International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

Developing EFL Learners’ Interactional Competence through Discursive Practice:
A Longitudinal Classroom Study Using Mixed Methods
Kazuyoshi Sato, PhD
Department of British and American Studies
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies, 57 Takenoyama, Iwasaki, Nisshin, Aichi
470-0197 Japan
Paul Crane, MSc
Department of Global Grovernance and Collaboration
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies, 57 Takenoyama, Iwasaki, Nisshin, Aichi
470-0197 Japan
doi: https://doi.org/10.37745/ijelt.13/vol11n31351

Published May 23, 2023

Citation: Sato K. and Crane P. (2023) Developing EFL Learners’ Interactional Competence through Discursive
Practice: A Longitudinal Classroom Study Using Mixed Methods, International Journal of English Language
Teaching, Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51

ABSTRACT: Although studies on L2 IC through discursive practice have gained prominence, little is
known about pedagogical steps to develop IC (Hall, et al., 2011; van Compernolle, 2015; Young, 2009,2011, 2019), especially in the language classroom. More recently, Salaberry and Kunitz (2019) claim that
“only a few attempts have been made to bridge the gap between research and practice with regard to theteaching of IC in the L2 classroom” (p. 1). Moreover, very few longitudinal studies were conducted toinvestigate how learners adapt interactional resources they developed with participants to a new context
in the L2 classroom (Pekarek Doehler, Wagner, & Gonzalez-Martinez, 2018, Young, 2009). Through amixed methods analyses, including recordings, interviews, self-evaluation, and performance evaluationof speaking data, this study delineates how Japanese university students in an EFL classroom setting went
through three stages (peripheral participation, active participation, full participation) to develop their IC.
Consequently, this study identified four pedagogical steps to implement IC in the L2 curriculum.
KEYWORDS: interactional competence, discursive practice, longitudinal study, communication
strategies, interactional resources

INTRODUCTION
Contrary to the interaction hypothesis based on a cognitive view which assumes that negotiation of
meaning leads to language acquisition (Long, 1983, 1996), a recent call for alternative approaches to SLA,
influenced by social aspects of SLA in context (Block, 2003; Firth & Wagner, 1997), brought about “moredynamic and socioculturally grounded interpretation of interaction” (Salaberry & Kunitz, 2019, p. 2),
which is termed interactional competence (IC). Young (2009, 2011, 2019) was one of the first researchersof IC, who emphasized the significance of research on IC instruction for second language learners. Young(2011) refered to Hall (1999) and claimed that learners can beneft from systematic study of IC in discursive
13

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

practices followed by “participation in the practice by more experienced participants” (p. 437). However,Young (2009) argues that “more work is needed to describe the configuration of discursive resources inpractices in foreign language communities in order to design effective pedagogies and assessments” (p.
8). More recently, Salaberry & Kunitz (2019) affirm that since the 1990s, several studies have been doneon the concept of IC, but “few concrete examples of the implementation of IC in L2 instruction have been
documented” (p. 10). This study explores interaction from alternative perspectives and attempts to reveal
how EFL learners develop their IC through discursive practice based on a content-based integrated English
curriculum. In particular, this study attempts to reveal how EFL learners benefit from the explicit teachingof communication strategies and the study of transcriptions of recorded conversations so that they canraise their awareness about how to utilize interactional resources (see Young, 2011).
According to Young (2007), “discursive practice is an approach in which language learning is viewed notas the changing cognition of individual learners, but as their changing participation in discursive practices;
what is learned is not the language but the practice” (p. 251). Young (2007, 2008, 2009, 2011) extended
Practice Theory1 developed by research in anthropology (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990; Ortner, 1984; Sahlins,
1981) to talk-in-interaction and defined discursive practice as “recurring episodes of social interaction incontext, episodes that are of social and cultural significance to a community of speakers” (Young, 2011,
p. 427). Young (2009) further explains a discursive approach to language learning as follows:
Language learning is understood to include not only the acquisition of knowledge about language
but also the development of ways in which language and other semiotic systems are put to use in
the service of adaptation to a new culture and participation in a new community. (p. 5)
This view emphasizes that language learning is situated and co-constructed by participants in a particular
context. Influenced by language socialization (Duff & May, 2017; Duff & Talmy, 2011) and situatedlearning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991), Young (2009) affirms that “learning was manifested as progressby both participants along trajectories of changing engagement in a discursive practice, changes that leadthe student from peripheral to fuller participations and growth of identity” (p. 153). Similarly, Rogoff(2003) claims that “[h]uman development is a process of people’s changing participation in socioculturalactivities in their communities” (p. 52). However, very few studies on L2 development have been done
within the framework of discursive practice (Young, 2009) and it has not been clarified to what extent
discursive practice has been incorporated into a second/foreign language curriculum to develop learners’
IC (Young, 2009, 2011, 2019).
Only relatively recently has IC gained attention replacing communicative competence, which is based ona cognitive view of language learning (Hall, Hellermann, & Pekarek Doehler, 2011; van Compernolle,
2015; Young, 2011, 2019). Hall and Pekarek Doehler (2011) point out two weaknesses of studies oncommunicative competence: (1) “the various components of communicative competence have…beentreated as static, cognitive properties of individuals,” and (2) “the focus of research has been on
competence for speaking, and not on competence for interaction” (p. 4). Young (2011)2 distinguishes
communicative competence and IC by saying that communicative competence is concerned withindividual knowledge, while interactional competence is “not what a person knows, it is what a person
does together with others” (p. 430, italics in original). Influenced by Wells (1981), Kramsch (1986) was
the first to coin interactional competence by saying:14

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

Successful interaction presupposes not only a shared knowledge of the world, the reference to acommon external context of communication, but also the construction of a shared internal context
or “sphere of inter-subjectivity” that is built through collaborative efforts of the interactional
partners. (p. 367)
Based on subsequent research (Cekaite, 2007; Hall, 1993, 1995, 1999, 2004; He & Young, 1998; Young,
1999, 2002, 2008, 2011, 2019; Young & Miller, 2004), Young (2011) defines interactional competence
as “participants’ knowledge of the interactional architecture of a specific discursive practice, including
knowledge of how to employ linguistic, pragmatic, and interactional resources in the construction of a
discursive practice” (p. 434). Young (2019) specified a set of three resources “participants deploy increating intersubjectivity in discursive practices” (p. 97, see also Young, 2008, 2011). Identity resources
include “participation framework: the identities of all participants in a discursive practice, present or not,official or unofficial, ratified or unratified, and their footing or identities in the discursive practice” (p. 97,
italics original). Linguistic resources include pronunciation, lexis, and syntactic structures, pragmatic
resources include topic introduction and maintenance, while interactional resources include speech acts,
turn-taking, repair and boundaries (Cekaite, 2007; Hall, 1999; Young, 2008, 2011, 2019; Young & Miller,
2004). Boundaries mean “the opening and closing acts of a practice that serve to distinguish a given
practice from adjacent talk” (Young, 2011, p. 430). Furthermore, according to Young (2011; see also
Young & Miller, 2004), research on interactional competence through discursive practice draws on thetheory of situated learning or legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Lave andWenger (1991) affirm that “[v]iewing learning as legitimate peripheral participation means that learning
is not merely a condition for membership, but is itself an evolving form of membership” (p. 53). Lave andWenger explain that as newcomers move toward full participation in communities of practice, theygenerate “identity and motivation” (p. 91). However, Lave and Wenger did not clarify developmental
stages and “how identity and motivation are generated” (p. 91).
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Although there is a large body of research on IC development outside of the classroom including study
abroad (Dings, 2007; Ishida, 2009; Kinginger, 2013), apprenticeship (Nguyen, 2006, 2008), L2 learning
in workplace conversations (Hauser, 2019), from an instructional setting to a workplace (Nguyen, 2016),
we focus on research on IC development in L2 teaching. Research on the development of IC in L2 teachinghas been done both outside the classroom and within the classroom. First, we review a couple of studies
done outside the classroom, followed by several studies conducted within the classroom. Then, wehighlight three studies that attempted to teach interactional resources to develop learners’ IC in theclassroom. Finally, the research questions that form the basis of this study will be introduced.
IC In L2 Teaching Outside the Classroom
Pekarek Doehler and Berger (2018) did a longitudinal case study of a German L1 speaker’s storytelling
during her nine-month stay with a French-speaking host family. They compared her initial stages during
the first two to three months with latter stages during the seventh and eighth months based on CA. They
found that the L2 speaker showed “a growing ability to design turns and actions” (p. 575), which indicatedthe development of her IC. Young and Miller (2004), one of the few studies which identified
15

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

developmental stages, examined second language (ESL) writing conferences between one non-native
student and his native English-speaking instructor over four weeks. Young and Miller identified asequence of eight actions in the revision talk in each writing conference. Though most of the actions wereconducted by the instructor, which showed that the student’s participation was peripheral in the first
conference, after four weeks many of the actions were performed by the student as a full participant,indicating the development of his IC based on legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Young and Miller concluded:
Learning is a process that takes place in a situated practice, not in an individual mind. In the caseof the situated practice of revision talk, the instructor and student jointly construct the changes inparticipation that we observe as the student develops from peripheral to fuller participation. (p.
533)
Yet, Hall (2004) raised a question by saying that “what does this view of language and interaction have to
say to second and foreign language learning?” (p. 610). What happened to the development of the student’s
writing competence as the non-native student became a full participant?
IC Development in the Classroom
Ohta (1999) investigated how interactional routines impacted first-year university learners of Japanese in
the socialization of L2 interactional competence. In particular, Ohta kept track of one female student(Candace) over an academic year to reveal how participant observation, peripheral and active participation
shaped her use of interactional routines as she socialized herself in the foreign language classroom
discourse. Ohta found that “[t]hrough repeated participation in the routines of the classroom, Candace’s
ability to utilize follow-up turn expressions grows over the academic year” (p. 1509). Hellermann (2011)
conducted longitudinal research on changes in the IC of two adult learners of English by focusing on theiruse of repair over five 10-week terms. Conversation analysis (CA) documented the two learners’
development of wider range of repair initiation and repair over the period. Hellermann offered a suggestion
for “a reconceptualization of language learning from an individual’s discrete and independent linguistic
capacities to learners’ interactional competencies appropriate to the context and competences of theparticipating communities of practice” (p. 167-168). Taguchi (2014) researched the development of IC of
18 international students of mixed L1 backgrounds over a three-month study abroad program in a Japanese
university. She focused on the use of incomplete sentences as interactional resources, which is a common
linguistic phenomenon in Japanese conversations. Taguchi found that the 18 students increased the use ofincomplete sentences over 12 weeks, which indicated the development of their IC. She explained that“[t]hey have stopped using complete sentences only, which made them sound like a textbook. Instead,they have adopted a more naturalistic way of speech by using incomplete sentences as interactional devices”(p. 530). Kley (2015) investigated how college students co-constructed interactional competence in paired
speaking tests (jigsaw and discussion task) in college German as a L2 class, focusing on repair use. She
found out that there were more similarities than differences in their use of repair across jigsaw anddiscussion tasks. Moreover, the study showed that higher-level speakers provided repair to maintainmutual understanding. Cekaite (2007), based on legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger,
1991), explored a seven-year-old immigrant child’s IC in a Swedish immersion language classroom over
one year. She found three developmental stages (a silent child, a noisy and loud child, and a skillfulstudent) as her participation style in classroom activities changed and she became a competent member of16

