current
thinking on CPD in language teacher education
recognises the value of interaction and dialogue inthe process (Johnson, 2009). According to van Lier
(2000), in a language learning context, social
development can only become language acquisition
when the quality of the interaction is maximised.
Collaboration with the teacher, less able learners,
more able learners and the individual’s own
resources can facilitate interaction which is bothmeaningful and productive. Arguably, the qualityof that interaction is very much dependent on theteacher’s ability to manage complex interactional
processes and ‘correctly’ interpret the learning
environment.

In the present study, where the focus is on teacher
education rather than language learning, there areparallels between the kinds of practice advocatedby van Lier in a language classroom and the needfor dialogue and reflection in professional learning
contexts. In such environments, where practitioners
interact with peers or more experienced colleagues,
it is the quality of the interaction and dialogue that
influences how new understandings are derived
and internalised. Put simply, the value of dialogic
reflection is inextricably linked to the quality of theinteraction which underpins it.
Dialogue enables understanding by allowinginteractants space and support to express theirideas and arrive at new or different takes on aparticular practice, issue or concern. Opportunities
for reflection and learning are maximised when new
concepts, or the metalanguage used to realise them,can be both understood and verbalised. However,the centrality of speech to learning has another,more significant dimension in that consciousness,considered by Vygotsky (1978) as being central tolearning, is developed through social interaction.
Learners become more aware, through participation
in social activity, of themselves as learners. Dialogic
reflection may lead to deeper, longer-lasting
professional development and can facilitate theappropriation of good practice.
A second key element of sociocultural theory whichchimes with elements of the reflective cycle iscollaboration, seen here as being highly relevant to
the reflective cycle (cf. Schön, 1983). While for some,the process of reflection may be seen as a solitary
practice (see, for example, Ostermann and Kottcamp,
1993/2004; Larrivee, 2004), it is not always easy tobe critical when reflecting on one’s own behaviouror practice. As Ostermann and Kottcamp put it,‘analysis occurring in a collaborative and cooperative environment is likely to lead to greater
learning’ (1993/2004: 6).

Dialogic reflection |5

Other researchers have demonstrated how
collaborative reflection might be fostered. In theirframework of collaborative RPs, Cooper and Boyd
(1998) list learning buddies, mentoring, peercoaching, work exchange or shadowing, action
research, study group, peer support groups andprofessional dialogue groups, among others. Farrell(2006: 3) talks about teacher groups for professional
development and identifies three types of groups:
peer groups within the school, teacher groups that
operate out of the school and within a school district,and virtual groups that can be formed anywhere on
the internet.
In addition to dialogue and collaboration, anothercentral feature of dialogic reflection is the tools
and artifacts which can be used as a catalyst (e.g.
metaphors, critical incidents and video) and help
promote more systematic and focused professional
dialogue. Examples include the use of transcripts
and recordings of classroom talk, developing andextending the argument for the inclusion of lesson
transcripts in the process of learning to teach anddeveloping ways of thinking reﬂectively. Morerecently, there has been an effort to moveaway from transcription on the basis that it is tootime-consuming and not always representative ofwhat ‘really happens’. One alternative is the use of‘snapshot’ lesson excerpts: short five- to sevenminute recordings which are then analysed withouttranscription (see Walsh, 2011). Stimulated recall is aparticularly valuable tool for making reflection more
specific and grounded through the use of video
playback and discussion. It is especially useful aspart of a supervisory or mentor relationship andcan help to frame and focus dialogic talk.

6| Dialogic reflection

Returning to the notion of online and internet-based
dialogic reflection, there follows a brief outline of thevalue of online discussion forums and online blogs.
These artifacts help to mediate dialogic reflectionand enable participants to reflect together to achieve
a collective understanding of an issue or puzzle.
By way of example, I present a summary of a study
undertaken in Chile and discussed at length by Mannand Walsh (2017).
Of interest in Morales’ study (2016) is her use of theterm ‘collaborative reflection’. She makes the pointthat teachers use a variety of sources to collaboratively
reflect on technology integration, exploring different
options and sharing ways of achieving common
goals. She also highlights the extent to whichcollaborative/dialogic reflection can help foster
closer understandings of context and reduce thefeelings of isolation or anxiety which can be found inalmost any educational setting.
I return to the notion of an online CoP in the findings
section below. In the next section, I present a briefsummary of the other central construct in this study:
classroom interactional competence.

Context

Neko: Tuesday 25 June 2013, 12.44

The following extract is taken from theinteractions of eight English language teachers
from Chile and Easter Island talking in discussion
forums and blogs that were part of an online
teacher training and development course
implemented on the virtual learning environment
Moodle. The aim of the online course was todevelop teachers’ technological and pedagogicalskills to use technology with language learners.
The duration of the course was eight weeks andthe developmental cycle included theoreticalaspects of technology for L2 teaching, practicalactivities and both individual (blogs) andcollaborative (discussion forum) reflection.
(Individual blogs were presented in Chapter 5.)

Completely agree with you. Since technology
is really close to students’ lives, why not use it
for productive reasons? Kids use their mobiles
way more often than computers now, so we
as teachers should take advantage of all that!
I think that’s the key, we can use any tool at
hand and achieve the established goals (just by
knowing how to adapt the contents and so on).

Data
Meg: Tuesday 18 June 2013, 22.24
I agree that adapting coursebook materials
to make them relevant for students is crucial toeven begin to connect with students. As Franksaid, even changing the names of the places
mentioned in textbooks so they are familiar(places in Chile) is a start. We are always trying
to make language the most relevant for students.
How can we make language more relevant thannegotiating meaning with a real human being
in the target language? Telecollaboration is
the Communicative Approach at its best. I can’t
think of a better way to make the contents of atextbook leap off the page and onto a computer
screen in the form of a real person!
Cece: Monday 24 June 2013, 03.55
In some ways coursebooks are good for teaching
culture, but it is not the best way to accomplishthat task. They try to cover some interesting
topics and they engage students in some
activities related to culture, but with technology
you can go further – they get closer to the target
language and they have more options to get toknow the new culture they are studying. Throughtechnology, students can get in touch with native
speakers, they can search information if they havequestions and they can practice in real timedifferent life situations.

Easter: Monday 24 June 2013, 20.33
Most of the textbooks should be designed atpromoting exposure and practice of the target
language. However, I have some doubts that I
would like to set up. Are the topics interesting
for language learners? Are the tasks appropriate
and effective for encouraging productive skills?
I have been working with the coursebooks
provided by the Ministry of Education for stateschools and I don´t like them. I consider online
resources as a good way of fostering not onlyintercultural communication but also providing
language learners with linguistic authentic
materials that can be used to engage students
in challenging tasks. These motivating activities
can be used to support language exposure andpractice as well.
Commentary
Reflection in the online course was usually
initiated by the online tutor (this researcher), but
the teachers had the opportunity to do so as well.
In the extracts above from the discussion forum
about teaching materials and using technology
to teach culture, it is possible to observe howteachers use their experience, prior knowledge
and the input they received in the course in order
to construct new knowledge in collaboration.

Dialogic reflection |7

8| Dialogic reflection

3Classroom interactional competence
CIC is defined as ‘teachers’ and learners’ ability touse interaction as a tool for mediating and assistinglearning’ (Walsh, 2013: 65). It puts interaction at thecentre of teaching and learning and argues that, byimproving their CIC, both teachers and learners will
immediately improve learning and opportunities
for learning. As discussed previously, the aim of thepresent study was to give teachers something toreflect with – presented in the previous section
under dialogic reflection – and something to reflect
on, discussed in this section under CIC.
The central argument of a focus on CIC is that byhelping teachers better understand classroom
interaction, there will be a corresponding impact
on learning, especially where learning is regarded
as a social activity which is strongly influenced
by involvement, engagement and participation.
The starting point of an understanding of CIC is toacknowledge the centrality of interaction to teaching
and learning. As in any institutional setting, the corebusiness (here, learning a language) is accomplishedthrough interaction; some would even go as far as
to say that the interaction which takes place is thelearning – they are one and the same thing (see, forexample, Hellermann, 2008; Kelly Hall et al., 2011).
CIC focuses on the ways in which teachers’ andlearners’ interactional decisions and subsequentactions enhance learning and learning opportunity.
CIC addresses questions such as:■■ How do teachers and learners co-constructmeaning through interaction?

■■ What do participants do to ensure that

understandings are reached?

■■ How do interactants address ‘trouble’ andrepair breakdowns?

■■ What is the relationship between CIC and

The relevance of CIC is clear. If our aim as language
educators is to promote dialogic, engaged and ‘safe’
classroom environments where learners are actively
involved and feel free to contribute and take risks, weneed to study the interactions which take place andlearn from them. My suggestion here is that we needto acquire a fine-grained understanding of what
constitutes CIC and how it might be achieved. Thiscan only be accomplished by using data from ourown context; the starting point has to be evidence
from the classroom in the form of a video- or audiorecording, self- or peer observation. Only by starting
to describe interactional processes can we begin tounderstand in some detail our local context. Not only
will such an understanding result in more engaged
and dynamic interactions in classrooms, it will alsoenhance learning.
While it is true to say that CIC is highly contextspecific, not just to the particular class but also to a
specific moment in the discourse, there are a numberof features of CIC which are common to all contexts.
First, teachers may demonstrate CIC through theirability to use language which is both convergent to
the pedagogic goal of the moment and appropriate
to the learners; language use and pedagogic goals
must work together. This entails an understanding of
the interactional strategies which are appropriate toteaching goals and which are adjusted in relation to
the co-construction of meaning and the unfolding
agenda of a lesson. This position assumes thatpedagogic goals and the language used to achieve
them are inextricably intertwined and constantly
being re-adjusted (see Walsh, 2013; Seedhouse,2004). Any evidence of CIC must therefore
demonstrate that interlocutors are using discourse
which is appropriate to both specific pedagogic
goals and the agenda of the moment.

language learning?

■■ How is ‘space for learning’ created andmaintained?