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

the community. She claimed that “[r]ather than studying the learner identity of L2 novices as fixed entities,
dissociated from their participation in classroom activities, we need to conduct more longitudinal work on
the social dimension of participation and L2 learning in multiparty classroom settings” (p. 59).
Teaching IC in the Classroom
We will review several studies which are related to our research. Huth & Taleghani-Nikazm (2006)
utilized CA-based materials to teach telephone openings between German people to 23 first-year German
as L2 students in the University of Kansas. Those students learned how to call in German in the classroom,practiced, and evaluated what they learned. Data (telephone openings) were collected prior to the explicit
instruction and five weeks after the instruction. They found that explicit instruction using CA-basedmaterials had a positive impact on learners’ telephone openings in German. Barraja-Rohan (2011)
implemented classroom research on whether ESL adult learners in Australia benefitted from a CAinformed materials over 12 weeks. Students in both Group 1 (lower intermediate level) and Group 2(intermediate level) developed their IC, performing sequential context, turn-taking, repair, co-construction,and so forth (p. 499). Barraja-Rohan concluded that “there is a need to teach a number of the interactionalfeatures and concepts examined by CA” (p. 500). More recently, Wood (2018) conducted a longitudinal
study over one academic year on how 18 first-year Japanese university students learned to use
communication strategies (CSs) and, as a result, developed their IC. Based on previous studies on therelationship between the development of CS use and SLA (see Dornyei, 1995; Nakatani, 2005; 2010,
Naughton, 2006), Wood developed a curriculum including the introduction of various CSs over 12
different topics. Students were encouraged to use CSs they learned in their timed conversations for each
topic and recorded their conversations in pairs, followed by a transcription and self-evaluation. Woodfound out that students developed their use of CSs through the analysis of their transcriptions and became
interactionally competent speakers of English as they co-constructed dialogues with their classmates.
Although previous studies on L2 interactional competence (IC) attempted to show how learners develop
their IC, except for a few studies (see Cekaite, 2007; Wood, 2018; Young & Miller, 2004), “little is known
about the process by which learners develop their L2 IC, nor about the stages this development goes
through” (Hall, et al., 2011, p. 7; see also Young, 2011, p. 436). Furthermore, previous studies on L2
interactional competence have relied on conversational analysis (CA) as a method to describe “the myriad
resources comprising L2 users’ interactional competence” (Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2011, p. 1). Yet,
without learners’ voices, “how identity and motivation are generated” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 91) as
L2 learners increase the use of IC in the classroom has rarely been explored. Acknowledging the advantage
of CA-informed research on L2 interaction, Huth (2010) cautions that L2 talk elicited for research“oversimplifies the nature of the talk and fails to acknowledge other elements” (p. 537) such as “language
competence, language performance, and perception of language behavior” (p. 550).
The present study employs a mixed methods analyses of videotaped conversations, essays, interviews, andself-evaluation reports in order to reveal how EFL learners learn to use interactional resources throughdiscursive practice about a discussion topic and how they adapt those resources when they encounter new
topics (see also Young, 2009), highlighting learners’ voices and perceptions. In particular, we attempt toidentify pedagogical steps to implement IC in the L2 curriculum (Young, 2009, 2011, 2019). Furthermore,
we are interested in how “linguistic changes occur through changing social relations and participation
structures in conversations” (Taguchi, 2014, p. 533; see also Duff, 2019). Hall (2004) claims that the17International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

connection between the development of IC and SLA is missing, which is also an issue of how to assess
IC (Galaczi, 2013; Salaberry & Kunitz, 2019; Pekarek Doehler, 2019).
The following research questions are addressed here (see Pekarek Doehler, 2019):
RQ1. What aspects of L2 IC develop as learners go through developmental stages throughdiscursive practice basedon a content-based integrated curriculum?
RQ2. Through what pedagogical steps do learners develop their IC in the L2 classrooms?
RQ3. How does the development of L2 IC affect their linguistic competence?
METHOD
Participants
21 first-year Japanese university students, 8 males and 13 females, participated in this yearlong study(from April 2009 to January 2010). Students belonged to the X department, at institution X, which aims
at developing students’ English proficiency as well as teaching skills in order to be English teachers insecondary schools. There were two classes (A and B), and we decided to focus on the B class (21 students)
because both researchers were involved in the B class as instructors. The average TOEFL (ITP) score was
420 in April 2009, which indicated that the level of the students’ English ability was low-intermediate.
Based on the results of university entrance exams, students were divided into two sections creating classesof equally-mixed abilities. All students had received English instruction for six years before coming tothis university. While only two female students studied English for one year in English-speaking countries
when they were high school students, and four students (two male and two female) had stayed for one to
two weeks in English speaking countries, the rest of the students had never been abroad when this study
started.
The Integrated Content-Based English Curriculum (CBEC)The CBEC starts with a discussion topic3 (see Appendix A) and is integrated with four 90-minute classes
over a two-week cycle (see Appendix B). Students are expected to work on ongoing development of the
topic content through discursive practice in all four different classes that culminates in a final video
recorded discussion. In addition, we introduced communication strategies 4 (CS) for each topic over twosemesters (see Appendix A) so that students could maintain their conversations (see Wood, 2018)5
referring to Kenny & Woo (2001) and Kehe & Kehe (1994).
Week 1 starts with the introduction of the topic in the "Discussion and Debate" (DD) class and then isfollowed by reading an authentic news article in the "Intensive Reading" class (IR), which is intended todevelop students' background knowledge of the topic. In the third class, "Academic Writing" (AW),students work on peer-reading and editing their first drafts (homework) including discussion on the same
topic. In the fourth class, the "Power-Up Tutorial" (PUT), the focus is on meaningful communication withthe students discussing the main topic in groups of three with one native English-speaking language tutor.
This cycle repeats for a second week integrating all four skills, especially speaking and writing, and finallythe students record their discussion based on the discussion topic introduced in the first DD class in pairs
on video during the last 15 minutes of the PUT class (see Murphey & Kenny, 1998).
18

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

After recording, students write a transcription of the recording to focus on the lexicosyntactic structuresthat were used during the discussion as a consciousness-raising activity and to make a plan forimprovement in the next topic cycle (see Murphey & Kenny, 1998). In the following PUT class before
discussing the new topic, the teachers and the tutors give feedback and advice to consolidate and complete
the cycle.
Data Collection
A mixed methods research approach was adopted for this project. According to Johnson et al. (2007),“Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combines
elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches…for the purposes of breadth and depth ofunderstanding and corroboration” (p. 213). Multiple data sources collected for this study were videotaped
conversations, essays, and interviews to answer the aforementioned three research questions.
All students moved to a language laboratory and participated in video-recorded conversations in pairs
after practicing in the PUT classroom, which were recorded on a computer equipped with a video camera
for each pair. Students started with three-minute conversations and finished with five-minuteconversations in the first semester, whereas they started with five-minute conversations and increased thetime to seven minutes at the end of the second semester (see Appendix A). These recordings happened
successively for each topic over the academic year (six topics per semester). However, it was often thecase that the students kept talking after the time limit set for each recording. Once they finished recording,both students copied the data file to USB flash memory drives for subsequent transcription and selfevaluation while the instructor, the second researcher, saved all the data into his computer.
Students submitted their final essays about each topic and had their essays returned with feedback by an
AW teacher. The word-length requirement was about 150 words for the first topic and was gradually
increased, with students writing their final essay in the second semester with a target of about 300 words.
Regarding interviews, in order to represent the target class, six students (two advanced, two intermediate,
and two lower-level) were chosen based on the results of their grades in the first semester including
speaking tests and essays (see Table 1, below). Next, 11 open-ended interview questions were developed
including “Did you enjoy the content-based English curriculum (CBEC)?” “How was it different from theEnglish program in your high school?” , “What are some of the advantages of CBEC?”, “Which topic did
you enjoy the most?, Were there any difficult ones?”, “Was recording/self-evaluation for each topic
useful?” , “Did you improve your English ability?” and “If so, how did you improve it?” Moreover, astructured protocol based on Spradley (1970) was used so that the interview could focus on certain issues.
The first researcher interviewed the focus students in Japanese and translated the Japanese into English,
with each interview lasting 20 to 30 minutes.

19

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK<INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE>TABLE 1Six Students Chosen for Interviews
Student
Aki
Toru
Koji
Hiroki
Midori
GenderFemale
Male
Male
Male
Female
Final
B
B
A
A
A+
grade
Speaking Weak
Weak
High
Weak
High
Writing
Weak
Weak
MiddleHigh
High
Note: A+=more than 90% A=more than 80% B= more than 70%

KeikoFemaleA+
MiddleHigh

Data Analysis
The speaking interaction data was based on video-recorded conversation recordings of the six students
who were chosen for interviews and they were analyzed in two ways. Although students were randomly
paired with other students (sometimes among the research group) for the recordings, we focused on only
the six students for data analysis. The first analysis was conducted qualitatively based on transcription
conventions (Jefferson, 2004, see Appendix D) to investigate whether there was any evidence of a"developmental trajectory" (Pekarek-Doehler, 2019) meaning that over time, L2 learners develop various
qualities of IC which encompass the overall structure of talk-in-interaction including turn-taking, repair,action formation and sequencing (see Appendix G). The analysis also includes looking to see how L2learners managed topic development and listener support moves (Galaczi, 2014).
Hall, et al. (2011) emphasize the significance of conversation analysis (CA) in analyzing social interaction:
Throughout the past 40 years, CA has brought about a detailed understanding of how social
interaction is organized on a moment-to-moment basis, identifying the manifold resources
participants use to accomplish this organization and, thereby, uncovering the multiple facets ofpeople’s competence for social interaction. (p. 6).
The second analysis was done quantitatively by coding, which involved analyzing the video recordings
and transcripts looking for evidence of collaboration and interactional development through turn-taking
and the usage of CSs such as assistance and scaffolding. Following Foster and Ohta (2005), whichinvestigated classroom interactions from both cognitive and sociocultural perspectives and established theframework for further research, the second researcher transcribed the first, sixth, and twelfth recordings
utilizing InqScribe transcription software (Version 2.5; macOS Beta) and shared the results with the firstresearcher to confirm any evidence of peer assistance/scaffolding and negotiation for meaning toinvestigate interactional development (see Appendix C for definitions and examples).
Moreover, students’ speaking performances were evaluated to assess their L2 development. Three native
English-speaking evaluators used a rubric to evaluate student speaking performances in terms ofinteraction, delivery, and content (see Appendix E) after they underwent a training and calibration session
to improve inter-rater reliability. Calibration was done by the second researcher who explained the rubric
then showed a video of a pair of students who were not being evaluated for the research project. The
evaluators made notes and used the rubric to assess one designated student in the pair. Afterwards, notes20International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

and scores were compared and discussed. This continued for three or four rounds of watching different
student dyads until all the evaluators were independently arriving at similar evaluation scores andcomments. Once this was achieved, the evaluators went to different classrooms to watch, assess, and write
comments about the speaking videos of the research subjects.
Inductive approaches were used to analyze the qualitative data from interviews (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Silverman, 1993). Data were carefully read repeatedly, identifying any category that might encode cultural
meaning (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Finally, both qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed andintegrated so that mixed methods would corroborate reliability (Creswell, 2010).
RESULTS
Multiple data sources including (1) video-recorded conversations and (2) interviews were analyzed forthis study. First, CA-informed transcription analysis will be shown to reveal developmental stages ofstudents’ IC. Second, recorded data will be presented based on coded quantitative analysis. Third,
interview data will reveal why and how these students engaged in discursive practices through the
integrated CBEC. Finally, speaking performance results will be presented.