Classroom interactional competence |9Secondly, CIC facilitates interactional space:learners need space for learning to participate in
the discourse, to contribute to class conversations
and to receive feedback on their contributions. In
short, CIC creates ‘space for learning’ (Walsh and Li,2012). There are several ways in which space forlearning can be maximised. These include increasing
wait time by resisting the temptation to ‘fill silence’(by reducing teacher echo), by promoting extended
learner turns and by allowing planning time. By
affording learners space, they are better able tocontribute to the process of co-constructing
meanings – something which lies at the very
heart of learning through interaction.
Thirdly, CIC entails teachers shaping learnercontributions. Shaping involves taking a learner
response and doing something with it rather thansimply accepting it. For example, a response may
be paraphrased using slightly different vocabulary

10| Classroom interactional competenceor grammatical structures; it may be summarised or
extended in some way; it may require scaffolding sothat learners are assisted in saying what they reallymean; or it may be recast (cf. Lyster, 1998) – ‘handed
back’ to the learner but with some small changes
included. By shaping learner contributions andhelping learners to articulate what they mean,teachers are performing a more central role in theinteraction while, at the same time, maintaining a
student-centred, decentralised approach to teaching.
Having discussed the key theoretical constructs
which informed this research project, I will now
describe the methodology used.

4
Methodology
The study was guided by the following researchquestions:1.

How do VEO and SETT networks promote
evidence-based reflection?

2.

To what extent are teachers able to improvetheir CIC through the use of SETTVEO?

3.

What evidence is there that the process of using
SETTVEO, combined with reflection and online
discussion, results in more dialogic, engaged
learning environments?

Methodology |

11

12

| Methodology5Context
Using outcomes from a recent research project, thepresent study was able to recruit a total of 30
teachers in five participating countries. Teachers
were recruited through a research network createdby the ELTRA-funded ‘Which English?’ project (Youngand Walsh, 2010). By using this network, a total of fivepartner countries were included in the study (Spain,
Turkey, Chile, Thailand and China). Six university
English teachers volunteered to participate in eachcountry, giving a total of 30 teachers. For technicaland data restriction reasons, China was unfortunately
forced to withdraw from the project, so the final
cohort comprised 24 teachers from four
participating countries.
The following approaches to data collection
were adopted:
Phase 1: In this phase of the project, baseline data
were collected to include a short, video-recorded
lesson segment of each teacher; a short reflective
commentary on that segment by each teacher;and an online interview with the research team.
In this phase, the aim was to provide an overview
of teachers’ professional practices in each of thefour contexts. The recordings and commentaries
were then to be uploaded to the VEO platform andanalysed by the research team using SETTVEO.
Phase 1 lasted three months.
Phase 2: In the second phase of the study,
participating teachers each made four ‘snapshot’recordings of their teaching (ten to 15 minutes perrecording). Online training in the use of SETTVEO
was provided to all participants. Each recording
was then reviewed and evaluated using SETTVEO.
The recordings and reflective commentaries were
uploaded to the VEO platform and made available
to the entire community comprising four country
partners. Phase 2 lasted around six months.

In Phase 2, teachers followed the below procedure:■■ make a recording■■ upload to VEO portal■■ tag using SETTVEO■■ reflect on the recording using the app■■ share reflective comments by uploadingthem to the portal■■ add additional feedback on eachparticipant’s commentary.

Phase 3: In the final phase of the study, participatingteachers took part in online focus groups andindividual interviews to evaluate the extent to which
their RPs had changed and to consider any changes
in CIC. Phase 3 took around three months.
Data were analysed using the following combinationof approaches:
1.

Profiles of each teacher’s classroom practices
were created using the VEO software and
SETT tags. These provided detailed qualitativeand quantitative information about teachers’interactional practices, use of language, levelsof learner involvement, use of language in
relation to pedagogic goals and so on.

2.

Conversation analysis was used to transcribe
and analyse a sample of the video-recordedclassroom data.

3.

Thematic analysis was used to analyse focus
group and interview data.

4.

Reflective commentaries from teachers’interactions in the online community, together
with their posts, were analysed using thematic
content analysis.

Context |13

14| Context

6
Data analysis and findings
For limitations of space, findings will be presented
under the main thematic categories emerging
from the data.

6.1 Theme 1: CIC – use of interacturesand metalanguage
One of the key questions posed in this study was
if and by how much teachers could improve their
CIC. Several teachers made comments on this in
their reflections.
Teacher A, below, for example, talks about her
elicitation strategies and gives reasons for her
particular use of display or referential questions,
two of the interacture tags used in the SETTVEO
app. Of interest in this extract is the extent to which
this teacher uses an appropriate metalanguage todescribe her practices – she talks about question
types and (indirectly) teacher echo (‘I repeated thesame phrases several times’). She goes on to include
two additional interactures: content feedback andform-focused feedback. It is also of interest to notethat she is able to rationalise her use of particularfeatures which helped and supported her students.
Indications of CIC include an ability to use anappropriate metalanguage and to be able to justify‘online decision making’ (Walsh, 2013) – both ofwhich are evidenced by this teacher in her reflective
commentary. She refers to five of the 14 interactionalfeatures included in the app and can both justify
her interactional decisions and explain how levelis an important determiner of these practices.
Extract 1 – Teacher A
I asked mostly display questions to help them dobrainstorming about the topics and to make mostof the students be able to speak about the topics.
At the beginning I needed to ask some referential
questions (00.20) to refer to the exercises we didin our former lessons. After watching myself inthe video I saw that I repeated the same phrases

several times, but I think this helped them speak
better and self-confidently because they wereelementary-level students and needed to hear
too many repetitions and examples. Firstly, I used
content feedback to emphasise how they wouldfind relevant supporting ideas for the topics we
discussed, how they would agree/disagree witheach other, how they would organise their ideas
and list them. Secondly, I mostly preferred formfocused feedback because they were in need ofhearing correct forms and learning how to makecorrect sentences.
An important feature of the SETTVEO app is thetagging function, which allows users to ‘tag’ (i.e.
mark) specific features of their interactions andthen review these features later. The software thenprepares a statistical breakdown showing how
features are used, which ones occur most frequently
and how the use of certain interactional features
affected the interaction. In Extract 2 below, Teacher
C is talking about her use of teacher echo, a feature
which many teachers comment on – in one study(Walsh, 2006) it was referred to as a teacher’s bete
noire! Here, Teacher C focuses on her excessive
use of discourse markers (sometimes referred to astransition markers). In fact, these tokens perform
a very important function in classroom discourse,
acting almost like punctuation marks and helping
students stay focused and avoid becoming lost in
the interaction (see, for example, Breen, 1998).
Teacher C then goes on to look at the statisticalbreakdown of specific features, making a valid
comparison between display and referential
questions – the former dominate most classroom
talk, while teachers often miss opportunities to
ask genuine, or referential, questions. Again, shedemonstrates a high level of CIC through her ability
to use an appropriate metalanguage and justify
her actions, even being quite critical of her decisions
at times.

Data analysis and findings |15

Extract 2 – Teacher C
Looking at the tagging session report, I observedthat the teacher echo was excessive to mystandards. It made me realise that I should makean effort to reduce it, because I found it annoying
to watch myself saying so many ‘OK’s and ‘allright’s. The amount of display questions on thereport was high at 40 per cent, compared to thereferential questions at 15 per cent. The amountof content feedback and seeking clarification
was quite similar at approximately 15 per cent.
The lowest rate was form-focused feedback with
only about three per cent. Although I was a bit
disappointed at myself for making the tagging
session a bit long because of the wait times forthe reading and watching the videos, the extended
wait time was quite low in the report, at only
five per cent.
The theme of questioning is taken up by Teacher
D in Extract 3 below, who acknowledges that manyquestioning routines are determined by the material.
Indeed, the IRF exchange structure (whereby ateacher Initiates, student Replies and teacher
gives Feedback) often dominates much classroom
interaction precisely because teachers are following
a coursebook or handout; the turn-taking is to a large
degree organised around the material. Interestingly,
Teacher D justifies her choice of questioning strategy
by the lack of response from students (students werereluctant to speak). Note, too, how reactions and nonverbal behaviour are judged – quite appropriately –to be equivalent to content feedback; teachers
communicate as much through the ‘unsaid’ asthrough their words.
Extract 3 – Teacher D
I observed that I asked mostly referential questions
and display questions during the class and mostof the questions were directed by the textbook
or with some additions like ‘what do you think
about ...?’ or ‘how is it ...?’ I felt that students werereluctant to speak and they were even far beyond
elaborating on discussions; for that reason, I
preferred to go with the referential and display
questions within the textbook. I felt happy evenwhen I heard simple one- to two-word utterancesfrom my students. After watching the video, I saw
that I did not provide much feedback; still I could
see that some of my reactions could be considered
as content feedback.

16| Data analysis and findings

In some cases, teachers were able to articulate
what had taken place in their classroom practice,providing rich evidence and making extensive use of
the SETTVEO metalanguage. Consider Teacher E in
Extract 4 below, for example, who comments on fiveof the interacture tags used in the app and provides
a justification for each of her actions. She portrays astudent-centred approach to teaching, evidenced by
the constant reference to students when explaining
her use of language and interaction-type. Arguably,such a nuanced and fine-grained analysis of her
teaching was only possible through use of the app.
Extract 4 – Teacher E
The recorded part of my lesson was focused oncomprehension of their reading material, which
students completed right before the recording.
Therefore, mostly referential questions wereasked during this part of the recording. Rightafter, students answered related questions in pairs,
which was a bit long. I marked it as extended time,
but I allowed it because it is very beneficial for mystudents. Usually, during this part of the lesson, I
like to walk around the room and provide them withform-focused feedback and error correction. And,the last part of the recording, students focused on
exercises from the book, where the key vocabulary
was used in practice. This part as well was marked
as extended time.
Teachers’ ability to rationalise their actions in relation
to the language and interactures used is a clear
indication of CIC. In each of the extracts presented
in this section, teachers demonstrated a high levelof awareness of their actions and were able toarticulate their online decisions through the use of
the metalanguage and tagging function used in the
SETTVEO app. With more time, and greater support
and feedback, these teachers could almost certainly
have attained an even higher degree of CIC, a point
which is taken up in the discussion below.