Qualitative Results: CA-Informed Analyses of Recorded Data
Through a CA-informed approach, analysis of excerpts of student recording transcripts will describefeatures of the students' developing IC as they progressed from peripheral participants to more active andcollaborative participants. We will focus on six students with differet levels (see Table 1) in order to show
the development of IC across proficiency levels (see Galaczi, 2013). Yet, we are concerned with two lower
level students, Aki and Toru, in particular, to better show their IC development. In the first stage,
peripheral participation will refer to the students as having limited IC resources with a focus on a speakerrole with little minimal listener support resulting in monologic speech. In the next stage of developing
participation, the students will show more characteristics of IC development due to stronger alignment toeach other as both speakers and listeners which results in more mutuality and collaboration. Furthermore,listener support through backchanneling demonstrated comprehension rather than just as prompts tocontinue (Ducasse and Brown, 2009 as cited in Galaczi, 2013) as students demonstrated more alignment
to each other in real dialogical speech. In the third stage of active participation, the students demonstrated
improvement in their ability to manage a dialogue with many characteristics of IC such as the latchingand overlapping of utterances, as well as asking questions to either initiate a topic or to further develop a
topic through co-construction which showed characteristics of "substantive recipiency", a form of topic
extension move that indicates the level of language ability for mutual understanding (Waring, 2002 as
cited in Galaczi, 2013).
Peripheral participation
The first couple of weeks of the semester were spent establishing the routine of the CBEC curriculum andnot surprisingly, the students seemed very nervous and awkward, especially during the task of recording
their first dialogue on video at the end of the second week about the topic of English education starting inelementary school where excerpts 1 through 3 are taken.
21International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

Excerpt 1: Aki and Toru
01 Aki: good mor::ning((Both students looking down at theiressays))02 Toru: good morning. (2.0) how’s it going.
03 A:
i’m pretty good. (4.0) how about you?
04 T:
i’m fi::ne (0.5) are you for? or against introducing
English05
into elementary school?
05 A:
I:: agree with introduce English to elementary school=
06 T:
yeah.
07 A:
=because (.) English has become an important thing
recently. (.2) today08
there ar:e (.2) many things which are from foreigncountries. (.2) we
09
should know about foreign countries more than in the past(.2) the better10
we study foreign language (.3)
In the first part of the video recording, both students were oriented to the computer and camera in front ofthem for the recording, and they relied on reading their essays that they had written for their academic
writing (AW) class; therefore, there was little or no eye contact with each other. The students start theconversation with the familiar speech act of greeting, but the topic management is very mechanical since
they are simply reading their essays, although there is a backchanneling prompt in 06 that acts as prompt
to continue and perhaps indicates active listening. From 07-10, Aki's turn is speaker-based and there is noactive interaction from Toru, her interlocutor. The following excerpt shows what happens after they weretold not to read their essays, although there is still some reading taking place.
Excerpt 2: Aki and Toru((Several turns later, after Toru has read part of his essay, the conversation changes because they aretrying not to read their essays))
11 T:
um (.3) seconds (.2) ah:: some children think studying
English is ver::ry hard=
12 A:
un-huh?
13 T:= and dislike English (.2) so elementary teacher (.1) can teach Eng[lish]=
14 A:[un-huh?]
15 T:= not only for study ((Toru has started reading his essay
again))
16 A:
yeah.
17 T:
>but also< enjoyment (0.3) children should know English is18
good points (3.0) a::nd (2.0) studying English in::elementary school’s
19
purpose is not studying (.3) just enjoyment (.hhh)
20 A:
un-hm.
((The timer indicates the time to finish recording, and the students suddenly finish))22

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

21 T:
22 A:
23 T:

THAT's all.
o::kay:: (.2) nice talking with you.
nice talking with you too.

In this excerpt, Aki uses backchanneling that serves to act as continuers/prompts (12, 14, and 16) which
seem to indicate active listening, but the dialogue is still speaker-based with no co-construction orcollaboration indicating low mutuality between the speakers. To further illustrate the lack of IC at thisperipheral stage of development, an excerpt from two other students will be discussed.
Excerpt 3: Keiko and Haru
10 Keiko: anyway (.) if I have to choose which is better? I’m forit. =11 Haru: un.
12 K: = becau:se I thin:k studying English in elementary schools
13
will be the step to junior high school’s (.2) studying.
14
some people sa::y (.2) un it is (.2) it is (.) bad points to15(1) ah: ah: (1) the class will? (.5) ma:y maybe (.) may cause
16(.) cause (.) the pupils (.) dislike [English]=
17 H:[un-huh]
18 K:=I think (.2) I think studying English >in elementary schools<
19
i::s not good fo:r pupils too.
20
but it is good (.2) for them to enjoy English (.1) for example
21
playing games and [singing a song].
22 H:[un-huh]23 K:
hm::: mm:: (.3) another reason is (.8) mm:: if (.2) we learn
24
English (.3) an opportunity to l-learn l-look at other countries (.2)
25
a::nd look look at other countri::es wi-will increase a:nd take take26
another look at Japan. ((timer to stop talking rings))
27 H:
um::ok. nice talking with you.
28 K:
you too.
In excerpt 3, there is little interaction except for Haru backchanneling to indicate either active listening or
as continuers/prompters to Keiko in 11, 17, and 22. Although Keiko is not reading her essay, there is little
mutuality between the speakers and it is mostly speaker-based with very low listener support. There is nocollaboration or development of each other’s ideas. This type of low IC was consistent for the first few
topics for the other students as well.
Developing participation
After five topics of the CBEC curriculum cycle in the first semester, we looked at the final sixth topic andfound of evidence of improving IC and learner progress. There was much more evidence of a balance
between the speaker and the listener which indicates more mutuality and there were instances ofcollaboration to co-construct ideas for elaboration of the topic. In excerpts 4 and 5, Aki and Sayo, thesame pair from excerpts 1 and 2, are discussing the topic about whether keeping pets is a good idea or not.
23International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

Excerpt 4: Aki and Sayo
01 Aki:oka::y do you like pets?
02 Sayo: yes of course.
03 A:
mm-hm:: so:: (.5) (.hhh) um: (.2) keeping pets is good for you.
04(.2) do you think?
((They are both making eye contact))
05 S: ye:s [um::]
06 A:[mm-hm::] for example? ˚why do you think so˚.
07 S: um:: I ha:ve ah two [dog-su]=
08 A:[mm hm]09 S: = and whe:n (.2) I come back to home?=
10 A: mm-hm.
11 S:= um:: (.) these dog-su: come (.) >around me< =12 A: ah yeah.
13 S: = so I relieved.
14 A:
yeah you feel relieve.
15 S:
yes.
16 A: un-huh.
17 S:
ma::y (.) many people feel relieved (.) to (.2) to keep dogs?
(.) or (.2) other pets? =
18 A:
yeah.
19 S:
= and (.3) and (.3) um: when I investigated i::ninternet =
20 A:
yeah.
21 S:
= um:: many >many< animal therapy.
22 A:
yeah I know.
The first most noticeable change in this interaction is that they are not reading their essays and are oriented
toward each other while making almost constant eye contact. There is a better balance between the rolesof listening and speaking with the listener Aki being much more aligned to what Sayo is saying throughlistener support in the form of backchanneling that encourages her to continue speaking (06, 08, 12, 16,
18, and 20) but also by asking follow-up questions to encourage her partner to expand. In 06, she asks forelaboration to a previous statement by asking, "Why do you think so?" which allows Sayo to explain about
her dogs. In 14, Aki picks up Sayo's comment "so I feel relieve" by co-constructing perhaps anunintentional repair that contributes to the intersubjectivity or "mutual understanding of co-participants'
intentions" (van Compernolle, 2015) in the interaction by saying, "Yeah you feel relieve", adding "feel"
which Sayo picks up in 17 by saying "Many people feel relieved". This indicates co-construction throughactive listening and contributing support that helps Sayo to further expand her opinion which results inmore mutuality. The next excerpt is by two different students talking about the same topic.
Excerpt 5: Koji and Hiroshi
44 Hiro: =couples (.3) cannot (.2) ha:s a (.2) children
45 Koji: um-mm.
46 H:
with some reasons.
47 K:
yes. ((Koji is making eye contact and nodding his head))24

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

48 H:

so tha tha then the::y can ha:vu pets (.3) as a::
substitutes o::f children.
substitute? what does it mean?
[eh::to] {well} (2)[a::s a:::]as a:: like a child

49 K:
50 H:
51 K:
52 H:
53 K: ok.
54 H:
as a child. like a child. so:: it is (.5) um =55 K: = good.
56 H: yes. (.2) um so:::: people ca:::n (.3) forget[loneliness] by keeping pets.
57 K: [loneliness]
58 K
um. yes (.2) that’s why you want to get a hamster?
In this dialogue, both Hiroshi and Koji are not reading anything while Koji makes continuous eye contact
and nods his head to encourage Hiroshi. Koji supports and encourages Hiroshi to develop his ideas throughcontinuers/prompters (47). In 49, Koji asks for clarification when Hiroshi says that some people keep pets
as a substitute for children. In 50 Hiroshi hesitates but in 51, Koji encourages him by prompting "as a ~"which Hiroshi picks up in 52 with his utterance, "as a child, like a child". This would seem to indicate that
Koji did not misunderstand the meaning of the word "substitute", but rather was asking Hiroshi toelaborate on what he meant by "substitute" which is a form of assistance/scaffolding (Foster & Ohta, 2005)
that helps to develop intersubjectivity (van Compernolle, 2015). Hiroshi continues this idea in 54 byrepeating "as a child" and he was encouraged in 55 to continue which he further elaborates by explainingthat pets help people get over loneliness. In 57, Koji overlaps with "loneliness" and then asks a question
to collaborate with Hiroshi to continue to expand his explanation by indicating that he knows that Hiroshi
has expressed interest in getting a hamster. This dialogue showed more balance between the speaker andthe listener while the topic developed in a step-wise manner. It was very collaborative and it shows thedeveloping IC of the students.
Active participation
At the end of the academic year in the second semester, we looked at the final and twelfth topic which
was about expanding the amount of time for teacher training to improve teacher quality for public
education. The next two excerpts will be followed by an analysis of what aspects of the students IC
development helped them to become more active participants in discursive practice.
Excerpt 6: Aki and Sayo
12 Aki:yeah
13 Sayo: = [for the year]
14 A[very busy]
15 A:
un huh [a:::]16 S:[so::]
17 A:[don’t have to.] un-huh I understand.
18 S:
so I think they (.) can’t live =19 A:= un-huh. (.hhh) ah (.) becau:se (.) of (.2) money?
25