6.2 Theme 2: Use of metaphorsInterestingly, some of the teachers in the study madeuse of metaphors in their evaluations. Metaphors inboth English language education (ELE) and English
language teacher education (ELTE) have been foundto be a very powerful means of enhancing learningand helping learners deal with complex ideas or new
knowledge.
Teacher B in Extract 5 uses a nautical metaphor,comparing her classroom to a ship, with herself as
the captain and her students as her crew. Sensitivity
and learner-centredness are shown in her analogy;
note, for example, the way in which she describes
how she and her students learn from one another
and, though one in their common goal, they are
unique as individuals. This teacher provides a senseof coherence and cohesion in her account by using
vocabulary items which belong to the same wordfamily: ship, flowing river, captain, journey, squad,route, destination. While there is no reference tointeraction, SETTVEO or the interactures, the extract
below confirms that the video-playback has allowed
this teacher to think more deeply about her practiceand produce this very vivid metaphor.
Extract 5 – Teacher B
I aimed to develop students’ thinking and speaking
skills, get a wide participation and ask them display
questions in order to let them talk spontaneously.
In this regard, I visualised my classroom as a shipon a flowing river in which we are talking about
our ideas, experiences, dreams and learning fromeach other; me as a captain of the ship having
more responsibility in the same journey; and mystudents as a squad whose members are uniquewith different backgrounds, but they follow thesame route to reach their destination.
In the second metaphor example, presented
opposite in Extract 6, we witness Teacher D offering
a rather negative critique of her lesson. Again, no
reference is made to the app or its tagging function,
but her reflections suggest that she felt somewhat
despondent following the video-replay. Her choiceof language to capture this episode (dead batteries,
a far-fetched marathon, a poor swimmer) effectively
describes the essential ingredients of any piece ofteaching (teacher, students, materials), though hertone is clearly negative.

Extract 6 – Teacher D
Basically, two skills, speaking and reading, were
fostered during this short session, which started
with a whole-class speaking and continued with a
pre-reading task (matching interview questions withthe responses). The tools and materials that wereused in the class were only the textbook and the
projector. The main challenge for me, as a teacher,
was to activate and inspire my students to speak orat least to provide responses to my questions
during the discussion. Therefore, I can use thefollowing metaphors:■■ dead batteries for my students■■ a far-fetched marathon for my lesson■■ a poor swimmer for myself.

Perhaps the main rationale for including these
metaphorical examples is to highlight the powerof video in teacher education and to demonstrate
its multifarious uses (see Theme 4 below). In theexamples presented here, teachers were free tochoose their own metaphors to really express their
feelings, to give us a genuine and honest sense of
their teaching contexts and to help us understandthe complexities of teaching and learning. Perhaps
by focusing on the detail in their practice, theseteachers were able to stand back and see what
was really going on – surely something which we allneed to do from time to time in our reflections.

6.3 Theme 3: Changes to practice andself-awarenessIn a project which focuses on RP, there is clearly aninterest to note any changes to practice or, rather, if
any changes to practice were reported. Here, three
extracts have been selected to exemplify some of
the changes reported by participating teachers.
The message in Extract 7 could not be clearer: themain goal of ELE is to teach students to speak thelanguage; again, the emphasis is very much on thestudents rather than on teacher performance (thebest way of creating self-sufficiency; the better
they feel and learn). One of the main advantagesof tagging software like the SETTVEO app is that,while the user may be focusing on their own useof language and interactional features (i.e. theteacher’s), they cannot ignore what students are
doing. Many of the comments in the data referredto the actions or engagement of learners; a further
stage would be to try to explain these in relation towhat was said by the teacher since one aspect of CIC
is to understand how teacher and learner interaction
are inextricably linked.

Data analysis and findings |17

Extract 7 – Teacher M
Speaking and helping them speak is the best wayof creating self-sufficiency. The more they speak,
the better they feel and learn.
The extent to which SETTVEO promoted a focus onlearners – a point made in relation to Extract 7 – isillustrated in the next extract. Teacher G in Extract 8
focuses on task variety and the need to vary tasks
more. She is able to highlight the main problem or
issue in her class (not all the students talked about
the topic) and suggest a possible way forward:
the use of pair/group work and a more interesting
worksheet. Of interest, too, is the reference to‘learning more instinctively’, which suggests that –for this teacher at least – certain task-types promote
more ‘instinctive’ opportunities for learning. While
this idea would need to be explored further with
Teacher G, this extract highlights the extent towhich a focus on speaking helps students to gain
confidence and become more independent
as learners.
Extract 8 – Teacher G
When it comes to the question ‘What would Ichange if I taught the same lesson again?’, it would
definitely be task variety. I criticise myself about
sticking to the same type of task, which can bereally boring for unmotivated learners. As far as
I observed in my class, due to some personal
factors, lack of task variety and restricted time,
not all the students talked about the topic, which
was not my expectation before the class. Had
there been small pair or group work, students could
have participated and been more productive. I
could have distributed worksheets about famous
people’s life stories; therefore, they could have felt
more inspired and orientated to learning more
instinctively.
In Extracts 9 and 10, two teachers demonstrate
how their awareness developed through participationin the study. In Extract 9, Teacher C highlights theimportance of wait time and the need to give
students space by not ‘stealing’ their speaking time.
She also notes the importance of allowing students
to express their opinions more and take control of
topic (cf. Slimani’s (1989) work on ‘topicalisation’:learners are more likely to learn effectively when
they have control of the topic).

18| Data analysis and findings

Extract 9 – Teacher C
If I were to change anything in this session, what
I would do would be to talk less. I observed that I
was haste, and I stole from my students’ speaking
time. I also asked them if they were ready during
the extended wait time, more than I should have.
Towards the end, my students were more active,
and they engaged more, because they had achance to give their opinion on the subject.
Teacher A, on the other hand, is concerned tohighlight the importance of management in teaching,linking the importance of good management to a
growth in confidence. She is very positive about her
participation in the study; what is very encouraging is
the fact that the SETTVEO project gave her a desire‘to grow and learn as a teacher’. Part of the sub-textof the project is that teachers need to acquire anddevelop skills which will allow them to make sense of
their professional practice, to become researchersof their context and to become autonomous in theirability to change and develop. The comments ofTeacher A suggest that this is indeed feasible andeven desirable once the right conditions are in place.
In this study, participants were given an opportunity
to put their teaching under the microscope and learn
from the experience; it would not be inconceivablefor such practices to become more widespread,especially with the exponential growth of video in ELTE.
Extract 10 – Teacher A
Moreover, my expectation of myself as an
educator is that of a good teacher with many
management tools. I have grown exponentially in
my management skills throughout this experienceand have gained a lot of confidence in my ability to
improve further with each future classroom. I’m
excited to grow and learn as a teacher for many
years to come thanks to this experience. Teachingis definitely a ‘learning process’.

6.4 Theme 4: The advantages of video
To illustrate and extend the argument whichconcluded the last section, Theme 4 focuses on
the advantages of video in teacher education andprofessional development, something which several
teachers commented on. It is clear when reading
the next extract that, for some of the participants
at least, the use of video in teacher learning is ofgreat benefit. Previous studies (see, for example,
Mann and Walsh, 2017) have highlighted the useof video in ELTE and pointed to this medium as animportant and progressive tool in future CPD.
Teacher B, with 16 years’ experience, emphasises thevalue of self-observation as a means of understandingclassroom dynamics and understanding student
feelings and attitudes. Of importance in thisobservation is the fact that she seems to suggestthat her own strengths and weaknesses can begleaned by focusing on her learners, an acute andmature observation. Rather than ‘blaming thelearner’, this teacher takes responsibility for her
professional practice, acknowledging that while
her understanding of teaching and learning canbe developed through self-observation, a focus on
her students will clearly highlight her strengths andweaknesses as a teacher.
Extract 11 – Teacher B
I had an opportunity to reflect on my teachingas a teacher having 16 years’ experience
considering my classroom video as a part of the
SETTVEO project. During this period, I found achance to make a self-observation which enabled
me to be deeply aware of my classroom dynamics,
students’ attitudes and feelings during the classand as a matter of course my strengths andweaknesses.

6.5 Theme 5: Project evaluation
The final section of analysis offers a brief evaluationof the study. Extracts 12 and 13 are from comments
made by two of the four in-country co-ordinators
who oversaw teacher recruitment, data collection,
training, etc.
Extract 12 exemplifies some of the issues which canarise when conducting this kind of research. Apartfrom recruiting teachers in the first place, the main
issue is retaining them, especially when they are
employed on the kind of zero-hour contract
described below. As Co-ordinator A, Sara, points out,
under such conditions, not only are teachers
extremely busy and unable to focus on anythingother than their teaching, but rapid and high staff
turnover is the norm.

A project like this one becomes almost
unmanageable if there is constant turnover of staff
and participants keep changing. And yet, to fully
appreciate professional issues and engage in CPDfocused research, we need more longitudinal studies,
which, in turn, clearly depend on a constant andunchanging group of participants. Sara quite rightly
comments on this in her evaluation.
Her second point is perhaps even more telling: theuse of technology can actually add to complications
and make projects even more difficult to manage.
This was certainly the case in the present study –China was forced to withdraw owing to technicalissues. Other studies (see, for example, Li, 2008)
have identified similar issues with integrating andusing technology in educational settings.
Extract 12 – Co-ordinator A (Sara)
Re SETTVEO, yes, before Christmas I contacted theteachers and asked them if they could work on
their reflections. It was difficult to contact them as1) out of five teachers, four have left the universityand 2) Christmas, summer, other jobs, etc. I believe
the main problem we had is that during datacollection, they were soooo overwhelmed withteaching that it was impossible for them to do
anything else really. That is the problem whenteachers work without a contract ... they teach indifferent places to make ends meet. Very common
here ... I think it’s similar to the zero hours contractsystem in the UK. I was thinking that maybe weshould include in the report that this is an issue
regarding critical CALL in terms of the challenges
we face in contexts where teachers are not given
proper time for professional development. I was
reading an article about how technology cansometimes complicate things. Perhaps the British
Council would find this information useful for theiractions regarding teacher education.
To end on an upbeat note, consider Extract 13
below, which comments on some of the issues raisedby participants when viewing themselves on video
for the first time. Of interest here is the value – once
the initial shock of seeing and hearing oneself on
camera wears off – of video in affirming andstrengthening beliefs about teaching. And this is avalid and important point: through self-observation,
we are not always seeking to change or develop;
rather, we are looking to be reassured that ourpractice is appropriate, that we are decent teachers
and that our students actually learn something. To
that end, the SETTVEO project achieved its goals.