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

20 S:>yes yes<
21 A: a::h (.3) yeah I think so too. maybe the student (hhh)(1) un (.)
22(.hhh) have (.2) a burden (.2) bu::rden
23 S:
yes. so:: I think the::y (.2) don’t want to be a:: teacher.
24 A:
un-huh (.) yeah? (.) I think so too (.) ah. (1) economy problem is:25
not (.) not easy =26 S:= yeah that is so [serious] ha ha ha ha.
27 A:[yeah] I think so too. ha ha ha ha.
In this dialogue, both students were oriented toward each other and not the computer screen or the camera
and neither of them were reading anything which indicates their increasing independence and confidence
to speak without any aids. There was more alignment between the speakers, with more listener support,
overlapping utterances, and collaboration. In 14, Aki overlaps Sayo's "for the year" with "very busy" andthen in 15 appears to start to expand on what Sayo said but then Sayo overlaps and then allows Aki tofinish in 17 where she offers a confirmation of understanding. Sayo continues in line 18 and Aki latches
onto Sayo's "can't live", backchannels with "un-huh" then contributes by extending Sayo's topic which
Sayo confirms in 20 with "yes yes". This mutuality and reciprocity continues in 21 where Aki extends
Sayo's topic who confirms then continues in 23 by expanding her original topic for why students may
decide not to become teachers. Again Aki notices a transition-relevant place and in 24-25, extends the
topic by contributing a summary of the problem as an "economy problem" which Sayo confirms in 26. As
Galazci (2013) indicates, turns initiated by latching/overlapping are evidence of increasing IC. Now let'slook at another excerpt that gives evidence of how learners were able to develop their IC to become more
active participants in discursive practice.
Excerpt 7: Toru and Mari
15 Toru: because? ah::m (.2) as I say the16> lacking teacher’s quality < is: um: terrible =17 Mari: mm:::
18 T:= so and public opinion don’t trust. do not trust (.2)
a:h teachers =
19 M:
mm
20 T:
=so we have to::: a::hm: we have to improve? =21 M:= ye:s =22 T: = a teacher’s quality [and] a social standing.
23 M:
[yes]
24 M:
social standing =25 T:=social standing.
26 M:
um: what is it? =27 T:= what is it? ah:::m social standing is like a:: rank =28((Toru gestures with his hand moving up))
29 M:
= oh::? =30 T:= yeah um: because of (hhh) (.2) um (.2) crime >teacher’s
31crimes < or teacher’s rank is > getting worse. < =32 M:= ah I see yes [yes] =26

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

33 T:
34 M:
35 T:
36M:
37 T:

[so ah so]= yeah? bu:t I think six years is too long =ah: too [long]= for students [yes]. and it cost a lot
um-hm.

In this dialogue, the learners were not relying on any aids and were often making eye contact which shows
more confidence. Both learners demonstrated a higher level of mutuality and co-construction throughcollaboration and the extension of topics. There was a good balance between the roles of speaker andlistener. In 17, 19, and 21, Mari prompts Toru to continue speaking and shows comprehension until Toru
mentions "social standing" in 22. In 24, Mari shadows "social standing" which initiates a mediation
sequence which Toru latches onto and then in 26, Mari explicitly asks for clarification. Toru latches onto
Mari's question, "What is it" by shadowing it and then explains by rephrasing what he means with a gesture.
Mari implicitly asks for more explanation which Toru provides by extending the topic with an explanation
about teacher crimes contributing to the worsening of teachers' social standing which Mari then indicatescomprehension in 32. In 33, Toru was going to continue, but Mari took this turn as an opportunity to
express her opinion on the topic which differs from Toru's opinion and extends the discussion in a different
direction. In this dialog, the latched overlapping turns and the comprehension questions indicate a higher
level of mutuality and reciprocity between the speakers which are elements of a higher level of IC.
Through one academic year of two 15-week semesters that involved students studying 12 integrated
content-based topics, the six students in this study were observed going through a "developmental
trajectory" (Pekarek Doehler, 2019), from peripheral participation to developing and active participation
as more independent and cooperative discourse participants with the ability to collaborate and assist eachother in discursive practice. In the peripheral stage, the students lacked IC and the dialogues were mainly
speaker-based with no real interaction or topic development other than what they had prepared based on
their AW essay. However, as students became used to discursive practice, emerging elements of IC werereflected in higher mutuality and intersubjectivity between the students while discourse between the
speaker and listener became more balanced. Finally, by the end of one academic year, there was evidence
that students became active participants with a higher level of IC due to their emerging ability to manage
turns and to develop and extend topics while showing active listener support (Galaczi, 2014).
Quantitative Results: Video-recorded Conversations
Following Foster and Ohta (2005), dialogues were analyzed for evidence of “assistance and scaffolding”
which can be sub-categorized as (1) co-construction and other correction, (2) self-correction, and (3)continuers and prompters and analyzed for evidence of “negotiation for meaning” subcategorized as
checks for (1) comprehension, (2) confirmation, and (3) clarification (see Appendix C for definitions andexamples). Over the course of the year, designated time for recordings was incrementally increased foreach topic (see Table 1), but the average times indicate the average time of all the recordings due tostudents choosing to continue talking even after the timer went off. The speaking rate is average word
count per speaker of the dialogue divided by time in minutes. Turns, besides the typical turn counted whena different speaker talks, include the usage of back channeling in the form of continuers/prompting when
not identified as overlapping utterances.
27

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

In the first recording, a total of 64 incidences of assistance and scaffolding were identified, with 63 marked
as continuers/prompting in the form of back channeling cues such as “Un-huh” and “Yeah” and shadowing.
In addition, there was one incident of co-construction. There was little evidence of unprompted initiation
for contributing to the development of the dialogue. Instead, the students relied upon each other tomaintain the dialogue. Evidence for “negotiation for meaning,” at the surface level was found, but both
examples, one for comprehension, and one for confirmation, function as assistance/scaffolding in the formof continuers/prompting rather than negotiation for meaning. This supports the findings of Foster and Ohta
(2005) who found that in their study, negotiation for meaning does not take place as much as commonly
believed in interactions. Their suggestion is to distinguish between the “surface” form of negotiation andits pragmatic function within the context of the interactional process, and this was found to be true in ourdata. The data is summarized in Table 2 below:<INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE>TABLE 2
Speaking Discourse Analysis
Speaking Discourse Analysis
Time (average)
Words (average words/dialogue)
Speaking
rate(averagewords/minute)Turns (average/dialogue)
Turn rate (average turns/minute)
Assistance / Scaffolding
Co-construction / Other-correction
Self-correction
Continuers/Prompting
Total
Negotiation for Meaning*
Comprehension
Confirmation
Clarification

T1
English

T6
Pets

3:38
264.6
72.9

6:20
517.8
81.8

T12
Total
Teacher
Education
8:12
555.8
67.8

27.3
7.5

87
13.7

82.1
10

1
0
63
64

9
5
179
193

16
7
171
194

26
12
413
451

1*CP
1*CP

1*CP
a
5,
3*CP
b
2, 1*
Co

1
1*CP

1
2

5, 4*Co, 1
1*CP

Note: * Surface structures that appeared to be negotiation for meaning, when analyzed from a pragmatic
perspective, actually indicated something other than negotiation for meaning, for example, a5, 3*CP meansthat there were 5 possible confirmation checks, but in fact 3 of them functioned as continuers/prompting,and b2, 1*Co means there were 2 possible clarifications, but in fact 1 of them functioned as co-construction.
In the sixth recording, the recording time increased from an average of about three and half minutes toalmost six and half minutes with the word count increasing from 72.9 to 81.8 words per minute on average.
Interestingly, the average number of turns tripled, from 27.3 to 87, partially explained by the time increase,28

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

but the average number of turns almost doubled from 7.5 turns per minute in the first recording to 13.7
turns per minute in the sixth recording. The main increase can be accounted for by more incidences ofassistance/scaffolding evidenced by the three-fold increase in the usage of continuers/prompting, from a
total of 64 in the first recording to 193 in the second. Regarding negotiation for meaning, there seemed to
be an increase in what initially appeared as comprehension, confirmation and clarification checks, butwhen looking at the full context of the turn, the one comprehension check functioned as acontinuer/prompt; of the five confirmation checks, three of them functioned as continuers/prompts; andof the two clarification checks, one functioned as a co-construction move, and it was counted as such.
Another noticeable improvement was the increase in co-construction, increasing from one in the firstrecording to nine in the sixth. This indicates more cooperation and collaboration in order to develop thecontent of their dialogue. Finally, there was in increase in the number of self-corrections, from zero in thefirst recording to five in the sixth, perhaps reflecting their ability to be more attentive to the content ofwhat they were talking about. The sixth recording, when compared to the first, shows much developmentin the students’ abilities to participate in interactive dialogue.
In the twelfth and final recording, the students were much more relaxed and confident overall while thedialogue was more interactive, rather than scripted or practiced. Although the average recording timeincreased by over a minute and a half, the average number of turns per minute decreased, from 13.7 in thesixth recording to 10 in the twelfth. This can be explained by the fact that the students took longer turns
reflecting their ability to discuss the content with more details. Regarding negotiation for meaning,surface-level clarification moves increased, but out of the five incidences, four functioned pragmaticallyas co-construction and one functioned as a continuer/prompt. There was more evidence of collaborationreflected by the increase in incidences of co-construction, from nine in the sixth recording to sixteen in
the final one. There was also a small increase in the number of self-correction moves, from five to seven,though the number of continuers / prompting decreased slightly compared to the sixth recording. The mostinteresting change occurred with the weaker proficiency students, who improved tremendously across all
three recordings in their ability to cooperate and collaborate as more active participants (see Appendix F
for individual student data).
Qualitative Results: Interviews
This section reports the results of interview data analysis highlighting six focus students’ voices, which
revealed why and how those students engaged in discursive practices through the integrated CBEC.
Regarding CA-informed analysis, Huth (2010) cautions that L2 talk elicited for research “oversimplifies
the nature of the talk and fails to acknowledge other elements” (p. 537) such as “language competence,
language performance, and perception of language behavior” (p. 550). We hope the interview data analysis
reveals how students socially-interacted with each other and developed their identity through discursive
practices in the new community.
The integrated curriculum was fun
All six students reported that they enjoyed the curriculum. Keiko and Midori explained:- It was fun. I could listen to different ideas from my classmates. I could change and deepen myideas through four integrated classes. (Keiko)- I could share and compare my ideas with my classmates’. Then, I could come up with my newideas. That’s why I enjoyed the program and I think it was useful. (Midori)29