Data analysis and findings |19

Extract 13 – Teacher H
SETTVEO has been an opportunity for participant
instructors to raise awareness of what they have
employed in their classes. The participants fromtime to time informed me about the issues which
led to raise their awareness of their own experienceinside a real classroom context. For example, oneof them stated that she had not heard her voice
like this in the classroom and it was so strange forher. Also, another participant told me that she had
not thought she repeated the same informationthat much inside the classroom. Besides, it reallystrengthens the participants’ beliefs and ideas
about what they are employing inside theclassroom as well as their use of the classroom
discourse.
As a conclusion, SETTVEO is both a challenge and achange for all of us. The project is also fun and alearning process for us and it contributes to ourunderstanding of the teaching–learning processwith genuine classroom-based data.

20| Data analysis and findings

7
Discussion and conclusion
To recap, this study was guided by the following
research questions:1.

How do VEO and SETT networks promote
evidence-based reflection?

2.

To what extent are teachers able to improvetheir CIC through the use of SETTVEO?

3.

What evidence is there that the process of using
SETTVEO, combined with reflection and online
discussion, results in more dialogic, engaged
learning environments?

At the time of writing, there are still a numberof datasets outstanding with the consequencethat findings are incomplete. This said, from thedata presented here, there is some evidence tosuggest that the use of SETTVEO does indeed
result in reflections which are evidence-based
and informed by interactional data. There is also
evidence, from the interview data, to highlight thevalue of the practices and procedures used in the
study as a means of developing CIC; by logicalextension, it would be fair to claim that the teachers
made comments concerning the extent to which
their classes had become more engaged andmore dialogic.
The aim of this study was to help teachers improvetheir RP though the use of technology, in this casethe SETTVEO app. The rationale for this goal is thatfor many teachers, RP is something they are told
to do as part of a training course such as CELTA
or the Diploma in Teaching English to Speakers of
Other Languages (Delta) and then largely forgotten.
RP is rarely taught and hardly ever embedded in ateacher’s professional practice. The present study
was an attempt to facilitate reflection by providing
teachers with something to reflect on (CIC) andsomething to reflect with (dialogic reflection).
From the relatively limited evidence presented
here, it is apparent that video has much to offer inany teacher development context. Recent studies(see, for example, Mann, 2018) confirm the valueof video in mediating understandings of teaching
and in unpacking the complexities of that process.

By giving teachers a tool and focus, reflection
becomes extremely ‘doable’ and useful. Note toothat relatively short ‘snapshot’ recordings havevalue in heightening awareness and deepening
understandings; given an appropriate tool anda clear focus, there is no need for wholesaletranscription of lessons. Put simply, video creates
opportunities for professional development in a
relatively short space of time and without anenormous investment of energy. Future studies
would be well-advised to focus on this approach byusing short extracts, a clear focus and by employing
a mediating tool like the SETTVEO app. There is alsomuch to be learned through research projects whichhave a longitudinal dimension, something which was
not feasible in the present study.
One of the most important aspects of the use ofvideo in teacher education is that it quickly, easily
and inexpensively provides evidence on which toreflect. In order to move away from the kind of
subjective and often value-laden RP promoted bycomments such as ‘X went well but I need to work
on Y’, we need evidence in the form of class data.
Video can provide such evidence very quickly;
it can be replayed to allow time for greater reflection
and it serves as a historical record of a teacher’s
professional development over time. Few tools offer
so many advantages and enable teachers to discuss
their teaching so easily. In sum, video is the sine qua
non of evidence-based reflection.
A second feature of the present study was its
focus on CIC, something which has been heralded
for some time now as a potential ‘third strand’ in
ELTE programmes. While most teacher education
courses around the world highlight the importanceof subject knowledge and pedagogical skills as key
strands, hardly any emphasise an understandingof interaction. Given its centrality to learning, it
seems vital to foster up-close and ‘ecological’ (vanLier, 1996) understandings of classroom interaction.