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

Moreover, they compared it with their high school English classes. Koji and Toru said they had little
opportunity to talk with others in high school.
- There was no pair work in my HS. The teacher mainly talked and checked the answers of thebooks for university entrance exams. However, it was boring and many students did not listen to
the teacher and just did what they wanted to do. (Koji)- We just sat at our desks and often wrote English in HS; however, I could develop my speaking
skills by talking with other classmates. That was a big difference. (Toru)
Advantages of the curriculum
All six students further revealed advantages of the integrated curriculum. All of them reported thatthey could develop their ideas by sharing opinions with classmates. For instance, Aki changed her idea
about working women (one of the topics) through listening to others’ ideas:- I could develop my ideas through the program. For example, I could learn different ideas fromIR and changed my ideas. I sometimes changed my ideas in PUT through listening to others’ ideas.
I could choose better ideas by myself. As for “working women,” I had an initial idea that womenshould continue to work to save money by putting their children in day-care centers. However,someone told me that putting a child in a day-care center costs money. Then, I changed to the ideathat women should stay home for one year to raise their babies. (Aki)
Koji explained how he developed his ideas through interaction with others. Similarly, Keiko could
deepen her understanding by listening to many ideas from classmates.
- We started with D&D on Friday. Then, I thought the topic was difficult and I didn’t like it. Next
we came to understand the topic better in IR on Monday. After that, I could rewrite my opinion
better by finding more information in AW on Tuesday. Then, I came to like the topic. Finally, in
PUT on Thursday I had chances to listen to others’ ideas and was often impressed by their opinions.
I thought they were clear and then I found the topic more interesting. (Koji)- I could listen to many ideas from different classmates and expressed my ideas in all four classes.
Because there were four classes, I could deepen my understanding about each topic. (Keiko)Three students regarded communication strategies as useful for maintaining a conversation. For
example, Koji and Hiroki commented as follows:- I was not good at asking follow-up questions so there were many silences at the beginning. It wasa torture. Then, I learned what kinds of questions I should ask through the program and got used
to asking follow-up questions. (Koji)- I could keep talking by using many conversation strategies such as shadowing and follow-up
questions compared to April. (Hiroki)
Interestingly, two students, Keiko and Koji, noticed how they could acquire and use new
vocabulary through the integrated curriculum.
- I also learned new vocabulary from news articles in IR. Those new words were useful in writing
and speaking. (Keiko)- I came to use new words by encountering them many times. (Koji)

30

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

In addition, five students reported that recording/self-evaluation was useful with two of thecomments below:- I could evaluate my ability objectively by watching the video, so it was useful. Also I was glad tosee my progress. Through self-evaluation, I could notice my errors and my bad habits. (Hiroki)- I hated recording and felt like crying at first because I got stuck and there were many silences. I
could not express my ideas and just nodded to my partners, so I didn’t like watching myself in thevideo. However, I think it was useful because I could set up my next goals, so I think it was useful.
(Keiko)Difficulty of topics
All six students reported about their favorite topics and difficult ones. Through the year, theytackled difficult ones such as organ transplantation, the death penalty, same sex-marriage, and capital
punishment (see Appendix A). Students seemed to enjoy sharing different views rather than hearing thesame kind of ideas. Keiko and Koji expressed the following views:- International marriage and same-sex marriage were difficult because I had never thought about
them. I could not find any good reasons and ended up with unclear ideas. (Keiko)- I enjoyed talking about women’s place and capital punishment. As for capital punishment, I
thought it was the most difficult one. However, I heard many different ideas from my classmatesand became interested in it. On the other hand, I had difficulty talking about same-sex marriage
because most of my classmates had the same ideas. (Koji)
I could improve my English ability. All six students reported that they could improve their English
abilities by engaging in the integrated curriculum. Hiroki and Midori benefited from communication
strategies.
- Compared with April, I could use communication strategies including shadowing and follow-up
questions and I could keep talking for a longer time. Also, I could improve my writing skills by
writing many times. (Hiroki)- I came to be able to summarize what my partner said in the middle of a conversation to confirm
what my partner said. I did not mind keeping talking for a long time. I could ask questions to mypartner naturally. (Midori)Toru and Koji could communicate with foreigners.
- I could improve my English ability. There were many chances to use English in this program. I
noticed my progress when some foreign exchange students spoke to me and I could communicate
with them. (Toru)- I could improve my TOEFL score by 80 points. I could communicate with my host family when I
visited Boston in the summer. (Koji)
Summary
All six students explained reasons why they engaged in various tasks earnestly through the integrated
curriculum. For most of them, it was the first experience to share their ideas with other classmates inEnglish. Sharing ideas, and even changing and developing their own was a driving force to actively
participate in various kinds of tasks through discursive practices. Moreover, communication strategies
functioned as useful devices to help students to move from peripheral participants to active participants
31International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

throughout the program. Consequently, they were motivated to engage in discursive practices and could
develop their IC resources as active participants in this learning community, acknowledging that they
could improve their English abilities. The next section shows the results of their performances in terms of
speaking and writing skills over the academic year.
Speaking Performances
As described in the data analysis section, three native English-speaking teachers were asked to evaluate
the final speaking performances (see Appendix A & B) of the six students for Topics 1, 6 and 12 basedon the rubrics we created (see Appendix E ). Based on the CBEC (as previously discussed), students
worked on ongoing development of the topic content through discursive practices in all four different
classes that culminate in a final video recorded discussion and a final essay at the end of each second week.
Table 3 presents the summary of the speaking results, while individual student results are shown inAppendix F. Inter-rater reliability was 0.916 (SPSS 19.0), which shows a high reliability. As for speaking
performances, the average assessment score increased from 10.275 (Topic 1), to 14.997 (Topic 6) and18.264 (Topic 12). In particular, the gap between the high and low averages narrowed from 6.67 (high 14.33; low - 7.66) to 5.00 (high - 18.66; low - 13.66) and 3.33 (high - 19.66; low - 16.33). For example,
Aki, who received the lowest score (7.66) in Topic 1 increased to 14.00 (Topic 6) and 19.00 (Topic 12).
Comments from the three evaluators about her speaking performance on Topic 1 were “initiated somewhat
but very mechanical; no development of topic; just mechanical reading from paper; no use of conversation
strategies (CS) except “How about you?” (HAY) (Evaluator 1), and “little interaction - needs support some CS or HAY” (Evaluator 3). However, in Topic 6, there were comments such as “I/R somewhat
actively; limited development from what I could catch; good CS: "oh really, yeah, I think so too, I heard
that." (Evaluator 1) “nice natural beginning, beginning with responses, entry to conversation a little abrupt,
but nice natural conversation, agreeing, active listening, asked for meaning/confirmation” (Evaluator 2).
Then, in Topic 12 Aki received comments that included “natural beginning, managed to negotiate lack ofvocab well, checks partner's understanding, clarify, helps partner” (Evaluator 2) and “lots of CS and listens
carefully and actively, helps her partner, great interaction” (Evaluator 3).
<INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE>TABLE 3
Speaking Improvement Summary
Total Speaking AverageVideo 1

Video 6

Video 12

Low

7.66

13.66

16.33

High

14.33

18.66

19.66

Median

9.165

14

18.33

Average10.27514.99718.264

Change7.734

In short, focusing on IC, students developed their speaking performances through the 12 topics over theacademic year. Interestingly, the gap between high achievers and low achievers had become narrower inspeaking performances. The results corroborate previous data analyses that revealed that these students
went through three stages to develop their interactional competence. While they engaged in discursive
32International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

practices, they learned from each other and developed their understanding about each topic. As they moved
from peripheral participants at the beginning to active participants toward the end, they could performbetter in speaking, which indicates the development of L2 linguistic competence.
DISCUSSION
This study attempted to explore interaction from alternative perspectives and reveal how EFL learners
develop their interactional competence (IC) through discursive practice in real classrooms, inspired by“transdisciplinarity in SLA research” (Duff, 2019, p. 7; see also Douglas Fir Group, 2016). In particular,
Hall, et al. (2011) affirm that “little is known about the process by which learners develop their L2 IC, nor
about the stages this development goes through” (p. 7). Through mixed-data analyses based on recordings,
interviews, and performance evaluation of both speaking and writing, we delineated how our students
went through three stages to develop their IC over two semesters in a real classroom. By integrating both
qualitative and quantitative data, this study offered evidence as to why and how these students developed
their IC through discursive practice in CBEC. In this section, we seek to answer the three researchquestions. Finally, we offer implications and directions for future research.
RQ1. What aspects of L2 IC develop as learners go through developmental stages throughdiscursive practice based on content-based integrated curriculum?
According to Hall, et al. (2011) and Young (2011), little research has provided description of learners’
development of IC. Based on the framework of legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991),
we delineated three stages these students went through in developing their IC through CA of recordings
and CA-informed analyses: (1) peripheral participation; (2) developing participation; (3) active
participation. The three stages revealed how students interacted with each other through 12 topics byutilizing interactional resources (speech acts, turn-taking, repair, boundaries, and others including
communication strategies). In addition, students’ comments taken from their self-evaluation reports
corroborated the results of CA and increased the reliability of our findings.
Moreover, based on quantitative results, students tripled the number of peer assistance (coconstruction/other-correction or repair, self-correction or repair, encouragements) from Topic 1 to Topic
6, indicating that students learned how to use interactional resources gradually and enjoyed sharing ideas
with other participants. However, we found that examples of negotiation of meaning were rare, which
supports Foster & Ohta (2005). A further examination revealed that students did start to negotiate formeaning in Topic 6. Yet, instead of using comprehension checks or clarifications such as “What do you
mean?” and What does that mean?” they used “peer assistance” such as co-construction andcontinuers/prompters for negotiation. It means students developed the quality of peer assistance so thatthey could understand each other better in order to perform the task better. In the second semester, theyattempted more difficult topics and were required to keep speaking for a longer time (seven minutes for
Topic 12). Nonetheless, they continued to use as much peer assistance as they did in Topic 6, though theincidences of negotiation of meaning increased marginally. We will further discuss the findings inanswering the third question.
In brief, these three stages show how students collaborated with each other and developed their IC.
Students talked about each topic for two weeks, developing and even changing their ideas by sharing them33

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

with other participants. Subsequently, they moved on to a new topic and started again for developing theirideas. It means these students did not develop their IC in a linear way (see Larsen-Freeman, 2016). From
this viewpoint, interactional competence is dynamic and context-sensitive, which is different fromprevailing conceptions of communicative competence (Pekarek Doehler & Berger, 2018). Young (2011)
adds further explanation about IC:
The fundamental difference between communicative competence and IC is that an individual’s
knowledge and employment of these resources is contingent on what other participants do; that is,
IC is distributed across participants and varies in different interactional practices. And the mostfundamental difference between interactional competence and communicative competence is that
IC is not what a person knows, it is what a person does together with others. (p. 430, italics inoriginal)
Similarly, van Compernolle (2015) explains that “interactional competencies develop because relevant
resources are made available for use in interaction, where they may be picked up and recycled as part of
the appropriation, or internalization, process” (p. 175). In short, these three stages delineated how students
developed their IC through discursive practice as they became better performers in the new community.
RQ2. Through what pedagogical steps do learners develop their IC in the L2 classrooms?
Although studies on L2 IC through discursive practice have gained prominence, little is known aboutpedagogical steps to develop IC in the language classroom (Hall, et al., 2011; van Compernolle, 2015;
Young, 2009, 2011, 2019). By highlighting students’ voices based on the interview data analysis, thisstudy revealed four pedagogical steps through which these students developed their IC in discursive
practices through the integrated CBEC. The four steps include (1) introduction of a new topic andcommunication strategies; (2) discursive practices in all four classes (DD, IR, AW, PUT) and developing
and changing their ideas about the topic; (3) recording their conversations and analyzing transcriptions for
rasing their awareness of IC; (4) applying IC resources to a new topic.
First, the DD teacher introduced a new topic and basic communication strategies (see Appendix B)
followed by short discussions. All six students reported that content-based curriculum was enjoyable,compared with English classes they received in their high schools. Unfortunately, most of the students
had little opportunity to communicate in English while they were in high school. It seems that traditional
teaching is still the norm though the Japanese government introduced new guidelines in 2013 to emphasize
the development of students’ communicative competence (Sato & Hirano, 2014). Second, as students
became accustomed to discursive practices in all four classes of the CBEC curriculum (see Appendix B),
they started to enjoy communicating with each other about various topics in a new learning community.
In particular, these six students explained that sharing their ideas with other participants was fun because
they could learn from others and develop their ideas. Furthermore, they reported that recycling the same
topic in four different classes helped them to deepen their understanding about each topic. Aki explained
how she changed her view about “working women” by sharing her ideas with others. Third, after recording,
students transcribed their conversations and analyzed their performance including their use ofcommunication strategies for self-evaluation. Students admitted that communication strategies asinteractional resources helped them to keep talking for a longer time (from three minutes in April to sevenminutes in January), they could learn new vocabulary words better by recycling them through discursive
34

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

practice, and that recording/self-evaluation was useful to notice their strengths and weaknesses about how
to make use of interactional recourses in their speaking performances (see also Hauser, 2019). Fourth,students attemped to apply IC resources including communication strategies to a new topic. In particular,
though students attempted to discuss difficult topics in the second semester (see Appendix A), they
enjoyed most of them, especially those leading to more divergent ideas than convergent ones amongclassmates. As students participated in discursive practices actively with different participants and moved
from peripheral participants to active participants, they were motivated to engage in discursive practices
and could develop their identity as active participants in this learning community. From this point of view,
we concur with Lave and Wenger (1991), who explain that as newcomers move toward full participationin communities of practice, they generate “identity and motivation” (p. 91). Moreover, they developed not
only their knowledge and understanding about each topic but also how “other semiotic systems are put touse in the service of adaptation to a new culture and participation in a new community” (Young, 2009, p.
5). In other words, socialization processes in a community of practice are closely tied to the developmentof L2 IC (Cekaite, 2007; Young, 2019; see also Wenger, 1998). Consequently, students became able toapply interactional resources they had learned to a new topic or context through these four pedagocial
steps. Young (2011) further explains that “[b]ecause discursive practices recur, participants haveexpectations about what happens in a practice and what linguistic and nonverbal resources people employ
in constructing the practice” (p. 427).
RQ 3: How did the development of interactional competence affect their linguistic competence?
We attempted to examine how “linguistic changes occur through changing social relations andparticipation structures in conversations” (Taguchi, 2014, p. 533). Though Hall (2004) claims that theconnection between the development of IC and SLA is missing, which is also an issue of how to assess
IC (Galaczi, 2013; Salaberry & Kunitz, 2019; Pekarek Doehler, 2019), this study indicates that there is astrong connection between the development of IC and SLA, and assessing the development IC might bepossible.
Students developed their interactional competence by engaging and socializing in discursive practicethrough the CBEC. This study shows that engaging in discursive practice through different topics helped
students develop their IC, without actually increasing the amount of negotiation for meaning, as
understood from the more traditional SLA approach. Our study attests to what Foster and Ohta (2005)
claimed: “[i]nteractional processes including negotiation for meaning and various kinds of peer assistanceand repair are among the many ways learners gain access to the language being learned” (p. 426). As
Young (2011) defined, interactional competence consists of knowledge of how to employ linguistic,
pragmatic, and interactional resources including speech acts, turn-taking, repair and boundaries.
Obviously, the ability to negotiate for meaning is one of them. As students came to utilize resources
available for their interaction, they performed better in discursive practices in the four CBEC classes.
This study also provides further evidence as to why and how students improved their performances basedon a sociocultural perspective. As students interacted with each other, they could expand their zone ofproximal development (ZPD). Murphey (2001) provides a clear explanation about the ZPD referring to
Vygotsky (1978).

35

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

The ZPD refers to those things that one is not quite ready to do alone, but can do with the help ofanother person…In this example the activity is at first located within the learners’ ZPD (theirpotential) and enacted (scaffolded) intermentally—between two people. Only later, throughfurther participation, does it become an intramental ability, residing within the mind of the learner(p. 127, italics in original).
Similarly, van Compernolle (2015) affirms that “[i]nteraction involves intrapersonal and interpersonal
processes at the same time” (p. 203). He went on to say:On the one hand, interactional competencies mediate the joint accomplishment of interaction and,on the other, interactional competencies are mediated by the resources that become available in
the joint accomplishment of interaction.
(p. 171)
In brief, “interactional competencies and L2 development are united as mediated action” (vanCompernolle, 2015, p. 184). In other words, there is a strong relationship between the development of L2
IC and SLA. IC develops in a community of practice (Wenger, 1998), as learners socialize with each otherthrough discursive practices and develop their ability to utilize interactional resources including linguistic
resources (Young, 2011, 2019).
IMPLICATIONSThis mixed methods research attempted to identify pedagogical steps to develop learners’ IC in thelanguage classroom (Hall, et al., 2011; van Compernolle, 2015; Young, 2009, 2011, 2019). The study
documented three developmental stages based on the framework of legitimate peripheral participation(Lave & Wenger, 1991) and revealed how EFL university students socialized with each other and engaged
in discursive practices through CBEC. This mixed methods research supported that students developed
their IC and performed better with a deeper understanding about each topic while developing their identity
as members of the new community. As a result, they could develop their linguistic competence. In
particular, although this study has a focus different than Wood (2018), which investigated the relationshipbetween communication strategy use, IC development, and SLA, the study also revealed that EFL learners
benefited from explicit teaching of communication strategies as interactional resources. Furthermore,
students reported that the study of transcriptions of recorded conversations could raise their awarenessabout how to utilize interactional resources (see Hauser, 2019; Wong & Waring, 2021; Young, 2011).
Although “the debate on what actually constitutes IC and on its transferability to a variety of sociointeractional contexts is not settled yet” (Salaberry and Kunitz, 2019), this study indicates the significanceto include identity recourses and linguistic resources (e.g., communication strategies, vocabulary,grammar, etc.) in addition to interactional resources (Young, 2011, 2019) in order to extend the definitionof IC.
In summary, the study attests to what Nguyen (2019) concludes: “This conceptualization of IC suggeststhat IC development entails co-constructing social interaction with others in recurring interactional
practices (He & Young, 1998)” (p. 398). Although little is known about pedagogical steps to develop IC
in the language classroom (Hall, et al., 2011; van Compernolle, 2015; Young, 2009, 2011, 2019), this36International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

study identified four pedagogical steps. We hope that this study would add to the IC literature in the L2classroom and similar studies will be done in different teaching contexts.
However, we acknowledge that there are limitations in our study. First, this study was carried out in asmall class (21 students), where four different classes were integrated with the same topics through skills
integration and teacher collaboration (Sato & Crane, 2013). Brown (2007) explains that skills integration- “the integration of the four skills - or at least two or more skills - is the typical approach within acommunicative, interactive framework” (p. 286). Is it possible to create a similar curriculum in otherinstitutions with a larger number of students? Second, though the study indicated that students developed
their writing ability through peer-editing and discussion through the CBEC, we did not document actual
student interactions in the writing class based on CA-informed analysis (see Young & Miller, 2004).
Consequently, we did not include the data about students’ writing performances. How do students develop
their writing competence as they develop their IC in a community (see Hall, 2004)? Third, though thisstudy attempted to document how the development of L2 IC affects learners’ identity, perceptions, andmotivation in a community of practice, socialization processes to a community of practice needs to befurther delineated based on the framework of community of practice (Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott& Snyder, 2002).
In particular, three questions worth asking are: (1) How can teachers collaborate with other teachers tocreate a learning community where students can learn from each other and develop their IC through acontent-based integrated curriculum?; (2) How can teachers have students “engage in analysis of theirconversations (e.g., transcripts and/or video recordings) in order to identify the resources people use in avariety of contexts” (van Compernolle, 2015, p. 191; see also Wong & Waring, 2010; 2021); and (3) How
can teachers broaden their perspectives from communicative competence to IC based on sociocultural
theory and develop students’ IC through discursive practice? (see Swain & Deters, 2007).
Future mixed methods research is needed to document the development of learners’ IC as well as learners’
identity, perceptions, and motivation (see Huth, 2010), and languge learning (Hall, 2004) in different
teaching contexts through discursive practices. From this point of view, we concur with Cekaite (2007),
who affirms that “we need to conduct more longitudinal work on the social dimension of participation andL2 learning in multiparty classroom settings” (p. 59). In particular, in order to bridge the gap between IC
research and classroom implementation of IC (Salaberry & Kunitz, 2019; Young, 2009, 2011, 2019), we
support Hall (2004), who suggests that there needs to be more "CA-inspired research on classroom-based
language learning" (p. 611).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Dr. Nguyen Hanh for her insightful comments on an earlier version of this article.
NOTES
1 Ortner (1984) defined practice as “anything people do” (p 149). Young (2009) further explains“Although practice is literally anything people do (including talk), most practice theorists are interested
in the relationship between social forces and individual agency or how, in practices, participants reproduce
preexisting social values and how those values are resisted and transformed” (p. 38).
37

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

2 We acknowledge that there are scholars who have added interactional competence to the componentsof communicative competence (e.g., Celce-Murcia, 2007). Yet, we support the definition of Young (2011;2019) and others.
3 We used Impact Issues (Day & Yamanaka, 1998) as a textbook.
4 Regarding the list of communication strategies, see the following site by Professor Duane Kindt(http://www.profkindt.com/site/strategies.html).
5 Wood (2018) did a study on how Japanese university students learned to use CSs and developed their
L2 IC over one year. Our study does not focus on CSs, but the development of IC through CBEC.
REFERENCES
Barraja-Rohan, A. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second languageclassroom to teachinteractional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15, 479-507.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Georgetown University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to languagepedagogy (3rd ed.).
Pearson Education, Inc.
Cekaite, A. (2007). A child’s development of interactional competence in a SwedishL2 classroom.
Modern Language Journal, 91, 45-62.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence inlanguage teaching. In E.
Alcon Soler & M. P. Safont Jorda (Eds.), The intercultural language use and language learning(pp. 41-58). Springer.
Creswell, J. W. (2010). Mapping the developing landscape of mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori& C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods insocial & behavioral research (2nd ed.)(pp. 45-68). SAGE Publications, Ltd.
Day, R. R., & Yamanaka, J. (1998). Impact issues. Pearson Longman.
Dings, A. (2007). Developing interactional competencein a second languge: A case study ofaSpanishlanguage learner. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly,29, 55-85
Duff, P. A., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second languageacquisition: Social,
cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative
approaches to SLA (pp. 95-116). Routledge.
Duff, P. A., & May, S. (Eds.). (2017). Language socialization. Encyclopedia oflanguage and education(3rd ed.). Springer.
Duff, P. A. (2019). Social dimensions and processes in second language acquisition:Multilingualsocialization in transnational contexts. Modern Language Journal,103,6-22.
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingualworld. Modern
Language Journal, 100, 19-47.
Ducasse, A. M., & Brown, A. (2009). Assessing paired orals: Raters’ orientation tointeraction. Language
Testing, 26, 423-443.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA
research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285-300.
38

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in secondlanguage
classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402-430.
Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How dolearners manageinteractioninpairedspeaking
tests?
Applied
Linguistics,
35,553-574.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt017
Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everydaylives: The socioculturaldimension of interaction with implications for thelearning of another language. Applied Linguistics,
14, 145-167.
Hall, J. K. (1995). (Re)creating our worlds with words: A sociohistorical perspective offace-to-faceinteraction. Applied Linguistics, 16, 206-232.
Hall, J. K. (1999). A prosaics of interaction: The development of interactionalcompetence in anotherlanguage. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 137-151).
Cambridge University Press.
Hall, J. K. (2004). Language leaning as an interactional event. Modern Language Journal, 88, 607-6111.
Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. In J. K. Hall, J.
Helerman, & S. P. Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 1-18).
Multilingual Matters.
Hall, J. K., Hellerman, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2011). L2 interactional competence anddevelopment. Multilingual Matters.
Hauser, E. (2019). The constraction of interactional competence in L2 interaction. In M. R. Salaberry, &S. Kunitz, (Eds.). (2019). Teaching and testing L2interactional competence:Bridging theory andpractice (pp. 77-121). Routledge.
He, A. W., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In R. Young &A.W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency(pp. 1-24). John Benjamins.
Hellermann, J. (2011). Members’ methods, members’ competences: Looking for evidence of language
learning in longitudinal investigations of other-initiatedrepair. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S.
Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 147-172). Multilingual
Matters.
Huth T. (2010). Can talk be inconsequential? Social and interactional aspects of elicitedsecond-language
interaction. Modern Langauge Journal, 94, 537-553.
Huth T., & Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2006). How can insights from conversation analysisbe directly applied
to teaching L2 pragmatics? Language Teaching Research,10, 53-79.
InqScrbe (Version 2.5 macOS Beta) [Computer software]. (2021). Retrieved fromhttps://www.inqscribe.com
Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese
during study abroad. In H. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual
perspectives (pp. 355-385). National Foreign Lanuage Recourse Center.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H.Lerner (Ed.),
Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-31). John Benjamins.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition ofmixed methods research.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2), 112-133.
Kehe, D., & Kehe, P. D. (1994). Conversation strategies. Pro Lingua Associates.
39International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

Kley, K. (2015). Interactional competence and in paired speaking tests: Role of paired task and test-takerspeaking ability in co-constructed discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Iowa.
Kenny, T., & Woo, L. (2011). Nice talking with you 1. Cambridge University Press.
Kinginger, C. (Ed.) (2013). Social and cultural aspects of language learning in studyabroad. John
Benjamins.
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. ModernLanguage Journal,
70, 366-372.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2016). Classroom-oriented research from a complex systemsperspective. Studies inSecond Language Learning and Teaching, 6 (3), 377-393.
Lave J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge
University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and thenegotiation ofcomprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 413468). Academic Press.
Murphey, T. (2001). Tools of recursion, intermental zones of proximal development and criticalcollaborative autonomy. JALT Journal, 23, 130-150.
Murphey, T., & Kenny, T. (1998). Intensifying practice and noticing through videoingconversations for
self-evaluation. JALT Journal, 20, 126-140.
Nakatani, Y. (2005). The Effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy Use.
Modern Language Journal, 89,76-91.
Nakatani, Y. (2010). Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners’ oral communication: A classroom
study using multiple data collection procedures. Modern Language Journal, 94, 116-136.
Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: Enhancing small group
communication in the language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 90, 169-185.
Nguyen, T. H. (2006). Constructing “expertness”: A novice pharmacist’s development of interactional
competence in patient consultations. Communication andMedication, 3 (2), 147-160.
Nguyen, T. H. (2008). Sequence organization as local and longitudinal achievement.Text and Talk, 28 (4),523-550.
Nguyen, T. H. (2016). Interactional practices across settings: From classroom role-playsto workplacepatient consultations. Applied Linguistics, 1-24.
Nguyen, T. H. (2019). Conclusion: Deepening roots and broadening horizons in interactional competence
research and praxis. In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional
competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 397-412). Routledge.
Ohta, A. S. (1999). Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style in adult learners ofJapanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1493-1512.
Ortega, L. (2011). SLA after the social turn: Where cognitivism and its alternativesstand. In D. Atkinson(Ed.), Alternative approaches to second languageacquisition (pp. 167-180). Routledge.
Ortega, L. (2019). SLA and the study of equitable multilingualism. Modern LanguageJournal, 103, 2338.
Ortner, S. B. (1984). Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies inSociety and History,
126, 126-166.
40

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

Pekarek Doehler, S. (2019). On the nature and the development of L2 interactionalcompetence: State of
the art and implications for praxis. In M. R. Salaberry, &S. Kunitz, (Eds.). (2019). Teaching andtesting L2 interactional competence:Bridging theory and practice (pp. 25-59). Routledge.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E. (2018). L2 Interactional Competence as IncreasedAbility for Contextsensitive Conduct: A Longitudinal Study of Story-openings.Applied Linguistics, 39 (4), 555-578.
Pekarek Doehler, S., Wagner, J., & Gonzalez-Martinez, E. (Eds.) (2018). Longitudinalstudies on theorganization of social interaction. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.
Sahlins, M. D. (1981). Historical metaphors and mythical realities: Structure in theearly history of the
Sandwich Islands kingdom. University of Michigan Press.
Salaberry, M. R., & Kunitz, S. (Eds.). (2019). Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging
theory and practice. Routledge.
Sato, K., & Crane, P. A. (2013). Building a community of practice through collaborative dialogue. Paper
presented at the Fifth International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching. Banff, Canada.
Sato, K., & Hirano, M. (2014). School-wide collaborative action research forcurriculum development. In
N. Sonoda & A. Krause (Eds). JALT 2013Conference Proceedings (pp. 130-141). JALT.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text, and interaction.
SAGE Publications.
Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). “New” mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. Modern
Language Journal, 91, 820-836.
Taguchi, N. (2014). Development of interactional competence in Japanese as a second language: Use ofincomplete sentences as interactional resources. Moder Language Journal, 98, 518-535.
van Compernolle, R. A. (2015). Interaction and second language development: A Vygotskian perspective.
John Benjamins.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
Young, R. (1999). Sociolinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 105132.
Young, R. (2002). Discourse approaches to oral language assessment. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 22, 243-262.
Young, R. (2007). Language learning and teaching as discursive practice. In Z. Hua, P. Seedhouse, L. Wei,
& V. Cook (Eds.), Language learning and teaching as social inter-action (pp. 251-271). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Young, R. (2008). Language and interaction: An advanced resource book. London:Routledge.
Young, R. (2009). Discursive practice in language learning and teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.
Young, R. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing.In E. Hinkel, (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 426-443). Routledge.
Young, R. (2019). Interactional competence and L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi, (Ed.), The Routledge
handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 93-110). Routledge.
Young, R., & Miller, E. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourseroles in the ESL writing
conferences. Modern Language Journal, 88, 519-535.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press.
41

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

Waring, H. Z. (2002). Displaying substantive recipiency in seminar discussion.Research on Language andSocial Interaction, 35, 453-479.
Wells, G. (1981). Learning through interaction: Study of language development. Cambridge University
Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Community of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Harvard
Business Review Press.
Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation analysis and second languagepedagogy: A guide for
ESL/EFL teachers. Routledge.
Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2021). Conversation analysis and second languagepedagogy: A guide for
ESL/EFL teachers (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Wood, J. (2018). A mixed methods study of the relationship between learning to usecommunication
strategies and the development of L2 interactional competence.Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies.

Appendix A
Main Topics for the Content-Based English Curriculum (CBEC)
1st Semester

Communication Strategies

1. English in Elementary School(Goal: 3 minutes)(Discussion question (DQ): Are
you for or against introducing
English into elementary schools?)
2. Living together without
marriage (3.5 min.)(DQ: Are you for or against living
together without marriage?)
3. Healthy Eating (4 min.)(DQ: What is a healthy food you
recommend?)
4. Environmental Issues (4 min.)(DQ: What can you do for a better
environment?)
5. Professional Sports (4.5 min.)(DQ: Are you for or against
Japanese baseball players’ playing
in MLB?)
6. Pets (5 min.)(DQ: Do you think keeping a pet
is a good idea?)
2nd Semester

Opener: How ya doin? How’s it goin? Closer: Nicetalking with you. You, too. Turn taking: How about
you? Pardon me? Let me see. Let me think. That’s adifficult question
Rejoinders: Oh, really? Oh, yeah?
Soundsnice/great/fun/interesting/boring/healthy/dangerous!

Complete shadowing, partial shadowing

Follow-up questions: What, Where, When, What kindof, How long/far/late/big?
Clarifications: You did what? He went where? What
did you say?

Clarifications: What do you mean? Can you give mean example? Could you tell me? Could you explain?

42

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

1. International Marriage(5 min.)(DQ: Do you think the advantagesof international marriage outweighthe disadvantages?)
2. Organ Transplants (5 min.)(DQ: Are you for or against using
the organs of dead people?)
3. Working Women (5.5 min.)(DQ: Are you for or against theidea that women should stay athome after giving birth?)
4. Same-Sex Marriage (6 min.)(DQ: Are you for or against samesex marriage?)
5. Death Penalty (6.5 min.)
DQ: Are you for or against capital
punishment?)
6. Six-year Teacher Training
Program (7 min.)(DQ: Are you for or against a sixyear teacher training program?)

Review of communication strategies

Shadowing and summarizing

Paraphrasing: What does that mean?

Explaining in detail: What do you mean?
Summarizing: Let’s me summarize what you said.

Review of communication strategies

Appendix B
First Year CBEC (Content-Based Program)
Week 1
Discussion and Debate (D&D

Intensive Reading (IR)・ Introduction of the topic

・Reading a related article

・ Start writing opinions(Discussion questions: DQ)

・Discussion (DQ)・ Communication strategies
・ Short discussion (DQ)↓・ DQ revision(homework)

・ Reading strategies(textbook, 30 mins)↓
・Article for week 2(homework)

Academic Writing (AW)・ Flash writing about afamiliar topic
・ Discussion (DQ)・・ Peer-reading and editing
a first draft

Power Up Tutorial (PUT)・ Warm-up activity
・ Discussion on a familiar
topic (20 mins)
・ Discussion on a main
topic (DQ 1)↓↓

・Rewriting(homework)

・ DQ revision(homework)

43

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

Week 2
D&D

IR・ Warm-up activity

・ Vocabulary quiz・ Dictation test

・ Reading a related article：

・ Review of communication
strategies

・Discussion (DQ)

・Discussion (DQ)・ Reading strategies(textbook, 30 mins)↓↓

・New article for week 1(homework)

・ DQ revision(homework)AW・ Flash writing about afamiliar topic

PUT・ Warm-up activity

・ Discussion (DQ)・ Discussion on a familiar
topic (20 mins)

・ Peer-reading and editing
a second draft

・ Discussion on a main
topic (DQ)
・Recording in a speakinglab (Students move)↓・Final essay(homework)↓
・Transcription & selfevaluation(homework)

Textbooks
Discussion & Debate (D&D) - “Impact Issues” (Longman)
Intensive Reading (IR) - “Cover to Cover 1”(Oxford)
Academic Writing (AW) - No text; original teaching materials were used
Power Up Tutorial (PUT) - No text, original teaching materials were used
Appendix C
Definitions and Examples
According to Foster and Ohta (2005), peer assistance/ scaffolding “comes about as learners collaborate tocreate discourse in the target language” (p. 413), which includes assistance (co-construction/othercorrection), self-correction, and encouragements. Below are definitions and examples based on examples
from our data.
Co-construction: joint creation of an utterance; allows individuals to participate in dialogue by building
language skills. In line 3, Hiroshi supplies 'more pay attention', picked up by Koji in line 4.
(Hiroshi and Koji discussing Topic 6 – Pets)[00:05:56.20]
01 Koji:02yeah, pet is:: (.3) very nice point
but we have [to:::]44International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

03 Hiroshi:
04 K:
05 H:

[more pay attention?]more pay attention (.3) and (.3) don’t too much take care of [them][yeah] too much (create)

Self-correction: self-initiated, self-repair. In line 2, Aki changes 'do' to 'are' as a self-correction.
(Aki and Sayo discussing Topic 6 – Pets)[00:00:28.18]
01 Sayo:
02 Aki:03 S:

I:::mmm (.2) I’m so tired
why do you so >are< you tired?
I did a part time job to two o’clockContinuers: function to express interest, to prompt the speaker to continue and to elaborate. In lines 2, 4
and 7 Hiroki shadows Mari prompting her to continue.
(Mari and Hiroki discussing Topic 6 – Pets)[00:00:08.14]
01 Mari
I:::m tired=
02 Hiroki =tired (.2) oh::: why?
03 M:
ah:: I had club activity=
04 H:=club [activity] ah::05 M:
[yesterday] night I went back home06
at ten o’clock=07 H:=ten o’clock. ah:::With regard to negotiation for meaning, Foster and Ohta (2005) refer to Long (1985, 1996) for their data
analysis. Long argued that negotiation for meaning is essential to make input comprehensible by using
conversational modifications such as comprehension checks, confirmation checks, and clarification
requests. Below are definitions based on Foster and Ohta (2005) and examples based on our data.
Originally, Long defined conversation modifications as between a native speaker and a non-native speaker,
yet Foster & Ohta applied them to their conversational data analysis between non-native speakers, which
we follow.
Comprehension checks: any expression by a speaker to ensure that the interlocutor has understood. In line
5, Aki checks for comprehension by asking “Do you know?” to which Sayo replies “No”, so Aki explains
in Japanese and then checks comprehension again in line 10.
(Aki and Sayo discussing Topic 12 – Teacher education)[00:01:22.25]
01 Aki:
It is sai:d (.5) now: the number of02
stu: stu: s [teachers]
45International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

03 Sayo:[uh huh]
04 A:
in Japan is not enough because of (.hhh)
05
ah:: baby boom generation (.2) do you know?
06 S:
no:::]
07 A:
It’s dankainosedai? [baby boom generation]
08 S:
ah [un huh]
09 A:[do] you know? (.3) in JapaneseConfirmation checks: any expression by the speaker following an utterance by the interlocutor to elicit
confirmation and requires no new information from the interlocutor. In line 3, Koji repeats 'couples' withrising intonation, and in line 4 Hiroshi repeats it and then in line 5 Koji confirms his understanding.
(Hiroshi and Koji discussing Topic 6 – Pets)[00:04:28.14]
01 Hiroshi: o:::h (.3) I think so too (.5) un (.2)
02
a:nd I thi::nk (.5) un: some o::f couples=
03 Koji: =couples?
04 H:[couples]
05 K:[oh ok].
06 H: couples (.3) cannot (.2) ha:s (.2) children
Clarification requests: any expression by a speaker to elicit clarification of the interlocutor’s utterance andrequires new information from the interlocutor. In line 2, Aki requests clarification about 'dog run', in line
3 Sayo explains and in line 4 Aki offers an understanding, but Sayo explains further, and by line 13, Aki
confirms her understanding.
(Aki and Sayo discussing Topic 6 – Pets)[00:04:01.26]
01 Sayo: an:d mother (.2) un: ta:ke dog:s to:: dog run=
02 Aki:=dog run? what do you mean
03 S:
dog run is (.2) un:: (.3) park for dogs
04 A:
ah take a take a walk?
05 S:
no.
06 A:
no?
07 S:
um (.2) many? (.3) many do:gs (.2) um: gather (.2) in
09 A:
o::h I don’t know
10 S:
um (.2) so: do you know dog cafe?
11 A:yeah a::: I know I know
12 S:
um (.2) do(g) li:ke a dog cafe
13 A:
mmm:: (.3) ok I understand46

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

Appendix D
Transcription Key
Jeffersonian Transcription Notation includes the following symbols:
SymbolName

Use[ text ]Brackets

Indicates the start and end points of overlapping speech.

=

Equal Sign

Indicates the break and subsequent continuation of a single
interrupted utterance.

(# of seconds)

Timed Pause

A number in parentheses indicates the time, in seconds, of apause in speech.

(.)

Micropause

A brief pause, usually less than 0.2 seconds.

. or 

Period or Down Indicates falling pitch.
Arrow? or 

Question Mark or Indicates rising pitch.
Up Arrow,

Comma

Indicates a temporary rise or fall in intonation.

-

HyphenIndicates an abrupt halt or interruption in utterance.

>text<

Greater than / Less Indicates that the enclosed speech was delivered more rapidly
than symbols
than usual for the speaker.

<text>

Less than / Greater Indicates that the enclosed speech was delivered more slowly
than symbols
than usual for the speaker.

°

Degree symbol

Indicates whisper or reduced volume speech.

ALL CAPS

Capitalized text

Indicates shouted or increased volume speech.

underline

Underlined text

Indicates the speaker is emphasizing or stressing the speech.

:::

Colon(s)Indicates prolongation of an utterance.

(hhh)

Audible exhalation? or (.hhh)

High Dot

Audible inhalation( text )Parentheses

Speech which is unclear or in doubt in the transcript.

(( italic text ))DoubleParentheses

Annotation of non-verbal activity.

47

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

Appendix E
Video Recording Speaking Rubric
Student Name: ______________________________________

Superior Criterion

Total

Interactive Communication

10

PUT Video 1 6 12

Evaluator:

Initiating/Responding Initiates
andresponds
appropriately
Development
 Maintains and develops theinteraction and negotiates towards
an outcome with very little support
Use of conversation strategies
 Uses CS appropriately
Delivery5

Pronunciation / Intelligibility
 Is intelligible
 Intonation is generally appropriate
 Sentence and word stress isgenerally accurately placed
Volume Can be clearly heard
Fluency Produces extended stretches oflanguage despite some hesitation
Eye contact
 Maintains comfortable eye contact
Content

548

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

Cohesive / Coherent
 Uses a range of cohesive devices
Relevant
 Contributions are relevant despitesome repetition
Depth/Extent
 Can develop the topic and include
support for the reasons
S=Meets all of the criteria, A=Meets most of the criteria, B= Meets some of the criteria, C=Needs
improvement

Comments
Appendix F
Individual Speaking Results
1. Aki (Speaking) Aki
Vid 1
IC average
3.66
D average
2
C average
2
Total Average
7.66

Aki
Vid 6
7.33
3.33
3.33
14
Toru

Toru

Aki
Vid 12
10
4.33
4.66
19

Change

11.34

2.
Toru
(Speaking)
IC average
D average
C average
Total Average

Vid 6
6
3.33
4.66
14

Toru
Vid 129
4
518

Change

Vid 1
4.33
2.66
2.33
9.33

3.
Koji
(Speaking)
IC average
D average
C average
Total Average

Koji
Vid 1
7
4
3.33
14.33

Koji
Vid 6
8
4.33
3.66
16

Koji
Vid 12
9.66
4
4.66
18.33

Change4.
Hiroki Hiroki(Speaking)
Vid 1
IC average
4

Hiroki
Vid 6
7.33

Hiroki
Vid 12
8.33

Change

8.67

4

49

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK

D average
C average
Total Average

2.33
1.66
8

3.33
3
13.66

4
4
16.33

5.
Keiko
(Speaking)
IC average
D average
C average
Total Average

Keiko
Vid 1
4.66
2.33
2
9

Keiko
Vid 6
7.33
3.33
3
13.66

Keiko
Vid 12
Missing Data

ChangeMissing Data

4.66

6.
Midori(Speaking)
IC average
D average
C average
Total Average

Midori
Vid 1
7.33
3.33
2.66
13.33

Midori
Vid 6
9.33
4.33
5
18.66

Midori
Vid 12
10
5
4.66
19.66

Change8.33

6.33

Appendix G
Features Of Interaction to Track IC Development Over Time
(Adapted from Pekarek Doehler, 2019, p. 49 Figure 1.14)
Turn-Taking Organization- Practices for self- and other- selecting turns-at-talk and doing so at sequentially appropriate moments,
for dealing with overlap, for holding the floor and projecting multi-unit turn, etc.
- These practices pertain basically to ways of taking the floor in a precision-timed and locally adequate
manner and for holding the floor as a means for participating actively in a social interaction.
Repair Organization- Practices for self- and other-initiating or accomplishing repair and for recruiting co-participants' help,
etc.
- These practices pertain to ways of overcoming trouble with speaking, hearing or understanding in talkby warranting mutual understanding while maintaining the progressivity of talk.
Action Formation- Practice for designing turn as actions: asking questions, proffering offers, accepting invitations, making
or declining requests, etc.
- These practices pertain to how turns-at-talk are designed to be recognized as accomplishing precise
actions.
Sequence Organization (and Relatedly, Preference Organization)- Practices related to designing next turns as responding in precise ways to prior turns: offering agreement
or disagreement with an assessment, granting or rejecting a request, accepting or declining an invitationor an offer, etc.
50

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training and Development-UK- These practices pertain to ways in which turns and actions are displayed as being coherent with eachother (adjacency pair organization), and how alternative second actions are routinely accomplished as partof the preference organization of talk-in-interaction.
Overall Structural Organization- Practices for opening and closing a conversation, opening or closing storytelling sequences, transitioning
between larger interactional sequences, etc.
- These practices pertain to how an interaction is structured into larger sequences, and how the boundariesof these and relations to preceding sequences are made recognizable to co-participants.

51

International Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol.11, No.3, pp.,13-51, 2023
Print ISSN: 2055-0820(Print)
Online ISSN: 2055-0839(Online
Website: https://www.eajournals.org/
Publication of the European Centre for Research Training andDevelopment-UK

52