Discussion and conclusion |21

If we accept that interaction is where the action is,
the place to look for evidence of learning, then surely
it warrants closer scrutiny. Advances in technology
and the widespread use of video make this somuch easier to achieve. And yet course providers,materials designers and curriculum and policy
planners have not, to my knowledge, seized thisopportunity by integrating interactional competence
into their courses and degrees. There is a pressing
need to do so if we are to create engaged, dynamic
learning environments of the kind proposed by
Mercer (2009). By making CIC a core requirement on
ELTE programmes, course providers would be taking
an important step in highlighting the need for a
detailed understanding of interaction.
The final element of the present study was its focus
on dialogic reflection and to my mind this is the mostcompelling reason for adopting an approach to RP
which entails the use of video, a tool and discussion
with a colleague or critical friend. The SETTVEO app
enabled short recordings to be made, shared in a

22

| Discussion and conclusion

CoP and discussed. The potential from what wasessentially a small-scale study is enormous; it would
not be difficult, for example, to extend the present
project to something much bigger, culminating in
an international corpus of professional practicecomprising video recordings and reflections fromevery corner of the globe. The potential to offer sucha product is with us now; there are clearly enormous
advantages in developing an online resource throughwhich teachers comment on and compare English
teaching practices around the world. Not only wouldsuch a resource promote greater understandings ofteaching and learning, it would result in closer anddeeper understandings of context, surely the mostimportant element in language education.

References
Alexander, RJ (2008) Towards Dialogic Teaching:
Rethinking Classroom Talk (fourth edition). York:
Dialogos.

Mann, S and Walsh, S (2013) RP or ‘RIP’: A Critical
Perspective on Reflective Practice. Applied
Linguistics Review 4/2: 291–315

Cooper, C and Boyd, J (1998) ‘Creating sustained
professional development’, in Brody, C and Davidson,
N (eds) Professional development for cooperative
learning: Issues and approaches. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press: 49–62.

Mann, S and Walsh, S (2017) Reflective Practicein English Language Teaching: Research-Based
Principles and Practices. London and New York:
Routledge.

Dewey, J (1933) How we think. A restatement of therelation of reflective thinking to the educative process(revised edition). Boston: D. C. Heath.
Farrell, TSC (2006) (ed) Language Teacher Researchin Asia. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Grayling, A (2003) Meditations for the Humanist:
Ethics for a Secular Age. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hellermann, J (2008) Social Actions for Classroom
Language Learning, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Howard, A (2010) Is there such a thing as a typicallanguage lesson? Classroom Discourse 1: 82–100.
Johnson, KE (2009) Second Language Teacher
Education: A Sociocultural Perspective. London
and New York: Routledge.
Kong, SC (2010) Using a web-enabled video system
to support student–teachers’ self-reflection inteaching practice. Computers & Education 55,
1772–1782.

Mercer, N (2009) Words and Minds: how we use
language to think together. London: Routledge.
Miller, P (2015) Video-enhanced observation: a new
way to develop teacher practice. Optimus Education.
Available online at: http://my.optimus-education.com/
video-enhanced-observation-new-way-developteacher-practice Accessed 20 April 2016
Morales, S (2016) Unpublished PhD thesis. Universityof Newcastle.
Osterman, KP and Kottkamp, RB (1993/2004)
Reflective practice for educators: improving schoolingthrough professional development. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Schön, DA (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. London:
Temple Smith.
Seedhouse, P (2004) The Interactional Architecture of
the Second Language Classroom: A Conversational
Analysis Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.
Slimani, A (1989) The role of topicalization inclassroom language learning. System 17/2: 223–234.

Kelly Hall, J, Hellermann, J and Pekarek Doehler, S(eds) (2011) L2 Interactional Competence andDevelopment. New York: Multilingual Matters.

van Lier, L (1996) Interaction in the Language
Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity.
New York: Longman.

Larrivee, B (2004) ‘Assessing teachers’ level ofreflective practice as a tool for change’. Paper
presented at the Third International Conference on
Reflective Practice, Gloucester, UK.

van Lier, L (2000) ‘From input to affordance: socialinteractive learning from an ecological perspective’,in Lantolf, JP (ed) Sociocultural Theory and Second
Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Li, L (2008) EFL teachers’ beliefs about ICT integrationin Chinese secondary schools. Unpub­lished doctoral
thesis, Queen’s University, Belfast.

Vygotsky, LS (1978) Mind in Society: The Developmentof Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Lyster, R (1998) Recasts, repetitions and ambiguity in
L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 20: 51–81.

Walsh, S (2006) Investigating Classroom Discourse.
London: Routledge.

References |23

Walsh, S (2011) Exploring Classroom Discourse:
Language in Action. London and New York:
Routledge.
Walsh, S (2013) Classroom Discourse and Teacher
Development. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University
Press.
Walsh, S and Mann, S (2015) Doing reflective practice:a data-led way forward. ELT Journal 69/4: 351–362.
Walsh, S and Li, L (2012) Conversations as space forlearning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics
23/2: 247–266.
Young, TJ and Walsh, S (2010) Which English? Whose
English? An investigation of ‘non-native’ teachers’
beliefs about target varieties. Language, Culture andCurriculum 23/2: 123–137.

24| References

ISBN 978-0-86355-945-7© British Council 2019 / K073
The British Council is the United Kingdom’s international organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities.