Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education in Digital Spaces 9783031191268, 9783031191275, 3031191269

Citation preview

Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education in Digital Spaces

Ufuk Balaman

Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education in Digital Spaces

Ufuk Balaman

Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education in Digital Spaces

Ufuk Balaman Department of English Language Teaching Hacettepe University Ankara, Türkiye

ISBN 978-3-031-19126-8    ISBN 978-3-031-19127-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19127-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To Elif ’im

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following colleagues for their valuable time and insightful comments that helped me improve the contents of the book (alphabetically ordered): Arzu Kanat Mutluoğlu, Betül Çimenli, Emir Ertunç Havadar, Fatma Badem Korkmaz, Fatma Karaca Turhan, Fulya Çolak, Gülşah Uyar, Hümeyra Can, John Hellermann, Merve Bozbıyık, Nergiz Kardaş Iş̇ ler, Nilüfer Can Daşkın, Pınar Topal, Semih Ekin, Søren Wind Eskildsen, Zeynep Önder. I would also like to acknowledge Kenan Dikilitaş’s constructive feedback on the introduction chapter, which made it a lot easier for me (and I hope the readers would agree that I managed) to better situate my work in the overall language teacher education research. A big thank you to the one and only, Olcay Sert, without whose supervision and never-ending support over the years, I couldn’t even have dared to write a monograph. I should also acknowledge that Olcay Sert’s work at the interface of conversation analysis and language teacher education has been the main source of inspiration that encouraged me to conduct research and teaching informed by the principles introduced in the book. Additionally, without their involvement, I would have no data to work on for this monograph: Thank you to all the pre-service teachers and teacher trainers who allowed me to collect data and document their excellent practices. vii

viii Acknowledgements

Although what I like to call conversation analytic language teacher education, CALTE, has been informing my teacher education practices mainly in digital spaces for some years now, the idea of writing a monograph emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. I would like to thank Üst Sıra Karmen Loftlular (Demirayak and Işık families) for their friendship that initially made the pandemic lockdowns bearable and later gave me support while writing up the monograph. The biggest thanks go to my family, Ali Batu Balaman and Elif Balaman. They are the joy of my life, the smile on my face, the fuel for endless love, and the hope for a brighter future. I love them more than anything in this world, and I would like to sincerely apologize if this book meant (and it probably did) shorter quality-time together. Now, it’s time to make up for it.

Contents

1 I ntroduction  1 A Brief Overview of Language Teacher Education Paradigms    1 Situating the Conversation Analytic Approach in the Practice of Language Teacher Education   5 The Structure of the Book    8 A Reading Guide   10 References  11 2 Conceptualizing  Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education 15 Mapping Out the Territory   15 Exploring the Knowledge Base of CALTE   20 Multimodal Conversation Analysis   21 CA Research on L2 Interaction   24 Exploring the Praxis Base of CALTE   29 CA-Based LTE Models   29 Interventionist CA and LTE   34 The Praxis Base in (Inter)Action: Focus on Reflective Talk   39 Reflection for (Inter)Action   40 Reflection in (Inter)Action   41 Reflection on (Inter)Action   42 ix

x Contents

Identifying Gaps and Devising Digital Solutions: Moving CALTE Forward  51 References  57 3 Pre-service  Teacher Learning in Video-Mediated Interactions 79 The CALTE Context and Data   79 Documenting Teacher Learning in Digital Spaces   87 Identifying a Teacher Learning Object in Video-Mediated Interactions  88 Retrospective Tracking of the Teacher Learning Object and Process 100 Prospective Tracking of the Teacher Learning Object and Process  104 Conclusion 116 References 118 4 R  eflective Talk in Video-Mediated Post-­Observation Conversations121 The CALTE Context and Data  121 Reflective Talk and Teacher Learning Opportunities in Digital Spaces  128 Reflecting on Identified Troubles in Online Practicum Teaching 129 Reflecting on Reflection-in-(Inter)action during Online Practicum Teaching  147 Conclusion 166 References 168 5 Design,  Feedback, and Reflection for Video-Mediated L2 Interactions171 The CALTE Context and Data  171 Operationalizing Teacher Learning in and for Digital Spaces  181 Actionable Disciplinary Knowledge  181 Selecting the Theme of the Task Sequence  181 Establishing the Design Criteria  183

 Contents 

xi

Preparation 187 Task Design Conversations for an Initial Idea  187 Whole Group Reflection on Design Ideas  196 Task Design Conversations for the Final Idea  201 Implementation and Revision  206 Conclusion 211 References 214 6 Translocating  Language Teacher Education: The Way Forward219 The Alignment of Research Findings with the Defining Features of CALTE  219 The Way Forward: CALTE and Translocating LTE  229 Translocating LTE for Practicum Teaching  231 Actionable Disciplinary Knowledge  233 Preparation 234 Implementation 235 Revision 235 Alternative Scenarios  236 Translocating LTE in and for Virtual Exchange  238 Actionable Disciplinary Knowledge  240 Preparation 241 Implementation 242 Revision 242 Alternative Scenarios  243 Concluding the Book  247 References 248 R  eferences253 I ndex279

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 HAN’s summary of Waring (2013)—Posted on 1 November 102 Fig. 3.2 HAN’s response to the second reflection question—Posted on 1 November 103 Fig. 3.3 HAN’s summary of Can Daşkın (2015)—Posted on 18 November108 Fig. 4.1 A screenshot from the video-mediated post-observation meeting124

xiii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 The knowledge and praxis bases of CALTE Table 3.1 Operationalizing the CALTE knowledge base in digital spaces Table 5.1 The CALTE model for the operationalization of teacher learning in digital spaces Table 6.1 CALTE models for translocating LTE

20 82 176 245

xv

1 Introduction

 Brief Overview of Language Teacher A Education Paradigms The history of language teacher education (LTE) includes a number of milestones that constitute what is known today as the knowledge base of LTE (Freeman & Johnson, 1998). Although there are divergent classifications of these milestones or approaches to LTE (cf. Roberts, 1998), I will discuss the behavioristic, cognitive, sociocultural, and reflective approaches to present an overall coverage. In an earlier classification, Wallace (1991) suggests that the craft model (behavioristic) historically appeared before applied sciences (cognitive) and reflective models. The craft model is a complete behavioristic account in that it requires a novice teacher to listen, observe, and imitate a master (experienced) teacher for an induction into the profession of teaching. The applied sciences model (Wallace, 1991), on the other hand, treats LTE as a scientific enterprise despite being largely concerned with a one-way knowledge-transmission model, the researcher/teacher trainer being the source of knowledge gained as the result of scientific inquiry and the teacher trainees being the recipient of this knowledge for transforming it into their language © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 U. Balaman, Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education in Digital Spaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19127-5_1

1

2 

U. Balaman

teaching practice. Freeman (1993) describes this approach as front-loading—that is, equipping the teacher trainees with the knowledge required for language teaching (also see Johnson & Freeman, 2001; Box, 2017). The knowledge-transmission approach is built on the diverse types of knowledge that should be integrated to LTE practices, which include pedagogical, content, and pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987): personal and practical knowledge (Connelly & Clandinin, 1985), declarative and procedural knowledge in and for LTE (cf. Fagan, 2012), and received and experienced knowledge (Wallace, 1991). The knowledge-­ transmission approach can be considered as the first branch of the cognitive models of LTE and constitutes a knowledge base for LTE that is dominantly individual-oriented. Later, language teacher cognition comes into play as the second branch to complete the cognitive model by bringing forward the impact of beliefs and prior experiences of teacher trainees on their teaching (cf. Borg, 2003). In addition to the continued interest in prioritizing mental processes and individual-centered understandings involved in LTE, teacher cognition research contributed much to the emerging perspectives that argue for treating teacher trainees as learners (i.e., teacher learning). The cognitive model informs most of the LTE programs worldwide even today, especially in university-level teacher education where professors are the teacher trainers and the trainees are under/post-graduate students. Freeman and Johnson (1998) criticize this model for delaying the teachers’ learning of effective teaching practices to their first years on the job, which seriously questions the feasibility of pre-service LTE programs. In their high-impact paper, they call for the reconceptualization of the knowledge base of LTE drawing on the foundations of sociocultural theory. The sociocultural paradigm in LTE primarily changed the approach to the role of knowledge in teacher learning by redefining the knowledge as a constructed entity rather than a transmitted/received one. This paradigm differs from the individualistic transfer/transmission perspective and calls for a community-based, social understanding that incorporates the sociocultural histories of teachers (and trainees) into the teacher learning processes for the purpose of presenting a holistic teacher learning perspective. Accordingly, constructs such as teachers’ personality, identity, psychology, experiences, professional lives, school contexts, and

1 Introduction 

3

therefore sociocultural histories have become prominent for an understanding of LTE and teacher learning. Freeman and Johnson (1998) state that for LTE a “knowledge-base needs to address: (a) the nature of the teacher-learner; (b) the nature of schools and schooling; and (c) the nature of language teaching, in which we include pedagogical thinking and activity, the subject matter and the content, and language learning” (p. 406). Additionally, Johnson (2006) argues for a sociocultural turn in LTE and identifies four main premises: (1) the replacement of theory/ practice divide with the reflexive construct of praxis (Freire, 1970 as cited in Johnson, 2006), (2) promoting teachers’ inquiry-based, experiential, and reflective ways of knowing, (3) extending the boundaries of teacher development from formal, institutional LTE activities (e.g., coursework) to social, professional, lived experiences of teachers (e.g., in classrooms or other professional contexts), and (4) locating LTE with a recognition of the social, political, economic, and cultural histories of the teacher learning and language teaching contexts. The sociocultural approach continues to grow as the mainstream way of enacting LTE worldwide (cf. Johnson & Golombek, 2016, 2020). Last but not the least of the mainstream LTE paradigms, reflective LTE shares many commonalities with the sociocultural approach to LTE, yet increasingly becomes an independent perspective with its own systematic ways to provide teacher learning opportunities. Following Dewey’s (1933) footsteps that constitute the foundations of reflective thinking and Schön’s (1983) contributions to general education and teacher development, the reflective approach was initially incorporated into LTE practices in Wallace’s work (1991). Wallace (1991) frames the reflective approach as an alternative to dominant craft (behavioristic) and applied sciences (knowledge-transmission and cognitive) LTE models in the field. Ever since, the reflective practice (RP) has possibly been one of the most commonly recognized and implemented components of LTE. Farrell (2018) highlights the potential of RP for critically examining the ‘less accessible’ components of teaching while also problematizing most approaches to RP for leading to confusion in implementation due to their restrictive scope, remedy-concerned implementation, and a solely retrospective orientation. He proposes an RP model comprising philosophy, principles, theory, practice, and beyond practice (sociocultural

4 

U. Balaman

aspects) in order to better involve the inner lives and emotions of the teachers in reflection processes, thus adding to the domain of LTE that deals with the psychology of teachers in their social contexts. RP is thriving, also with its research popularity that comes from the consensus about its affordances for teacher development (Mann & Walsh, 2017; Walsh, 2013) and due to the institutional policies that require talking with trainees commonly after their practicum teaching for delivering feedback and eliciting reflection. What Farrell (2018) calls remedy-concerned takes stage at this point, and the moments of improvable teaching practices are prioritized for ensuring teacher development. One thing to bear in mind for an overall understanding of the multiple LTE paradigms is that behavioristic, cognitive, sociocultural, and lately reflective paradigms do not necessarily reject one another. On the contrary, they carefully combine the evidently feasible, practical aspects of the earlier models while also establishing new grounds for more holistic frameworks (Roberts, 1998). This critical perspective that made LTE a well-established discipline also problematizes the dogmatic and conservative practices that unquestioningly underplay other perspectives. With this in mind, the theory and practice synthesis that has been enriching the knowledge base of LTE for decades paves the way for the sustainable growth of LTE through an ever-growing knowledge base and a closer attention to the praxis base. Accordingly, LTE professionals have been witnessing a historical adaptation process that includes shifts from imitation to knowledge transmission; from knowledge transmission to knowledge construction; from knowledge construction to critical reflection; and more recently toward the new grounds of knowledge and praxis co-­ construction in ways that are evidence-based, data-led, reflective, multimodal, and social interactional, which cumulatively mark the spot in which the present monograph aims to situate The Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education (CALTE) by addressing a number of gaps in the mainstream LTE.

1 Introduction 

5

 ituating the Conversation Analytic Approach S in the Practice of Language Teacher Education The sociocultural and reflective paradigms are referred to as the mainstream LTE in the present book. The CALTE perspective shares commonalities with these paradigms by recognizing the impact of socially situated LTE (Johnson & Freeman, 2001) on teacher learning. The socially situated LTE centralizes participation in social practices (Johnson & Freeman, 2001), contextually shaped opportunities for teacher learning, and the role of teacher collaboration and critical reflection. However, this perspective remains largely informed by the epistemological underpinnings of sociocultural theory, thus approaching teacher learning with a priori understandings rather than treating learning in and through surface manifestations of participant behaviors. Therefore, bringing evidence for teacher learning on a truly data-driven basis is an enduring gap in the mainstream LTE, which also leads to a discussion regarding the research methodology. Despite the variety of the adopted research methodologies in the mainstream LTE research, an approach to data analysis that promotes the emic perspectives of the teacher learners in situ is scarce. The dearth of emically driven research raises questions regarding the robustness of the evidence provided for teacher learning. Such evidence can be found by examining the teacher trainers’ and trainees’ moment-by-­ moment meaning-making mechanisms in and through talk-in-­interaction on a sequential basis, which is the main premise of multimodal Conversation Analysis (CA). The conceptualization of an LTE approach drawing on the research methodology of CA has its advantages. Let me explain these advantages in detail by bringing to your attention Walsh and Mann’s (2019) six key strands in their editorial to the recent handbook on language teacher education, which demonstrate the state-of-the-art of LTE and which I will also draw on to situate the conversation analytic approach in the practice of LTE. The six key strands are (1) language learner (i.e., the ways that LTE relates to language learners), (2) reflective practice, (3) data-led (i.e., using natural data for conducting LTE), (4) the use of technology, (5) working in collaboration with teachers, and (6) critical perspectives (i.e.,

6 

U. Balaman

adopting a critical stance during LTE practices). They propose language learner as the first key strand. Multimodal CA treats language learning and teaching as an entirely social interactional enterprise and offers a comprehensive set of research findings presenting robust evidence for the situated unfolding of language learning and teaching. I argue that the rich multimodal CA literature on these domains holds an unprecedented potential for the expansion of the knowledge base of LTE. This potential is presented in detail as the initial component of the LTE approach proposed in this book, namely the knowledge base of CALTE (see p. 20). An additional advantage related to the knowledge base lies in its sustainability. Every new scientific publication offers a new addition to the knowledge base and leads to a sustainable growth in LTE.  Lastly, the methodological tools of multimodal CA that have proven useful for describing learning in situ hold the same potential for convincingly describing teacher learning. Therefore, the first contribution of CALTE to the mainstream LTE is the provision of an additional, ever-growing knowledge base that reflects the social interactional realities of pedagogical settings and a methodological toolkit for closely examining teacher learning. The second strand Walsh and Mann et al. (2019) propose is the reflective practice. Multimodal CA offers a strong research infrastructure for an in-depth understanding of reflective talk in diverse institutional settings, and LTE contexts are not an exception. Taken together with the third (data-led) and sixth (critical perspectives) strands, the multimodal CA research on reflective talk (see p. 39) aptly showcases a diverse array of the effective methods deployed for facilitating critical reflection for-, in-, and on-action, which creates multiple teacher learning opportunities. Therefore, a closer look at reflective practice as a social interactional activity using multimodal CA does not only lead to the production of a means for the data-led training of trainers (i.e., based on the research-informed demonstration of the effective reflection models) but also brings convincing evidence for the impact of reflective talk in situ on teacher trainees (also see Mann & Walsh, 2017). This perspective also emphasizes working with teachers (the fifth strand) as (i) the source of the knowledge base of CALTE, (ii) the locus of inquiry for critically raising the awareness of teacher trainees, and (iii) the providers of reflection-in-action during

1 Introduction 

7

pre-service teaching practice. Altogether, the natural data generated during these reflective practices, pre-service teachers’ (PST) collaborative work with in-service teachers, and the overall critical perspectives cumulatively define the praxis base of CALTE. Therefore, the second contribution of CALTE to the mainstream LTE is the provision of an original and previously uncharted praxis base. Lastly, with reference to another key strand proposed by Walsh and Mann et al. (2019), the use of technology, I argue that the approach to LTE conceptualized in this book, namely CALTE, already consists of extremely rich research evidence thoroughly reviewed in Chap. 2. However, the LTE practices in digital spaces analyzed and informed by multimodal Conversation Analysis remains to be an unexplored research domain. Therefore, the focus on digital spaces in the book will multiply its innovative aspect by adding original sets of empirical evidence on the use of technology in LTE settings. At this point, it is imperative to unpack the digital spaces centralized in the operationalization of CALTE: First and foremost, the monograph presents research insights based on three different LTE projects that draw on diverse digital spaces including video-mediated interactional settings, learning management systems, digitally enhanced teacher observation tools and settings, online pedagogical task design settings, Virtual Exchange activities, and the use of videos and video repositories. More specifically, Chap. 3 presents a video-­ mediated interactional setting as the main digital space supported by a learning management system and the use of actual classroom videos. Chapter 4 argues for the affordances of the use of a digital observation tool during video-mediated post-observation conversations after the pre-­ service teachers’ video-mediated practicum teaching. Chapter 5 highlights the procedural unfolding of task design for Virtual Exchange across multiple LTE activities. Finally, Chap. 6 brings together the diverse practical implications reported in the analytic chapters and addresses ways of moving CALTE forward in fully online and hybrid modes of LTE by proposing a more translocated perspective toward LTE.  That is, the monograph primarily establishes a strong research background for the implementation of the CALTE activities and argues for the huge potential of enriching LTE by treating it as a location-independent enterprise, which is referred to as translocated LTE. The analytic chapters will clearly

8 

U. Balaman

address the implications of the findings for laying the ground for a concluding discussion on translocating LTE based on the affordances of CALTE in digital spaces.

The Structure of the Book Using multimodal Conversation Analysis, the book presents empirical evidence, contributes to a multitude of LTE domains in each chapter, and draws on the affordances of digital spaces while also carefully positing a new approach to LTE, namely CALTE. For a fuller understanding of the innovative aspects of the book, I will initially map out the territory of CALTE, present the newly proposed knowledge base for LTE, then continue with the original praxis base comprising dedicated CALTE models and the literature on reflective talk in Chap. 2. In so doing, the true potential of the digital spaces for CALTE and the affordances of the synergy between the digital spaces and CALTE for the mainstream LTE will be better established. I will focus on this potential by identifying gaps in the knowledge and praxis bases of CALTE and the mainstream LTE and devising digital solutions to fill these gaps in concluding Chap. 2 (see p. 51). From Chap. 2 onward, the book primarily presents (i) how digital spaces can be used to improve pre-service teachers’ awareness of L2 classroom interactional realities (Chap. 3), (ii) how digitally enhanced reflection on teaching in online L2 classrooms creates teacher learning opportunities (Chap. 4), and eventually (iii) how pre-service teachers design digital spaces to facilitate language learning and reflect on the interactional outcomes of these spaces (Chap. 5). Therefore, the teacher education practices described with the micro-analytic tools of multimodal CA occur in video-mediated interactional settings or aim designing such mediated settings. To further elaborate, Chap. 3 will present longitudinal evidence for teacher learning as a result of an LTE cycle that makes an original case for the teachability of the knowledge base of CALTE in video-mediated interactional settings and that underscores the significance of such teacher learning opportunities for future practices. Accordingly, Chap. 3 deals

1 Introduction 

9

with video-mediated interaction oriented to L2 classroom interaction and brings evidence for teacher learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chapter 4 also showcases data collected during the pandemic and presents an original context which includes the online practicum teaching of pre-service teachers in video-mediated language classrooms (on the videoconferencing tool, Zoom) and the video-mediated reflective talk with a teacher trainer facilitated by the digital observation tool, Video Enhanced Observation (VEO). Therefore, Chap. 4 deals with video-­ mediated interaction oriented to video-mediated L2 classroom interaction. Chapter 5 is based on data collected before the pandemic and is an extension of my earlier work (Badem-Korkmaz et al., 2022; Ekin et al., 2021). It presents a dedicated CALTE model which includes the pre-­ service teachers’ task design conversations and reflective talk with a teacher trainer in teacher training classrooms. What makes it directly relevant to the scope of the present book is that the tasks are designed for video-mediated interactions of L2 learners. In the final step, the pre-­ service teachers reflect on the recordings of video-mediated implementation of their own designs and complete the full CALTE cycle. Therefore, Chap. 5 deals with trainee-trainee and trainer-trainees classroom interaction oriented to video-mediated L2 interaction. Taken together, the pre-­ service teachers reflect on others’ (i.e., more experienced teachers) practice and reflect for their future practices in Chap. 3. They reflect on their own practice of video-mediated language teaching during practicum in Chap. 4 and reflect on the procedures and outcomes of their learning environment designs in Chap. 5. Overall, Chap. 6 aims to bring together the conceptualization of CALTE with its practical implementation in digital spaces described with research evidence in three analytic chapters for the purpose of moving CALTE forward by proposing new pathways for LTE activities in digital spaces. The concluding chapter will present a conceptual basis for a location-­independent perspective toward LTE and address the potential of CALTE for shaping the future of LTE in and beyond digital spaces.

10 

U. Balaman

A Reading Guide Considering the heavy emphasis on multimodal CA throughout the book, it is essential to propose this reading guide mainly for non-CA readers who, I would assume and hope, would be (language) teacher education professionals, practitioners, and researchers and more broadly stakeholders dealing with professional development. I strongly believe that the research-based arguments of this monograph carefully address the practical and theoretical needs of a wider audience than the multimodal CA researchers focusing on professional development and teacher education. To this end, please note that this reading guide is intended to this wider audience who would prefer navigating the empirical insights into LTE without going through the line-by-line CA analyses. First of all, Chap. 2 presents a comprehensive overview that unpacks the conceptual and practical basis of the newly proposed LTE approach, CALTE. Therefore, I see great value in familiarizing with this ever-­growing research infrastructure for a clearer understanding of the implications of the book for teacher education. Chapter 2 also briefly introduces the fundamental structures of conversation that both operate as the analytic tools of multimodal CA and constitute the knowledge base of CALTE. In the subsequent analytic chapters, the book follows the same structural organization: a detailed account of the CALTE context and data, the presentation of the original research, and a concluding discussion with reference to the practical and theoretical implications. The CALTE context and data sections are structured as in Methods sections of most academic texts except for the strong emphasis of the alignment with CALTE. These sections provide elaborations on the data and context by establishing direct links with the seven defining features of CALTE that will be introduced in Chap. 2 (see p. 19). After reading the chapter overview and the CALTE context and data sections, the readers are advised to take a brief look at the certain parts of the analytic descriptions. These parts include the pre-extract introductory paragraphs plus the last paragraphs before transitions into new sections. By so doing, the non-CA readers will find an opportunity to gain a working understanding of the main findings.

1 Introduction 

11

Finally, they will see a brief summary of these findings and their implications for the theory, research, and practice of LTE in the Conclusion sections. After navigating the analytic chapters through chapter overviews, the CALTE context and data, pre-­extract descriptions and post-analytic summaries, and the conclusion sections of the research chapters (3, 4, & 5), the readers might continue with the last chapter of the book which will point to the future avenues by drawing on the empirical research findings and propose pathways for implementing CALTE in fully online and hybrid settings. The readers who are exclusively interested in the digital spaces component of the book are welcome to explore Chap. 6. This said, I would strongly encourage you to join me in introducing a new LTE approach in the hope that this approach is one to break new grounds.

References Badem-Korkmaz, F., Ekin, S., & Balaman, U. (2022). Pre-service language teachers’ resistance to teacher trainer advice on task design for video-­mediated L2 interaction. Classroom Discourse, 13(2), 212–230. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109. Box, C. (2017). Navigating competing demands in pre-service TESOL supervision [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. Teachers College, Columbia University. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. (1985). Personal practical knowledge and the modes of knowing: Relevance for teaching and learning. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing: 84th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2 (Vol. 86, pp. 174–198). University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. DC Heath. Ekin, S., Balaman, U., & Badem-Korkmaz, F. (2021). Tracking telecollaborative tasks through design, feedback, implementation, and reflection processes in pre-service language teacher education. Applied Linguistics Review. https:// doi.org/10.1515/applirev-­2020-­0147

12 

U. Balaman

Fagan, D.  S. (2012). Conversation analysis as a methodology for examining teacher knowledge in practice. In D. Soneson & E. Tarone (Eds.), Selected papers from the 6th and 7th International Language Teacher Education Conferences (pp. 183–206). Farrell, T. S. C. (2018). Operationalizing reflective practice in second language teacher education. Journal of Second Language Teacher Education, 1(1), 1–20. Freeman, D. (1993). Renaming experience/reconstructing practice: Developing new understanding of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(5–6), 485–497. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417. https:// doi.org/10.2307/3588114 Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury. Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 235–257. https://doi. org/10.2307/40264518 Johnson, K.  E., & Freeman, D. (2001). Teacher learning in second language teacher education: A socially-situated perspective. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 1(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1590/ S1984-­63982001000100004 Johnson, K.  E., & Golombek, P.  R. (2016). Mindful L2 teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on cultivating teachers’ professional development. Routledge. Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2020). Informing and transforming language teacher education pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777539 Mann, S., Davidson, A., Davis, M., Gakonga, J., Gamero, M., Harrison, T., Mosavian, P., & Richards, L. (2019). Video in language teacher education. (ELT Research Papers 19.01 (p. 48). British Council, Teaching English. Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2017). Reflective practice in English language teaching: Research-based principles and practices. Routledge. Roberts, J. (1998). Language teacher education (1st. publ ed.). Schön, A. D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57. 1.j463w79r56455411

1 Introduction 

13

Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach. Cambridge University Press. Walsh, S. (2013). Classroom discourse and teacher development. Edinburgh University Press. Walsh, S., & Mann, S. (Eds.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of English language teacher education. Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.

2 Conceptualizing Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education

Mapping Out the Territory A comprehensive review of literature shows that CALTE can be mapped out in four research domains (i.e., actionable disciplinary knowledge, preparation, implementation, revision) under two main categories, namely knowledge base and praxis base. The selection of knowledge and praxis bases is the outcome of an informed decision to decentralize knowledge-centered dichotomies, for example, declarative vs. procedural knowledge (cf. Fagan, 2012) or content vs. pedagogical knowledge (Shulman, 1987) and to better address the theory/practice connection pursuing Freire’s (1970) concept of the praxis (as cited in Johnson, 2006). Rather than approaching knowledge as formal representation of static information encapsulated in various layers of teacher education programs, I treat the dynamic foundations of teacher learning in situ by examining the surface manifestations of knowledgeability about concepts, constructs, and relevant terminology in and through talk-in-­ interaction. I should also note that the knowledge base and praxis base distinction is primarily an effort to systematically map out the territory of

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 U. Balaman, Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education in Digital Spaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19127-5_2

15

16 

U. Balaman

CALTE based on the existing, but not extensively reviewed to date, literature instead of the provision of an exhaustive list of all topics of research interest in the field. Among the main strengths of multimodal CA for LTE is CA’s established research findings dealing with mundane and institutional social interaction. Of direct relevance to LTE are the studies on L2 classroom discourse (e.g., Seedhouse, 2004; Sert, 2015; Waring, 2016), L2 interactional competence (IC; e.g., Hall et al., 2011; Pekarek Doehler, 2018), and classroom interactional competence (e.g., Can Daşkın, 2015; Walsh, 2006, 2011). In his recent monograph, Huth (2021) presents compelling cases as to how usage-based and action-oriented understandings of language informed by research on multimodal CA can proliferate language teaching and LTE practices if these findings are systematically recognized as the knowledge base. I discuss this in more detail in the next section and elaborate on what defines the knowledge base of CALTE and how such knowledge base is operationalized in situ. As for the praxis base, there are three domains informed by multimodal CA that can be categorized as preparation, implementation, and revision. In the first domain, preparation, LTE practices are orientated to prepare teacher trainees for their actual practices based on hands-on pedagogical design procedures including lesson planning (e.g., Greer & Leyland, 2018), task design (Badem-Korkmaz et al., 2022; Ekin et al., 2021), setting the agenda for trainer observation (e.g., pre-observation cf. Box, 2017), and materials development (Bowles & Seedhouse, 2007). The collaboration between teacher trainers and trainees and/or among trainees themselves is at the heart of the preparation and might be in the form of preliminary (to teaching, task implementation) supervision/ mentoring/coaching and advice/feedback giving in order to provide an initial reflection opportunity so that the trainees can later maximize learning opportunities for their (future) students. Overall, the reflection component in this domain is prospective-oriented, hence can be identified as reflection-for-action (Killion & Todnem, 1991 as cited in Mann & Walsh, 2013; Farrell, 2015; Ishino, 2018). The second domain of the praxis base is the implementation that covers teaching and learning facilitation in interaction. Teacher trainees act as the primary figure in implementing teaching practices and facilitating

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

17

learning in pedagogical settings. Although the existing research body largely consists of pre-service teachers’ language teaching in classrooms, in most cases with a focus on pre-service teacher (PST) talk during their practicum (Balaman, 2018; Sert, 2015, 2019b; Waring & Hruska, 2011), the teachers also take an active part in creating learning environments, more specifically by designing tasks for learner-learner interaction (Badem-Korkmaz et  al., 2022; Ekin et  al., 2021), thus for facilitating learning. The LTE research interest in the latter lies in the provision of reflective opportunities to PSTs based on the learning outcomes facilitated by their own pedagogical designs. In this sense, using the recordings of one’s own practicum teaching for reflection-on-action is not much different from using the recordings of the outcomes of one’s own design except for the inherent participation frameworks—that is, PST is a co-­ participant in practicum teaching but is an outsider materials provider in the learners’ task implementation. More on this domain is a relatively less explored phenomenon, reflection-in-action (Farrell, 2015; Ishino, 2018), which covers the real-time reflective actions while teaching. Notwithstanding the potential of multimodal CA for identifying moment-by-moment unfolding of reflection-in-action (e.g., PSTs’ attending to trouble in their teaching and intervening real time, or non-­ participant observers’ intervention), research on this topic remains limited, to my knowledge, to Ishino’s (2018) article on co-teaching and Yılmaz’s (2020) thesis on cooperating teacher involvement during practicum. The third domain of the praxis base is the revision. Drawing on the actual practices in the second domain of the CALTE praxis base (i.e., implementation) and mostly (preferably) using the recordings of the learning facilitation and teaching activities, revision is the richest domain studied in literature. The research popularity comes from the consensus about the affordances of reflective practice for teacher development (Walsh, 2013) and the institutional policies that require mentoring PSTs over the course of their practicum teaching for giving/negotiating advice/ feedback (I. Park, 2014, 2017) in the form of post-observation conferences (Waring, 2014; Waring, 2013a, 2013b, 2017; Waring et al., 2018) and/or stimulated recall based on the recordings of the actual practice (Bozbıyık et al., 2022; Walsh, 2013). The overall activity in this domain

18 

U. Balaman

is reflection-on-action through recurrent references to the moments of good/improvable learning facilitation practices. In addition to the primary purpose of creating teacher learning opportunities based on critical and dialogic reflection, these reflective practices aim at increasing the interactional awareness of PSTs toward their own teacher talk, language use in pedagogical settings, and the outcomes of their own pedagogical designs in situ. The popularity of the reflective practices in the last identified domain of CALTE (i.e., revision) is also echoed in CA-informed LTE models, which leads to an important question: How about the synergies between each domain in the knowledge and praxis bases? All practices constituting the knowledge and praxis bases of CALTE can be considered a stand-­ alone LTE activity; however, the true potential of the multimodal CA perspective into LTE lies in carefully incorporating the diverse domains and then putting them into practice. The LTE models informed by multimodal CA (e.g., IMDAT Sert, 2015, 2021; SETT, Walsh, 2006; SWEAR, Waring, 2021; FAB, Waring & Creider, 2021) and juxtaposition of interventionist CA (cf. Antaki, 2011) with LTE (e.g., Filipi & Markee, 2018a) present convincing frameworks to strategically move LTE practices forward. I will present a thorough review of these models and approaches to LTE in the following sections. More on the interrelationship between the domains is the generation of natural interaction data from LTE practices in situ and their examination using CA, which can expand and better inform the knowledge and praxis bases of CALTE. The implementation domain, for example, can provide new CA insights into the knowledge base through the analysis of PST talk and learner-learner interaction. The preparation and the revision domains, on the other hand, are similar in structure due to their focus on collaboration and dialogic reflection, while their prospective (reflection-for-action) and retrospective (reflection-on-action) orientations vary due to their scope. Another noteworthy concern here is the differences between the cumulative knowledge base and the situated practices of PSTs. What the PSTs (believe to) know and do in action might diverge (Lazaraton & Ishihara, 2005), therefore, a closer look into teacher cognition-in-action would be

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

19

needed (Li, 2017, 2020). Finally, the transferability of the knowledge base and the preparation through pedagogical design into actual teaching practices is widely taken for granted. However, previous research indicates otherwise. More specifically, pedagogical design procedures with the active participation of teacher trainers and PSTs do not simply elicit the expected learning outcomes due to differences between displayed and practiced beliefs of PSTs (e.g., Fagan, 2012, 2013; Öztürk, 2020; Stokoe, 2014). After identifying the convergences and divergences between knowledge and praxis bases, the common ground in all CALTE practices becomes clearer and leads to the conceptualization of CALTE based on the following defining features: The defining features of Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education: 1.

Maintaining a strictly evidence-based and data-led approach to language teacher education

2.

Recognizing multimodal CA research findings on L2 classroom discourse and L2/classroom interactional competence as the knowledge base

3.

Raising the interactional awareness of pre-service teachers by providing teacher learning opportunities to operationalize the knowledge base

4.

Centralizing reflective practice by strategically attending to reflection for-, in-, and onaction in and through talk-in-interaction

5.

Maximizing interactional space in trainer-trainee and trainee-trainee participation frameworks during LTE practices and generating natural data in due course

6.

Documenting the LTE practices using multimodal CA and providing implications for future practices

7.

Incorporating the defining features above into dedicated CALTE models and putting

them into action

20 

U. Balaman

Table 2.1  The knowledge and praxis bases of CALTE Knowledge base

Praxis base Preparation

Implementation

Revision

Actionable disciplinary knowledge

Reflection-for-­ action in interaction

Reflection-in-action in interaction

Reflection-­on-­ action in interaction

• Multimodal conversation analysis • (L2/classroom) interactional competence • L2 classroom discourse

• Lesson planning • Practicum • Post-­ conferences • Pre-service teacher observation • Task design talk conferences conversations • Task • Stimulated • Pre-observation implementation recall conferences • Advice/ • Advice/ feedback feedback giving giving • Materials development

Chapter 3 (deals with the operationalization of CALTE knowledge base in digital spaces)

Chapter 4 (deals with digital spaces through video-mediated post-­ observation conversations oriented to online practicum teaching)

Chapter 5 (deals with a full CALTE cycle for digital spaces, from knowledge base to praxis base) Chapter 6 (provides implications based on the research findings and proposes translocated CALTE models)

In concluding this section, it is essential to note that this new approach to LTE is advocated based on the defining features, an original knowledge base, a wide scope of praxis base, the provision of empirical research evidence, and the emergence of new pathways for the practice of LTE. Table 2.1 provides a summary of the scope of CALTE and introduces the coverage of each analytic chapter (Chaps. 3, 4, & 5).

Exploring the Knowledge Base of CALTE According to Johnson (2009), the knowledge base of LTE covers “(i) what L2 teachers need to know, (ii) how L2 teachers should teach, and (iii) how L2 teachers learn to teach” (as cited in Johnson & Golombek,

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

21

2016, pp. 27–28). I argue in this book that the CALTE approach provides evidence-based responses to these questions drawing on the methodological underpinnings of multimodal Conversation Analysis. In his recent monograph, Huth (2021) asserts that it is inevitable to recognize the multimodal CA research on interaction and language use as the knowledge base for language teachers due to the wide coverage of the state-of-the art. Huth’s objective is to make “existing research on interaction and language use accessible to language teachers, teacher educators, and curriculum designers” (Huth, 2021, p. 17) including “the disciplinary terminology of research on language use in social interaction” (Huth et al., 2019, p. 151) which needs to be recognized as the basis for building teaching competencies. The disciplinary knowledge would, therefore, comprise sets of research-derived actionable knowledge that are defined as the “knowledge capable of informing action in organizational and other workplace settings” (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017, p.  56), which would cover the knowledge required for effectively teaching L2s or for facilitating students’ learning of L2s. It is against this backdrop that the CALTE knowledge base consists of an understanding of the fundamental structures of conversations as described in fine-grained detail through the methodological tools of multimodal Conversation Analysis in and beyond L2 interactional settings. Therefore, a closer look at multimodal CA in general and its use to systematically examine L2 interactions should unpack ‘what L2 teachers need to know’; ‘how L2 teachers should teach’; and ‘how L2 teachers learn to teach’, which cumulatively describe the landscape of the CALTE knowledge base.

Multimodal Conversation Analysis Primarily, the relevant disciplinary terminology comes from the founding pillars of Conversation Analysis going back to the work by Harvey Sacks, Emmanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson (Sacks et  al., 1974; Schegloff et al., 1977; also see Schegloff, 2007). Since their foundational work, CA has dominantly become the norm for analyzing social interaction with its moment-by-moment, micro-analytic, and data-driven perspective that documents fine-grained participant perspectives in situ by attending to

22 

U. Balaman

the mechanisms of turn taking, sequence and preference organization, and repair. Over the years, CA has gone through multiple major restructuring phases due to (1) the development of data capturing technologies, (2) the diversification of research contexts, and (3) the increasing recognition of its feasibility for gaining practical outcomes. To further elaborate, (1) Goodwin’s early work on video tapes (1980) changed the approach to the analysis of interaction data, and embodied conduct was acknowledged as an integral resource for meaning-making mechanisms leading to mutual understanding, thus becoming an analytic objective as well. Although the use of audio data never disappeared—but caused problems in data completeness (cf. Deppermann, 2018)—especially due to the privacy concerns in sensitive interactional contexts (e.g., psychotherapy), his pioneering work changed the norm for CA analysis through the distinctive use of video in research (cf. Mondada, 2006; Broth et al., 2014; Heath et al., 2010), facilitating eventually the emergence of multimodal Conversation Analysis (cf. Mondada, 2019). Moreover, the knowledge and action co-construction in interaction have been reconceptualized as cooperative actions (Goodwin, 2018) with reference to multiple, intermingling layers of interaction (also see Goodwin, 2000, 2013). Accordingly, space, materials, semiotic objects, gestures, gaze/head/body movements, facial expressions, posture, non-lexical vocalizations, and talk were shown to cooperate as layers and be socially managed by co-participants in close coordination. Against this backdrop, multimodal CA implicates a stance that goes beyond the verbal language production and offers insights into embodied social interactional mechanisms through rich video-recorded data and micro analysis of unelicited language use. (2) The diversification of the research contexts added another dimension to the research base of CA, that is, institutional CA (Drew & Heritage, 1992). Ever since, CA has started paying closer attention to the interactional architecture of institution-specific participation frameworks and the inherent epistemic asymmetries (e.g., doctor-patient, clerk-­ customer, teacher-student). Of direct relevance to the research interest in this book is the institutional settings in which language teaching, learning, and use emerge. This includes L2 classrooms, learner-learner task-­ based interactions, teacher development activities, and supervision/ mentoring sessions. The most influential outcome of the adoption of CA in exploring institutional interaction has probably been to radically

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

23

expand the coverage of CA.  Two edited volumes systematically established the theoretical and practical grounds for this research effort (Antaki, 2011; K.  Richards & Seedhouse, 2005) that is now largely known as applied CA (also see Lester & O’Reilly, 2018). (3) The strategic use of CA for increasing awareness of the members of an institution toward institution-specific interactional practices as a matter of improving operational capacity based on data-informed interventions marks another milestone in CA research history. This is specifically an important enterprise because it opens the gates of the research methodology of CA to the institutional efforts invested in the training of professionals, and LTE is not an exception. To briefly put, LTE is primarily a setting of professional development, the profession being teaching and the development implying learning how to do it. Given that language teaching is immanently a social interactional activity, arguably more than the teaching of any other subjects, an understanding of institutional interaction naturally informs LTE settings and creates ample ground for teacher trainers’ (and peer trainees’) interventions. Against this background, the perspective adopted in this book can be identified as applied multimodal Conversation Analysis—that is, applied (i.e., applying the knowledge base) to the institutionally established LTE contexts (i.e., to the praxis base). Let me go back to the question posed at the beginning of this section: What constitutes the CALTE knowledge base? The starting point is the fundamental structures of conversation; turn taking, sequence and preference organization, repair, and embodiment (cf. Sidnell & Stivers, 2013). Although presenting an overview of CA constructs is beyond the scope of this book (but see comprehensive introductions in Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; Have, 2007; Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008; Lerner, 2004; Liddicoat, 2011; Sacks, 1992; Sidnell, 2010; Sidnell & Stivers, 2013; Wong & Waring, 2020), I will take the liberty to briefly introduce some of these fundamental structures: A turn-at-talk is the contribution of a participant to the ongoing social interaction. Participants design turns through turn-constructional units (TCU, i.e., smallest communicatively meaningful units) and at the end of each unit there is a transition relevance place (TRP) where speaker change is not treated interruptive. Participants constantly monitor co-­participants’ TCUs and TRPs and take or allocate the turn in an orderly fashion. This orderliness is normative for the interactional management of this traffic

24 

U. Balaman

without crashing into each other, and participants manage it by using their knowledge of grammar, intonation, pragmatics, as well as embodiment. The knowledge here comes from the usage formats that we learn to use even before making linguistic productions in interaction (Huth, 2021). All conversations start with a turn, but a single turn on its own is not where the meaning making simply occurs. It is always the next turn that CA researchers look for evidence (i.e., next-turn proof procedure) as it is also where the participants in talk-in-interaction provide the evidence for their understanding of each other. Such reciprocal organization of conversation is referred to as sequence organization, that is the ways that participants ascribe and form social actions in adjacently positioned pairs (i.e., adjacency pair; e.g., question-answer, summon-­response, giving-taking instructions). The relevancy of the sequentially ordered turns is shaped based on the underlying preference organization invoked by the structural expectancies signaled in a previous turn. When a potential trouble in hearing or understanding emerges or is pre-empted, repair mechanisms are put into practice in order that the progressivity of conversation is mutually maintained and intersubjectivity is established. Last but not the least, embodied conduct surrounds all conversations at turn and sequence levels, and participants establish common ground and collaboratively make meaning. Overall, an operational understanding of turn taking, sequence and preference organization, repair, and embodiment means reaching an understanding of how participants understand each other and make meaning by attending to conversation at micro-­ level on a moment-by-moment basis. CA’s analytic power comes from reflecting this participant-relevant perspective (i.e., emic perspective) in fine-grained details of transcripts based on naturally occurring interaction data in the way that participants experience it in real time.

CA Research on L2 Interaction Expectedly, the CA research interest in L2 learning, teaching, and use is related to seeing the methodic ways of meaning making in L2 interactional settings. Negotiating and making meaning is largely considered as the primary catalyst for SLA (cf. Sert & Balaman, 2018 for a review of relevant research). CA’s impact on this endeavor comes from its robust methodology to substantially expand the mainstream SLA research

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

25

agenda based on its strict preference for natural data, promotion of emic perspective, treatment of language as a social entity, and shying away from labelling L2 users as deficient communicators, which is a view originating from the dominant native-speakerism in the field (Firth & Wagner, 1997). Given that evidence in CA research is nothing beyond the evidence that participants have access to real time, an evidence-based LTE, as well as an evidence-based SLA can gain great merits in adopting multimodal CA. Therefore, CA-for-SLA, L2 classroom discourse, L2 interactional competence, and classroom interactional competence lie at the interface of ‘pure CA’ concepts (e.g., turn taking, sequence and preference organization, repair, and embodiment) and ‘institutional CA’, which mark the next resort to look for the knowledge base of CALTE. Possibly being the most commonly investigated domain of institutional CA, L2 interactional settings rely on a very large discursive research infrastructure drawing from studies on a great variety of L2 teaching and learning settings, mundane interactions (e.g., lingua franca and intercultural communication outside the physical borders of classrooms, also see learning in the wild; Hellermann et al., 2019), and workplace settings (e.g., business communication). More specifically, this line of research juxtaposes these diverse inquiries and its increasingly independent field, widely known as CA-SLA (Markee & Kasper, 2004; Kasper & Wagner, 2011). The seminal paper by Firth and Wagner (1997), along with other overlapping attempts (e.g., Hall, 1995; Markee, 1994), led to flourishing interest in L2 interactional studies under the umbrella term, CA-SLA. This research endeavor gave birth to multiple sub-domains such as L2 classroom discourse, L2 interactional competence, and classroom interactional competence (to name a few). Among them, L2 classroom discourse is not confined to multimodal CA.  Other socially oriented research methodologies (e.g., critical discourse analysis; cf. Jenks, 2020; corpus assisted discourse analysis, cf. Farr et al., 2019) add to the field although the main contributions come from CA researchers in book-length studies (Hellermann, 2008; Kunitz et  al., 2021; Markee, 2000; Nguyen & Malabarba, 2019; Seedhouse, 2004; Sert, 2015; Waring, 2015) and research papers in top scholarly applied linguistics journals (e.g., Classroom Discourse, Applied Linguistics, The Modern Language Journal, TESOL Quarterly, Linguistics and Education). L2 classroom discourse scholarship

26 

U. Balaman

is quite extensive in scope and covers a wide range of topics including the fundamental structures of conversation, considerable amounts of social action types, and various pedagogical perspectives. It also feeds into the concept of classroom interactional competence. Before elaborating on this concept, let me briefly introduce ‘interactional competence’ in an L2. In a research overview paper elsewhere, we define L2 interactional competence (IC) and its development as follows (Skogmyr Marian & Balaman, 2018): IC consists of members’ methods to accomplish intersubjectivity in social interaction. Such methods include the ability to draw on various verbal and non-verbal interactional resources (including formal linguistic elements, such as grammar and lexis) and ‘routinized yet context-sensitive’ procedures for managing, for example, turn-taking and conversational repair, to achieve mutual understanding in a way that is appropriate for the local contingencies of the interaction. The development of L2 IC, in turn, is conceptualized as the progressive diversification of speakers' methods and an increased ability to tailor the use of these methods to the recipient and the interactional context. (p. 3)

In a recent special issue in Classroom Discourse, the diverging perspectives into L2 IC have been introduced by the leading CA-SLA scholars, each representing a various but not necessarily fundamentally divergent, perspective (Eskildsen, 2018; Hall, 2018; Hellermann, 2018; Pekarek Doehler, 2018; Waring, 2018). It has also contributed to the common ground of the knowledge base for CALTE by strengthening the multimodal CA research capacity for L2 interaction studies (Hall et al., 2011; Pekarek Doehler et al., 2017, 2018; Salaberry & Kunitz, 2019). An addition to our definition above (Skogmyr Marian & Balaman, 2018) comes from the increasing interest in usage-based understandings of L2 interactional development (cf. Eskildsen, 2018; Hall, 2019; Huth, 2021) that extends the ‘progressive diversification’ to ‘progressive routinization’ (e.g., of grammatical social action formats; Pekarek Doehler & Balaman, 2021) in an attempt to recentralize the role of local contingencies of L2 interactional achievements without putting a seemingly quantitative distinction between the diversification and routinization. For the purposes of this book, L2 IC will be drawn on to describe L2 learners’ social interactional

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

27

practices outside the physical borders of language classrooms while classroom interactional practices will be identified with reference to classroom interactional competence (CIC), which I now turn to. Drawing on the historical development of IC and the growing research infrastructure of CA-SLA, Walsh (2006, 2011, 2013) defines CIC as “teachers’ and learners’ ability to use interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning” (2011, p. 132). As clearly indicated in this definition, CIC means putting the interaction at the center of (language) classrooms. Although the construct covers both teachers’ and learners’ conduct for mutually accomplishing learning-in-interaction, the focus has largely been given to the quality of teacher talk in order to create opportunities for learning (Sert, 2017). Relatedly, the efforts for teacher development aimed at increasing teachers’ awareness of language use in the classroom for eliciting learning outcomes in line with teachers’ pedagogical goals. The development of CIC (e.g., Escobar Urmeneta, 2013; Escobar Urmeneta & Evnitskaya, 2014; Konzett-Firth, 2020; Sert, 2015), therefore, meant the development of interactional awareness, diversification of teacher talk practices, increased ability to fine-tune these diverse practices to the local contingencies (i.e., micro-contexts, Seedhouse, 2004; modes, Walsh, 2011) of language classrooms, and adapting to changing participation frameworks in the classroom to maximize learning opportunities. Over the years, the research ground for CIC has converged with the studies on L2 IC and more specifically L2 classroom discourse. I also take a similar stance in this book and systematically incorporate various findings in this intertwined research domains into the knowledge base of CALTE. Accordingly, the following list is an effort to present the features of CIC by acknowledging its ever-growing nature on the shoulders of multimodal CA research on L2 IC and L2 classroom discourse. The list starts with Walsh’s original items (in italics) and proceeds with further additions that have been made in the last decade1: • Using language that is appropriate to both the pedagogical goal and the learners (Seedhouse, 2004, 2008, 2019; Walsh, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011, 2013)  The parenthetical citations do not mean to cover the entire literature but simply aim to direct the readers to some recent work of direct relevance. 1

28 

U. Balaman

• Maximizing interactional space for increasing student participation (Konzett-Firth, 2020; Schwab, 2011; Tůma, 2018) • Evaluating and shaping learner contributions (Batlle, 2021; Can Das ̧kın, 2015; Kasper & Kim, 2007; Lee, 2007; Waring, 2008; Wong & Waring, 2009) • Making use of effective eliciting strategies (Duran & Jacknick, 2020; Waring, 2015) and questioning practices (Bozbıyık et  al., 2022; Waring, 2012) • Instructional idiolect (teachers’ speech habits) (Walsh, 2006, 2011) • Management of students’ L1 use and translanguaging practices (Amir & Musk, 2013; aus der Wieschen & Sert, 2021; Sert, 2015; Tai & Wei, 2020) • Management of interactional troubles in hearing and understanding (Aldrup, 2019; Badem-Korkmaz & Balaman, 2020; Hellermann, 2011; Somuncu & Sert, 2019) • Effective use of embodied resources (Jakonen & Evnitskaya, 2020; Looney & He, 2020; Matsumoto & Dobs, 2017; Sert, 2015, 2019a) • Management of unwillingness to participate (Evnitskaya & Berger, 2017; Sert, 2015) • Management of learner initiatives (Batlle & Murillo-Wilstermann, 2018; Garton, 2012; Kardaş İşler et al., 2019; Tai & Brandt, 2018; Waring, 2011) • Management of claims of insufficient knowledge (Sert, 2011; Sert & Walsh, 2013; Jakonen, 2015; Sert & Jacknick, 2015) • Effective use of reference to shared past in the classroom (Can Dasķ ın & Hatipoğlu, 2019a, 2019b; Jakonen, 2018a; Kardaş İşler & Can Das ̧kın, 2020; You, 2015) • Effective use of non-lexicals (Girgin & Brandt, 2020) • Effective use of the physical space, materials, and artefacts in interaction (Can Dasķ ın, 2015; Jakonen, 2018b, 2020; Sert & Amri, 2021) All in all, the fundamental structures of conversation (turn taking, sequence and preference organization, repair, and embodiment), the diverse CIC features, and the expanding literature on L2 interactional practices in various settings collectively create the knowledge base of CALTE. An understanding of the knowledge base underscores the what

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

29

of CALTE; however, the how (i.e., praxis base) is not answered yet. For this purpose, I turn to (i) the ways of incorporating this rich disciplinary terminological variety in the knowledge base into dedicated LTE models; the role of interventionist CA on LTE practices; and finally, complete exploring the praxis base by closely examining (ii) reflective talk in various LTE activities.

Exploring the Praxis Base of CALTE This section introduces the pre-existing CA-based LTE models, though they were not referred to as CALTE prior to this book, that systematically operationalize the knowledge base and juxtapose the defining features of CALTE. Following that, interventionist CA and its implications for LTE are discussed to present an overview of the CALTE praxis base.

CA-Based LTE Models Language classrooms are interactionally rich and structurally complex settings which require teachers to constantly attend to the unfolding conversations by making on-line, interactive decisions regarding the effective use of teacher talk for maximizing space for learning. Seedhouse (2004, 2019) and Walsh (2003, 2006, 2013) argue that teachers’ interactive decisions are the primary source for the emergence of learning opportunities especially when these micro-moments of classroom interaction converge with teachers’ pedagogical goals. The close examination of the patterns in pedagogically goal-convergent micro-moments of classroom interaction points to some shared categorical similarities. Seedhouse (ibid) refers to these categories as L2 classroom (micro-)contexts (i.e., form-accuracy, meaning-fluency, task-oriented, procedural) while Walsh (ibid) calls them L2 classroom modes (i.e., managerial, materials, skills and systems, classroom contexts). I focus on Walsh’s systematic attempts to draw on these categories as the basis for his CALTE model called Self Evaluation of Teacher Talk (SETT).

30 

U. Balaman

Walsh (2003, 2006, 2011, 2013) develops SETT framework pursuing several research and reflective practice phases. First, he categorizes the four classroom modes by (i) incorporating his CA analyses with the analyses of teachers based on the transcripts of classroom audio recordings and (ii) identifying the recurrent patterns with a special focus on the fundamental structures of conversation and the teachers’ deployment of these structures for achieving certain pedagogical goals. The collection of cases that marks the convergence between fundamental structures and pedagogical goals constitutes the basis for classroom modes. Second, he documents the interactional resources that are recurrently deployed by the teachers in each mode and develops the SETT grid comprising 13 interactional features (i.e., interactures in Walsh’s terms, see 2013, p. 84) categorically falling into the four modes. Walsh proposes the SETT framework as an analytically accessible tool for teachers so that they can gain a level of interactional awareness of their own ‘mode convergent’ use of teacher talk and improve their interactional practices by noticing the shortcomings, thus developing their CICs. Accordingly, the third and the last part, the self-evaluation, works when (i) the teachers record their own classrooms, (ii) evaluate the recordings using the SETT framework and analyzing teacher talk in terms of modes and interactures, (iii) identify good and improvable practices based on convergences and divergences between their talk and the relevant mode, and (iv) re-record future classes to track their own CIC development based on an increased awareness (Walsh, 2006). This said, how the knowledge base of the L2 classroom modes, interactures, and the associated pedagogical goals becomes more feasible/accessible to L2 teachers than the analytic tools of multimodal CA itself has not been discussed in detail. On a final note, a comparison of the emergence and implementation of the SETT framework shows that all defining features of CALTE (see p.  19), except the underlying multimodality in the CA analyses, play an important role in Walsh’s model. Despite the underdeveloped focus on the bodily conduct for meaning making, by putting classroom interaction at the center of language teaching and learning and determining the CIC development as the primary objective for teachers, SETT and Walsh’s LTE scholarship remain to be possibly the most influential CALTE model to date. I now turn to other high-impact CALTE models centralizing the role of CIC

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

31

for teacher development and language learning, and building on a finer-­ grained analytic stance. Another high-impact, pioneering CALTE work in the last decade has come from Olcay Sert. In his earlier work, Sert (2010) proposed a CALTE model for the Turkish context. In line with the Turkish higher education LTE policy, Sert’s early attempt includes one-semester-long observation of experienced teachers during which the PSTs are expected to familiarize with CA, CIC, SETT, and L2 classroom modes as the knowledge base and then to transcribe at least three hours to critically evaluate the experienced teacher drawing on this knowledge base. The following semester comprises video-recording PSTs’ lessons for self/peer-evaluation purposes and for the supervisor’s CIC-oriented evaluation. Later, this model evolved into a broader, global CALTE model, called IMDAT which is an acronym for his five-step model: Introducing CIC, Micro-teaching of PSTs to other PSTs acting as students, Dialogic reflection between the PSTs and the teacher trainer, Actual teaching of PSTs in an actual classroom with real students, and Teacher collaboration and critical self/peer reflection (Sert, 2015). Sert’s model takes its current shape in his recent chapter (2019b) “(I)ntroduction of CIC to teachers, (M)icro/initial-­ teaching experiences, (D)ialogic reflection on video-recorded teaching practices with the help of a mentor/supervisor/trainer, (A)nother round of teaching observed by a peer and (T)eacher collaboration for peer-­ feedback” (p.  221). In his recent study, Sert presents a case study that shows the development of L2 CIC through the operationalization of the IMDAT model and clearly describes the impact of a “technology-­ enhanced, reflective, and micro-analytic teacher education framework” (p.  217) on teacher development. The technology integration in Sert’s study is realized with the strategic use of Video Enhanced Observation (VEO) which is also utilized in this monograph (see Chap. 4, p. 109). Sert (2021) has recently called his model ‘VEO integrated IMDAT framework’ (see Figure 2 in p. 273) to mark the saliency of technology integration to CALTE. It is observable in both SETT and IMDAT that reflective practice provides ample ground for teacher development if natural classroom data and its CA analyses are systematically incorporated into LTE activities. We see a similar trend in teacher research, action research, and

32 

U. Balaman

exploratory research paradigms (cf. Dikilitaş & Hanks, 2018; Farrell, 2015). In a recent special issue on CA studies on learning and teaching (Balaman et al., 2018), Hale et al. (2018) outline a reflective LTE model referred to as CA-based action research. Drawing on the ‘typical stages for action researchers’, they propose “collecting data, problem identification, research (literature review), reflect (analysis), act (redefining the problem/ implementing intervention)” (2018, p. 57) as essential stages for teacher preparation. The emphasis in this reflective practice model is largely on the teacher’s own recordings, thus predominantly on one’s own action, which indicates a gap regarding reflection-for-action—that is, future oriented and open for the inclusion of the recordings of other experienced teachers. Despite the shared purpose of raising the awareness of PSTs toward their own teaching/preparation, both SETT and IMDAT are open to reflection-for-action based on the recordings of other, preferably experienced, teachers as also seen in Sert’s latest chapter on the technology-­ integrated implementation of IMDAT (Sert, 2021). Sert (ibid) focuses on “transformation of conversation analytic findings on L2 classroom interaction into resources for changing teachers’ pedagogical practices” (p. 253). He argues that CA findings can be harnessed to create opportunities for teacher learning based on the reflective engagement of PSTs with actual classroom video recordings of experienced teachers that are transcribed in fine-detail and annotated/analyzed using CA.  The first phase of the IMDAT model, ‘introducing CIC’, therefore, marks a rich pedagogical spot for increasing teachers’ (and teacher trainers’) awareness of certain classroom interactional practices (see CIC components above) based on comparative collections of CA findings, which makes a case for the operationalization of the CALTE knowledge base in situ. However, it has been argued that the observation or simply classroom video viewing falls short in the provision of opportunities for teacher development and that the affordances of actual classroom videos are maximized if practitioners view videos with fine-grained transcripts analyzed with CA and critically examine the video contents (Lazaraton & Ishihara, 2005; Seedhouse, 2008). Bowles and Seedhouse (2007) operationalize this perspective in a model of interactional competence development for teachers of language for specific purposes (LSP). In their model (see

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

33

Figure 5, p. 21 in Bowles & Seedhouse, 2007), they emphasize the need to accommodate the classroom videos and transcripts to the needs of the ‘specific’ professions. They argue that the close collaboration between CA researchers and LSP teachers is the key to improved teaching performance and elicitation of the related learning outcomes. Their work underscores the potential of using context-specific CA findings for materials development by turning the practitioners’ own data into a CA-informed professional development tool. The dialogue between CA researchers and the professionals in the site of data collection is, therefore, essential for eliciting teacher learning opportunities, and this becomes possible not only by CA researchers’ efforts to familiarize themselves with the day-to-day practices of a specific profession but also by the practitioners’ increased familiarity with the analytic affordances of CA (Lazaraton & Ishihara, 2005). The idea of introducing CA to teachers or using CA for producing materials for professional development has been furthered by other researchers. In addition to Sert’s (2010, 2015, 2019b, 2021) emphasis on teaching CIC to pre-service teachers, an increasingly growing research interest in teaching IC to language teachers is seen in literature. Building on the studies that describe the effective methods for facilitating the interactional development of language learners by putting CA findings into practice (e.g., Balaman & Daşkın, 2019; Barraja-Rohan, 1997, 2011; Batlle & Suárez, 2020; Cheng, 2016; Hall, 2020; Huth, 2014; Huth & Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006; Robinson, 2014; Sinwongsuwat & Nicoletti, 2020; Teng & Sinwongsuwat, 2015; Waring, 2018; Wong & Waring, 2020), Huth et al. (2019) recommend a model of LTE, referred to as Conversation Analysis-based Interactional Competence Instruction, consisting of three main steps, namely (i) reflection about beliefs, (ii) understanding real-time interaction, and (iii) understanding learner interaction. Particularly, teachers’ engagement in reflective thinking about the concepts that define language, a training on analytic procedures of CA, and establishing relevance between CA research and pedagogical practices constitute the basis for their model. All steps of the model are enriched with the use of CA-informed training materials. More recently, Huth (2021) elaborates on the theoretical foundations of this model along with the practical implications and creates a robust empirical ground for future LTE activities. This line of research should be taken

34 

U. Balaman

together with the rich insights provided almost in all L2 classroom discourse research publications. Traditionally, L2 classroom discourse papers include pedagogical implications for teacher training (e.g., Cheng, 2013; Reddington, 2020; Sikveland et  al., 2021; Skovholt, 2018b; Waring, 2016), albeit in varying levels of directness. A somewhat systematic attempt has recently appeared in another Classroom Discourse special issue edited by Maxi Kupetz, Karen Glaser, and Hie-Jung You (Aldrup, 2019; Geist et al., 2019; Glaser et al., 2019; Huth et al., 2019; Kampen Robinson & Liebscher, 2019; Seedhouse, 2019). The literature reviewed thus far shows that displaying context-specific videos and transcripts to the teacher trainees after strategically selecting them based on the CA research outcomes and ensuring the alignment with the target of the training are common practices in LTE. To put it simply, collecting data from a workplace (in our case from settings of language teaching, learning, and use) either from the professionals themselves or other professionals in practice, analyzing this data using CA, and later turning this into training materials is increasingly being recognized as an effective professional development method, which is also a common practice in another research and practice activity—that is, interventionist CA.

Interventionist CA and LTE In his edited volume, Antaki (2011) lists six kinds of applied CA (i.e., foundational, social-problem oriented, communicational, diagnostic, institutional, and interventionist) and describes interventionist CA as “where CA can be applied to a practical problem as it plays out in interaction, with the intention of bringing about some sort of change” (p. 1). Accordingly, interventionist CA can be defined as CA-informed professional problem-solving mechanisms through which CA analyses bring solutions to pre-existing (but see O’Reilly et al., 2020 for a recent rebuttal to the requirement for pre-existence in their model, Reflective Interventionist CA) interactional problems in a professional context and the solutions are put into practice with the active participation of professionals within the context of examination. Similar to Seedhouse’s (2008)

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

35

argument and most CALTE practices (e.g., Sert, 2015), it is argued that without the involvement of the members of an institution (Lazaraton & Ishihara, 2005) and their openness and readiness to change, CA analysts’ work on institutional talk cannot offer much beyond opportunities for awareness-raising, which reportedly cannot be taken as a magic wand for professional development. Building on the diverse attempts largely in response to the invitation/openness of institutions for the improvement of their interactional practices in service delivery (see selected chapters in Antaki, 2011 and ROLSI special issue 47(3) in 2014), interventionist CA is currently championed by Stokoe’s communication training model (cf. 2011, 2014), CARM: The Conversation Analytic Role-play Method (CARM) is an approach to training based on conversation analytic evidence about the problems and roadblocks that can occur in institutional interaction. Traditional training often relies on role-played interaction, which differs systematically from the actual events it is meant to mimic and prepare for. In contrast, CARM uses animated audio and video recordings of real-time, actual encounters. CARM provides a unique framework for discussing and evaluating, in slow motion, actual talk as people do their jobs. It also provides an evidence base for making decisions about effective practice and communication policy in organizations. (2014, p. 256)

CARM sparked some interest in evidence-based communication training activities in diverse workplace settings (also see the ViRTI-method by Due & Lange, 2015) including teacher education (e.g., CAiTE project; Sikveland et al., 2021; Skovholt et al., 2021; Solem & Skovholt, 2020). Church and Bateman (2019, 2020) have recently implemented CARM in early childhood teacher education and found the model useful for providing reflection and professional learning opportunities to teachers. They argue for the rich implications of CARM for teacher development and outline their rationale for the adoption of the model in four reasons, namely “(1) an insistence on using naturally occurring data; (2) a focus on sequences of actions rather than isolated (teacher) strategies; (3) a capacity to capture the competencies demonstrated by children; and (4) an accessible and practical method for teachers to develop meta-­awareness

36 

U. Balaman

of the mechanisms of learning-in-interaction” (2020, p.  656), which overlaps with the common points of interest of many professionals dealing with teacher education. Of direct relevance to the purposes of this book is the implementation of the interventionist models in LTE settings, thus falling into the scope of the CALTE praxis base. One of the most recent examples of interventionist CA work on LTE is Waring’s (2021) five-step SWEAR model: “(1) Situate the problem, (2) Work with a recording, (3) Expand the discussion, (4) Articulate the strategies, and (5) Record and repeat” (p.  285). Inspired by Stokoe’s CARM (2014), Waring’s model is an attempt to provide means for evidence-­based interventions in order to resolve the inherent challenges in L2 classroom discourse, more specifically raising awareness toward the management of multiple demands for participation (Reddington, 2018, 2020) while carefully attending not to discourage students’ willingness to participate, thus ensuring improved ‘heteroglossia’. In the first step of her model, Waring (ibid) determines the “participation paradox” (Reddington, 2018) as the situated problem. The second step marks the main point of inspiration by CARM in the way that a recording is materialized for the training. That is to say, the selection of the target-specific videos alternatively in open repositories (e.g., TalkBank, YouTube) or video corpora such as CEAPP (Corpus of English for Academic and Professional Purposes), but preferably captured from an experienced teacher based in the focal context of teacher training, is followed by (i) a brief description of the context and playing the focal turn-at-talk in the recording; (ii) playing incrementally in audio-only mode; (iii) discussing the potential choices at each meaningful interval of the audio recording and giving prompts such as what might happen next?; and (iv) playing the full video along with a transcript and opening space for critical evaluation of the teacher practices. The third step is an expansion of the discussion that is set up through multiple sub-steps above, with additional transcripts of the same phenomenon and their CA analyses. In the subsequent step, the strategies for the trouble resolution (in Waring’s case, “formulating heteroglossic responses”, p. 291) are discussed. Only in the final step, we see a slight divergence from CARM and more convergence with the other CALTE models that put one’s own teaching at the center (e.g., Sert, 2015; Walsh, 2013). Waring (2021) recommends recording one’s own

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

37

teaching and using this as the basis for CA-informed reflection-on-action through a number of guiding questions (see. p. 292). Overall, Waring’s model carefully posits an evidence-based teacher training model and enriches the CALTE praxis base. On a final note, SWEAR model promises creating synergy between the knowledge and praxis bases of CALTE by highlighting the potential transferability of published CA research into LTE. This would become even more important if the teacher trainer were also the author of the CA publication that would function as the ground for the training material. The lack of such connection has provoked criticisms by Filipi and Markee (2018b). Filipi and Markee (ibid) promote the ‘diffusion of innovations perspective’ in order that CA researchers can act as ‘agents of change’ and in return achieve effective CA-informed and intervention-facilitated teacher development. They present a thorough review of CA research on L2 pedagogy in terms of their relevance to teacher education and criticize most studies for remaining limited in scope by only providing implications rather than operationalizing purposeful interventions to improve teaching practices. In alignment with the defining features of CALTE (see p. 19), Filipi and Markee (ibid) call for CA-grounded awareness-raising activities, encouragement for practitioners’ reflective engagement with recordings of their own teaching, adoption of a longitudinal perspective for researcher and teacher collaboration, and strategic selection of change mechanisms that best fit the practitioners’ locally contingent needs. Sandlund et al. (2016) is one example to CA researchers’ use of their own publications for teacher training. They utilize one of their previous publications as the basis for training teachers on oral test interaction and assessment in their interventionist CALTE practice, and find that the dual role of teacher trainer and CA researcher works well in triggering reflection that eventually creates space for target-specific professional development, thus marking an effective practice for LTE (also see Lazaraton & Ishihara, 2005). Sert (2021) pursues a similar trajectory by comparatively showing the results of his publications for an initial training in CIC to better address the needs of the trainees in the LTE setting. The importance of using CA research publications in LTE lies in better addressing the use of specific classroom interactional practices. Carpenter (2021) focuses on such a classroom interactional practice, eliciting

38 

U. Balaman

student participation, and implements an interventionist CA cycle consisting of the following steps: pre-observation (discuss lesson plan), observation, video viewing for the identification of teaching problems, transcribing problematic instances, and post-observation. Carpenter (ibid) reports a student teacher’s development of elicitation practices in L2 classrooms over time as a result of repeating the same cycle six times in an academic year. The most recent interventionist CALTE model is Waring and Creider’s (2021) FAB framework. The model is an extension to Waring’s (2016) book on ‘pedagogical interaction’ in which she articulates a theory of interaction informed by decades of CA work based on the principles of competence, complexity, and contingency. Waring and Creider (ibid) state that “FAB framework is a practice-oriented re-conceptualization” (p. 10) of these principles for teacher development. Accordingly, the FAB also consists of three principles including (F)oster an inviting environment, (A)ttend to learner voices, and (B)alance competing demands. The model is a great example for the operationalization of the knowledge and praxis bases of CALTE in situ with its truly micro-level and exclusively reflective perspective toward teacher development. The systematic use of the three principles is referred to as a cycle of micro-reflection, and the interventionist CA perspective adopted is called micro-intervention, which are two original additions to CALTE. I anticipate that these new terms will be increasingly instrumental in communicating the affordances of the analytic tools of CA with a broader audience of teacher education professionals. Waring and Creider’s model also presents a feasible approach to school-based, interventionist teacher development activities, which would aim at improving supervisory interactions between supervising and pre-service teachers (Harris et  al., 2019) as well as among supervisory teachers’ study groups (Carroll, 2005). As Harris et al. (ibid) state, this points to an underlying difference between “a study for teacher education using CA methods … [and] a CA study of teacher education” (p. 258). I argue in this book that both approaches fall into the scope of the CALTE praxis base and I now turn to the latter—that is, CA studies of language teacher education, more specifically the discursive architecture of reflective talk, which should complete the overall picture of the CALTE praxis base.

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

39

 he Praxis Base in (Inter)Action: Focus T on Reflective Talk Earlier in the chapter, the CALTE territory was mapped out, and the praxis base was introduced under three main categories, namely preparation, implementation, and revision (see Table 2.1, p. 20). While the earlier section presented a review of the systematic attempts to navigate the praxis base, this section specifically deals with the reflection component in LTE settings and elucidates the interactional architecture of reflection—for-, in-, and most commonly on-action. The focus will be on how the reflective talk is elicited, managed, and becomes consequential for creating opportunities for teacher learning. Let me set up the scene with a number of definitions: In line with Dewey (1933), Schön (1983), Mann and Walsh (2017) and by taking Farrell’s (2015) definition as the basis for the formulation, I define reflective talk as critically analyzing the micro-moments of teaching and learning facilitation practices in interaction with others (supervisor/peer) commonly for the purpose of ensuring informed, improved future practices. Reflective talk in LTE usually occurs in settings of (1) advice giving that can be defined as “any activity of identifying problems and devising solutions” (Waring, 2017, p.  23), (2) feedback—that is, “information supplied to trainees concerning some aspect of their performance on a task, by a peer or a tutor, with a view to enhancing practice” (Brandt, 2008, p.  39), and (3) assessment that marks the interactional space for participants (supervisor/peer/trainee) to share their evaluative stances based on positive or negative analysis of the success of a practice (Waring, 2013a, 2013b). I argue that reflective talk covers advice, feedback, and assessment delivery while it also goes beyond these actions by centralizing an interactional perspective to promote the trainees’ voices and comprising in all cases a considerable number of take-away lessons for the trainees. These definitions reveal the delicate nature of reflective talk in LTE settings, which I will discuss after covering the role of reflective talk in preparation, implementation, and revision domains in the CALTE praxis base.

40 

U. Balaman

Reflection for (Inter)Action Regarding the preparation stage that is meant to host the reflection-for-­ action activities orientated to the improvement of future teaching and learning facilitation practices, research remains very limited. One practice at this stage is lesson planning conversations. Morton and Gray (2010) describe the discursive nature of these settings and find “producing directives, proposing actions, evaluating, articulating teaching principles and imagining classroom events” (p. 297) among the resources that the novice teachers deploy and in doing so improve their personal practical knowledge and identities. In a similar vein, Leyland (2016) focuses on ‘pre-enactments’ during which the team-teachers imagine classroom events and conversations by demonstrating how they plan to use the real objects. Greer and Leyland’s (2018) study also aligns with Morton and Gray’s (ibid) findings regarding articulating teaching principles in that the participants draw on naming the pedagogical activity to collaboratively arrive at a point of mutual recognition. Elsewhere, we discovered that pre-service language teachers refer to the names of the pedagogical activities in closing their task design conversations and by doing so they demonstrate their knowledgeability of the link between theory and practice while summing up their task design ideas in due course (Ekin et al., 2021). Overall, despite the potential for professional knowledge development, Gray and Block (2012) report only ‘limited opportunities for reflection’ in lesson planning conversations due to time constraints and the inherent stress related to the subsequent assessment by a supervisor/ teacher trainer (as cited in Harris, 2013). Another potential research ground informing the preparation stage and reflection-for-action component in CALTE could have been the school-based study groups (e.g., Carroll, 2005; J.  Harris et  al., 2019; Lazaraton & Ishihara, 2005) due to their prospective orientations to teaching, learning facilitation, and supervisory practices; however, reflective talk has not been a research concern in this line of research yet. Similarly, the dedicated multistep CALTE and interventionist models fall short in documenting the discursive aspects of reflective planning conversations and the models arguing for the positive impact of the pre-practice

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

41

CA-informed workshops on improved future practice are not exceptions. The enduring research gap at this stage of LTE practices are also seen in micro-teaching interactions. Despite their popularity and alleged potential for providing reflective thinking opportunities to teacher trainees (Amobi, 2005; Bell, 2007; Skinner, 2012), only one study to date (Öztürk, 2020), to my knowledge, describes how pre-service language teachers put their understanding of the target teaching context into practice while performing in the micro-teaching. Öztürk (ibid) compares such reflective moments with the actual teachings of the same set of PSTs. More specifically, she focuses on trouble sources of the PSTs-acting-as-­ students designed to challenge the PST-acting-as-teacher during the micro-teaching, and by doing so both the acting-students and the acting-­ teacher reflect their perspectives of the types of potential troubles that might emerge during actual teaching as well as the potential resolutions in return.

Reflection in (Inter)Action An even less explored reflective talk domain seems to be reflection-in-­ action which can be defined as real-time reflection integrated to an ongoing activity (Ishino, 2018; van Kruiningen, 2013) or immediate reflection on a certain interactional practice (Arano, 2020). I identified only two studies informing the CALTE praxis base: Ishino (2018) explores how reflection-in-action is enacted in a co-teaching setting and describes the co-teachers’ immediate actions of maneuvering in response to unexpected situations that call for an altered method of trouble resolution. Yılmaz (2020), on the other hand, closely examines a practicum teaching context and brings evidence for reflection-in-action through cooperating (but not institutionally tasked to mentor the pre-service teacher) teachers’ involvement with the PSTs’ teaching. The diverse array of practices that occur during the changing participation frameworks (from co-present nonparticipant to active participant) in a pre-school EFL classroom reveals what is treated in real time as potentially problematic by the cooperating teachers, thus marking an interesting domain of reflection-in-action.

42 

U. Balaman

Overall, both reflection-for-action and reflection-in-action remain largely unexplored in the CALTE praxis base while the reflection-on-­ action continues to grow on a comprehensive research infrastructure.

Reflection on (Inter)Action The research on reflective talk on the post-practice stage commonly with the presence of a supervisor, orientated to the ways that teaching and learning facilitation unfold in actual contexts, and based on the supervisor/peer observations and/or data-driven examination of the actual practices marks the main point of interest in the CALTE praxis base. The reflection-on-action during this stage occurs in institutional settings largely referred to as post-observation conversations albeit the existence of diverse terms such as post-observation conferences, debriefing, supervision meetings, and mentoring/advice giving/feedback sessions. Waring (2017) rightfully describes these settings as “a strategic site where teacher learning is accomplished” and where “teachers’ professional competence is built” (p. 20). The rich literature on these sessions shows an established structural organization widely recognized by most pre/in-service LTE institutions. Before presenting a thorough review of this literature, let me note that to ensure uniformity in my references to participant categories throughout, I will use the terms, supervisor and trainee to identify who delivers advice, feedback, and assessment and who is the addressee of these actions. Regarding the structural organization, the meetings are initiated with the supervisor’s general (e.g., “how do you feel”, see A.  Harris, 2013) opening question (Skovholt, 2018a; Vehvilainen, 2001). Or even more simply, they start with the establishment of supervisor and trainee’s mutual orientation toward a screen if video data is used for reflection-on-­ action (Kim & Silver, 2016). In supervisor-fronted one-to-one sessions, the opening also includes a preliminary evaluation by the supervisor (Arcario, 1994), while self-evaluation as the opening activity is more common in multiparty reflection sessions (Copland, 2008; Harris, 2013) and when it is solicited by the supervisor (Vehvilainen, 2001). In the subsequent step, the trainee finds space to respond to the initial question

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

43

and to the topicalization by the supervisor, which creates ample ground for the supervisor’s construction of feedback, advice, and assessment that are either positive or negative (Harris, 2013; Kim & Silver, 2016; Skovholt, 2018a; Vehvilainen, 2001). At the sequential level, the format of post-observation conferences is not much different than the triadic initiation, response, evaluation (IRE, Mehan, 1979) interactional format (Keogh, 2010; Vehvilainen, 2001). At the overall structural level, this format seems to be repeated in cycles until the closing of the meeting. Keeping in mind the consensually recognized impact of reflectivity in these settings on teacher development (Lazaraton & Ishihara, 2005; Mann & Walsh, 2017; Waring, 2017), the question is, then, when and where the reflective talk occurs. The literature shows this is not at all an easy question to answer, and reflective talk does not inherently exist in all post-observation conversations.

The Interactional Management of the Delicacy of Reflective Talk Reflection-on-action with a supervisor (and optionally with peers) largely consists of advice/feedback giving and evaluation of teaching and learning facilitation practices (see the definitions above). However, the main interactional affordances of the post-practice meetings for teacher learning lie in attending to the delicacy of the delivery of advice, feedback, and assessment in a truly reflective way without compromising the opportunities for the trainees’ active engagement with the potential points of development. Accordingly, reflective talk is an institutional activity that is challenging both to the supervisor and the trainees (Skovholt et  al., 2019) and extremely vulnerable to emergent moments of tension amongst all parties (Copland, 2010; Vasquez, 2004). The reasons for the tension appear to vary to some extent in literature. Copland (2010) shows that supervisor and trainees might participate in post-observation meetings with different expectations, and this brings about tension in the form of challenging the supervisor (or peers) or resistance to supervisor advice. On the other hand, Vasquez (2004) alerts the supervisors to the risks of tension due to being too careful with the delivery of advice and calls for balance between “positive appraisal and constructive criticism” (p. 28) for

44 

U. Balaman

true reflection. Positive appraisal implies paying close attention to the affective factors during the reflection conversations (Farrell, 2018). Shvidko (2018) and Batlle and Seedhouse (2020) show affiliative interactional resources can play an important role in managing the face-threatening aspects of feedback delivery, while Skovholt (2018a) approaches with caution due to the potential conflict between advice and solidarity. More on the post-­practice conversations, Waring (2014) mentions the challenging task of “breaking the testing frame” (p. 117) citing Goffman (1974), which might negatively influence the ‘depth of trainee reflections’ due to the asymmetry between supervisor and trainee and the inherent power dynamics (also see Donaghue, 2020a). Elsewhere, she explores a similar tension in advising and promotes the role of ‘going general’ in advice delivery to tackle the challenge of threatening trainees’ professional competence (Waring, 2017). The tension does not seem to disappear during self-assessment of the trainees either (Johansson et al., 2017; Skovholt et al., 2019), and they carefully design their self-critiques in a way to maintain their potential competence, even at the cost of complaining about observing/co-­teaching peers (Lewis & Wagner, 2022; Wagner & Lewis, 2019, 2021). This is mainly because self-assessment creates interactional space for other-­ assessment (Box, 2017; Logren et al., 2017), in this case other being the supervisor, thus the member of the institution who also evaluates the trainee performance. More recently, Kim and Silver (2021) found evidence for the reflectivity potential of trainee-initiated (by stopping the recording of the teaching to talk about) instances in post-observation meetings. In their study, they compared the supervisor roles as feedback provider and facilitator of reflection (also see Donaghue, 2020a), the earlier requiring trainees’ response to feedback that compromises reflective talk, while the latter promoting the trainee voice and leading to true reflection. They also highlight the importance of embodied and spatial organization of the post-observation meetings to encourage reflective talk by bodily facilitating the establishment of mutual orientation. Kim and Silver’s (ibid) emphasis on increased trainee voice was previously called for as a potential resolution of the delivery of critical feedback (Brandt, 2008), and trainee-centeredness has increasingly started taking front stage.

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

45

However, as almost all CA research on reflective talk shows in fine-grained detail, this is yet another thing that is ‘easier said than done’. Let me continue with some numbers demonstrating the overall picture of the trainee-centeredness: Farr (2010) finds that 64% of the talk in post-observation conferences is produced by the supervisor (as cited in Baecher & McCormack, 2015). Moreover, supervisors seem to use longer turns, while trainees find space only for short and minimally responsive turns (Vasquez, 2004). In the 38 sequences analyzed in Harris et al.’s study (2013), only five sequences are initiated by trainees and three of them are subsequent to supervisor questions. Even when supervisor’s self-­ reports create a balanced interactional space, the micro-analytic examination of their supervision talk shows otherwise (Keogh, 2010). Supervisors also appear to manipulate trainee contributions by “replacing trainee opinions with their own” (Copland et  al., 2009, p.  17). Therefore, let alone the trainee-centeredness, trainee voice is not given a sufficient level of priority (Copland, 2012), and trainees’ learning needs are not much addressed (Donaghue, 2020a). Overall, going truly collaborative and making space for trainee reflection (Waring, 2013a, 2013b) remain to be a real challenge, and supervisors tend to close in on the best practices rather than encouraging reflective talk (Copland et  al., 2009). Nevertheless, the bulk of research on reflective talk that closely examines the interactional architecture of post-practice meetings is not without solutions to these inherent problems. I now turn to the interactional resources deployed by supervisors in eliciting reflective talk by trainees, therefore moving on with the brighter side of the story.

Designing Conversations for Eliciting Truly Reflective Talk In his influential doctoral research on the interactional organization of reflective practice, Harris (2013) describes a number of interactional resources deployed by supervisors. In addition to the overall practices aligning with the structural organization of these meetings (see above), he presents a list of actions that occur during post-observation conversations including marking the activity shifts to help trainees notice transitions, giving explicit directions, supporting and encouraging trainee

46 

U. Balaman

contributions, making room for trainees’ selection of topics, problematizing off-­task talk, maintaining active listenership, maximizing space for trainee expansions, assessing trainee accounts and claims, asking questions, allocating turns to trainees, ensuring multiple participation, and praising good practices (see p. 203 for the complete list in Harris, 2013). Additional resources that seem to work well with eliciting trainee reflection include being less direct, taking fewer turns to talk less (Ma, 2009 as cited in Copland et al., 2009), deploying open-ended yet targeted statements (Zepeda, 2007 as cited in Waring, 2013a), and delivering negative feedback in a mitigated fashion with, for instance, accounts, gaps, and hesitations (Batlle & Seedhouse, 2020; Skovholt, 2018a). Of more direct relevance to the scope of this book and to the impact of multimodal CA on LTE are Waring’s studies (2013b, 2014, 2017). Initially, Waring (2013b) shows how supervisors successfully elicit trainee reflection by using assessment and advice. Accordingly, the trainees analyze their own success, review their own practice, and notice their improvable teaching behaviors in responding to supervisors’ assessment with acceptance or rejection. In accepting or rejecting the supervisor advice, on the other hand, the trainees find interactional space to test alternative actions, criticize teaching materials, and notice how their pedagogical goals might fail. In her 2014 study, Waring focuses on supervisors’ invitations for trainee reflection “on overall performance, on learning and success, and on issues and problems” (p. 103). As for overall performance, general questions seem to elicit sugarcoated trainee reflections, while specific ones include both strengths and weaknesses, thus being more reflective in nature. The reflective talk on learning and success shapes around either analysis aligning with supervisors’ stance in the invitation or account that triggers trainees’ references to their teaching experience in a way to fuel the reflectivity. Relatedly, Topal and Aptoula (2022) have recently found that observers’ references to their own teaching experience are also conducive to reflective talk. Finally, supervisors’ invitations to reflection on problems appear to lead the trainee to act defensively when a cause is topicalized to explain the nature of a problem, while solutionoriented supervisor initiations work more successfully in eliciting a more open reflection. More recently, Waring (2017) explores another interactional resource, going general, which comprises “depersonalizing the

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

47

advice and invoking larger disciplinary or pedagogical principles” (p. 20) that reportedly work well for managing the delicacy of post-observation conversations. Overall, the studies closely examining the reflective talk in these settings reveal diverse effective interactional resources in eliciting reflection. The review so far also points to the need for further attention to the methods deployed by supervisors in designing questions and the delivery of advice as well as resolving resistance to it. I continue with a review of advice delivery and resistance first and then move to research on question design in post-observation conversations. To start with, I should note that the literature on advice giving, seeking, and resistance is not limited to LTE settings, although all studies provide direct implications to LTE practices and substantially expand the CALTE praxis base. This said, let’s primarily focus on the methods that increase the overall quality of advice giving. Strong and Baron (2004) show indirect advice delivery facilitates eliciting extended responses from trainees (let me remind that I am using trainee to represent all types of mentees who are mostly students in the studies reviewed in this paragraph) and therefore supervisors systematically avoid giving direct advice. Accordingly, indirectness requires a more delicate turn design and sequential organization and a great diversity of interactional resources for maximizing the impact of the advice. Among these resources are (i) supervisors’ enactments to mobilize the preferred response (Sandlund, 2014) and increasing likelihood of the acceptance of the advice; (ii) explicit reference to the ‘end-users’ topicalized in the advice (i.e., readers of a text; or e.g., students in the trainees’ practicum teaching classrooms) (Leyland, 2021); and (iii) storytelling to clarify advice, pre-empt disagreements by giving accounts, and pursue understanding, agreement and acceptance, which cumulatively increases the chances for trainee alignment (Ta & Filipi, 2020). As a pre-emptive resource, accounts can be embedded in the advice delivery. Waring (2007) defines accounts “as the reasoning (i.e., cause and effect) provided to bolster the viability of the advice” (p. 372) and marks their significance in demonstrating the benefits of the advice to the trainees. Advice delivery usually takes more than one TCU to ensure a fine-tuned recipient-design and unfolds as multi-unit advice turns comprising (1) locating the focal point, (2) marking the problems, (3) delivering recommendations, and (4) emphasizing the relevance of

48 

U. Balaman

advice (Vehviläinen, 2009a). At this point, we should also take a closer look at trainee-initiated advice seeking sequences that understandably hold greater potential for reflective talk. The research shows that epistemic downgrades are commonly used in seeking advice and occur for the purpose of soliciting a targeted response from a supervisor or leaving an open space for a more general advice (I. Park, 2012; Vehviläinen, 2009b; also see Topal, 2021 for a CALTE-relevant work on video-mediated post-­ observation conversations). Vehviläinen (2009b) also finds checking for and proposing potential solutions through polar questions are used for seeking advice primarily with minimal expansions that later lead to supervisors’ extended grounding work and account delivery. It is also likely that the sought-for advice might be treated self-resolvable, thus being beyond the expectancies of the supervisor for advice delivery, and when this is the case, supervisors either respond and problematize respectively or delay the advice delivery for a while by asking counterquestions (Vehviläinen, 2003). Although trainees’ advice seeking and accepting/ agreeing with the advice would be an ideal action for the success of post-­ practice conversations from the perspective of the supervisor, I argue that trainees’ resistance to advice is an equally important domain due to its potential for promoting trainees’ engagement in critical analysis and the rich implications for showing how to bring about reflective talk by managing the resistance. Advice resistance is treated as a dispreferred action by supervisors (I.  Park, 2014), hence requiring complex interactional work both by supervisors and trainees for resolution. One argument underscoring such inherent complexity comes from Vehviläinen (2009a), and he finds that resistance to advice cannot be completely eliminated, which marks the saliency of the methods deployed by supervisors at least for minimizing the tension due to a “prolonged misalignment” (p.  195). Recently, we have found similar results regarding the enduring impact of trainee resistance practices on the teacher education activities that take place at different intervals across a period of a semester (Badem-Korkmaz et  al., 2022). For a fuller understanding, there is a need to look at the studies that describe (i) the sequential environment of advice resistance and (ii) supervisor’s management of resistance. As for the resistance, in her study on peer academic writing tutoring, Waring (2005) finds five

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

49

advice-­resistance practices categorized under three issues of academic writing. Accordingly, the participants resist advice on general writing concerns by citing difficulty: on specific content-related matters by asserting their own agenda, invoking content-specific authority, and doing being irrational; and on mechanics of writing by minimizing the import of advice (see p.  147). In a similar interactional context, Park (2017) focuses on two questioning practices for doing advice resistance, namely reversed polarity questions and proposing alternative revisions, which provide ample ground for reflective talk through recipients’ exploration of reasons for supervisor advice. As for the management of advice resistance, Waring (2007) proposes account-giving as a useful practice. In an earlier study, Vehviläinen (2001) shows how stepwise entry to advice is used as a sequential resource to manipulate the trainee’s perspective so as to better fit it to the supervisor’s advice. In an LTE setting, Waring (2017) argues for the potential of going general as an interactional practice to manage (potential) resistance. According to Hepburn and Potter (2011), the interactional management of resistance takes place through (1) the deployment of more idiomatic forms for redressing the resisted advice, (2) the supervisor-perspective-­ tilted tag questions to elicit confirmation for the resisted advice, and (3) occupying the response space after the tag question. Lastly, Park’s (2014) study describes both trainee and supervisor conduct in the sequential environment of advice resistance. While trainees, in a stepwise fashion, use agreement prefaces (e.g., yes but), epistemic stance markers, and accounts for resistance, the supervisors specify the advice with reasons/ examples after the agreement preface (e.g., that’s true but) (see I. Park, 2014, p.  368). Overall, advice giving, seeking, and resistance mark another very central piece in the puzzle of reflective talk. The final piece for a clearer understanding of the interactional architecture of reflection-­ on-­action is the question design, more specifically the types of questions that are more likely to elicit reflective talk. From the very beginning of reflection meetings, supervisor questions play an important role in eliciting open trainee reflection (Kim & Silver, 2016) by topicalizing the feedback with an initial problematization (Vehviläinen, 2009a), organizing the feedback with elicitation questions (Copland, 2008), making space for account delivery, and supervision

50 

U. Balaman

initiation with complex questions (Waite, 1992 as cited in Harris, 2013). After setting up the reflection event with initial questions, diverse question types are deployed. Although most question types appear to provoke trainee reflection in one way or another, display questions are criticized for their inherently judgmental tone (Waring, 2014) and signaling incipient negative feedback, thus minimizing the interactional space for reflective talk. These findings seem to align with the tension resolution mechanisms deployed in post-practice meetings (see above). Accordingly, display questions are to be avoided in supervisor talk, though they are also reported to be useful in supervisor’s demonstration of superior knowledge and expertise (Donaghue, 2020b). I argue that in trainee-­ oriented reflection-on-action activities—as all LTE settings are meant to be—display questions might lead to tension between assessment and reflection, the latter being more preferred for teacher development. In a similar vein, research on supervisor question design provides rich insights into the effectiveness of trainee-oriented questions. Kim and Silver (2016) show that even general questions help supervisors elicit trainee reflection, despite the misaligning findings in Waring (2014) and Skovholt et al.’s (2019) studies. Waring (ibid) shows that specific questions are responded with more reflective responses as are account-eliciting and solution-­ oriented questions provided that they are hearable as inviting reflection or as response pursuits (see p.  117). Similarly, Skovholt et  al. (ibid) describe that open-ended questions do not yield trainee self-reflection. Diverging from trainee-centeredness might lead to smooth feedback delivery through tilted and optimizing questions to enable better-fitted trainee reactions (Skovholt, 2018a), yet only at the expense of truly reflective talk. Lastly on the question design, Kim and Silver (2021) bring evidence for a relatively less explored phenomenon—that is, bodily mutual orientation—in video-based post-observation conferences. They show that supervisor questions can be heard as a request for stopping the video rather than an invitation for reflection. In an earlier study, Kim and Silver (2016) explore that trainees’ embodied actions can signal a relevant space for reflection initiation without the need to verbally do so. They also strongly emphasize the role of gaze and other embodied conduct in enacting different roles in post-observation conferences (Kim & Silver, 2021). Sandlund’s (2014) research on the use

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

51

of (bodily) enactment for modeling preferred behaviors is another example to solidify reflectivity. In a similar vein, Shvidko (2018) depicts how fine-tuned embodied actions foster affiliation with the trainees. The manipulation of physical objects in the interactional setting (e.g., a paper in writing conferences) extends the space visually and adds to the maintenance of supervisors’ agenda (Vehviläinen, 2009a). Fully associated with the multimodal CA perspective adopted in the present book, embodiment is increasingly gaining momentum in reflective talk research, and post-observation conversations are largely being recognized as embodied, multiactivity events (Box, 2017; Kim & Silver, 2016, 2021; Sert, 2021; Waring, 2014, 2021). It would not be surprising to see more research in future on embodiment in supervisor-trainee interactions, which would significantly expand the CALTE praxis base. In concluding this section, I would like to draw attention to another salient topic that will no doubt spark further research interest and briefly echo a call for the training of trainers (i.e., supervisors) by using the research findings thoroughly presented thus far. As repeatedly argued for in the earlier sections, the operationalization of the knowledge base in situ for an improved capacity in the praxis base holds unprecedented potential for multimodal CA-informed LTE practices. A similar equation seems a viable option here—that is to say, the findings on reflective talk and the interactional architecture of reflection—for-, in-, and on-action activities create a rich pedagogical domain that would make substantial changes in LTE mainly by equipping the supervisors with proper research-­ informed tools to maximize the efficiency of their teacher training activities (Copland, 2010, 2012; Copland et  al., 2009; Donaghue, 2020b; Harris, 2013; Ta & Filipi, 2020; Waring, 2005).

Identifying Gaps and Devising Digital Solutions: Moving CALTE Forward So far, this chapter has provided a detailed account of the founding pillars of a new approach to LTE. The conceptualization of CALTE has been enacted in four wheels under two main axes, namely the knowledge base and praxis base; the latter comprising (i) preparation (ii) implementation,

52 

U. Balaman

and (iii) revision. Although the state-of-the-art presents a very promising operational capacity based on the methodological underpinnings of multimodal Conversation Analysis and its practical outcomes for LTE, there are still a number of unexplored domains that require closer attention. This section will primarily identify these gaps with reference to the knowledge and praxis bases of CALTE and provide the diverse digital solutions that would eventually lead to a well-established conceptualization of CALTE and its operationalization in and for digital spaces based on the empirical research findings presented in the subsequent analytic chapters. Let me start with the existing gaps in the knowledge base of CALTE: First and foremost, classroom interactional settings constitute the largest proportion of the knowledge base. Considering that language classrooms used to be (until the COVID-19 pandemic) where most of language learning and teaching practices would institutionally occur, it is expected to find a common research interest in language classrooms. As discussed earlier, L2 classroom discourse researchers already have a tendency to offer some pedagogical implications for LTE mainly in their concluding discussions (e.g., Cheng, 2013; Reddington, 2020; Sikveland et al., 2021; Skovholt, 2018b; Waring, 2016). This is an increasing trend that can also be seen in a recent Classroom Discourse special issue (cf. Aldrup, 2019; Geist et  al., 2019; Glaser et  al., 2019; Huth et  al., 2019; Kampen Robinson & Liebscher, 2019; Seedhouse, 2019). The literature shows great potential for using the practical outcomes and multiplying this effort by encouraging more researchers to do so. However, providing implications cannot be a magical LTE solution unless there is a systematic effort to incorporate each new finding into the knowledge base of CALTE. I argue that video repositories (of natural classroom recordings) create a highly effective medium for such an enterprise. The TalkBank (www.talkbank.org) project coordinated by Brian MacWhinney is an early and excellent initiative that can be used for this purpose. Although the TalkBank is not created for LTE, it makes a great sample for ensuring the sustainability in the growth of the knowledge base of CALTE. A more recent repository pursuing a similar perspective toward sharing of communication data is The Corpus of English for Academic and Professional Purposes (CEAPP). CEAPP is a digital

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

53

database of classroom video recordings along with their transcripts (visit https://ceapp.la.psu.edu/ for further details). While the TalkBank maintains a strong open data-sharing policy, CEAPP is login protected. CEAPP also hosts the ClassBank repository of the TalkBank and continues to grow day-by-day with the contributions of the researchers based in the Center for Research on English Language Learning and Teaching in Penn State University and possibly other researchers interested in data-­ sharing. The most important affordance of CEAPP for LTE is the ‘Actions and Practices’ module that is a data-led catalogue of social actions (e.g., questions/answers, repair, diverse question types, correction, etc.) that occur in instructional settings. Additionally, CEAPP includes fine-­ grained transcripts annotated moment-by-moment with the video recordings. By using the ‘Actions and Practices’ module, it is possible to find purpose-specific video clips to be used in LTE.  There is also the German initiative, Edubreak (https://edubreak.de/en), which is a login protected learning management system with a built-in video-­commenting tool for critical reflection and discussion. Similar to Edubreak, IRIS Connect and VELTE of Southampton University provide video-based teacher education tools and activities. Chapter 3 shows the impact of video use on teacher learning in digital spaces and incorporates CEAPP and other published work to operationalize the knowledge base of CALTE in situ. The transferability of research findings is an enduring gap, and the video repositories exist as a potential digital solution. However, uploading published work as an LTE activity to a repository (including YouTube) does not fill all the gaps, and how to use the targeted repositories in LTE for the operationalization of the CALTE knowledge base for teacher development remains a legitimate question. Related to this are the questions: What is the role of video in LTE and how can videos be utilized for ensuring teacher learning? In their comprehensive review, Mann et  al. (2019) describe the role of videos in LTE in three main ways; namely, “‘using’ video, ‘making’ video and ‘communicating through’ video” (p. 9; also see Baecher et al., 2018; Christ et al., 2017; Seidel et al., 2013 for comprehensive reviews). This book addresses ‘using video’ while ­‘communicating through video’ (i.e., video-mediated interaction) in (i) Chap. 3 for documenting teacher learning across multiple teacher

54 

U. Balaman

education events and (ii) Chap. 4 for organizing video-based reflection sessions oriented to the online practicum of teacher trainees. Additionally, (iii) Chap. 5 presents a dedicated CALTE model and shows how preservice teachers engage in social interaction for facilitating learners’ ‘communication through video’ and later trainees’ ‘using video’ to reflect on the implementation of their designs. A noteworthy concern regarding ‘using videos’ is how to create teacher learning opportunities in and through pedagogically sound LTE activities. For this purpose, video clubs and videography activities are found to provide affordances for creating multimedia teacher learning environments. Video clubs are environments of teacher collaboration through engagement in critical discussions on each other’s or other teachers’ recordings of actual classrooms (e.g., Dobie & Anderson, 2015; Minaříková et al., 2018; Sherin & Han, 2004; van Es, 2012; van Es & Sherin, 2008). Chapter 3 focuses on the teacher learning outcomes based on pre-service teachers’ critical examination of the short video clips taken from naturally occurring language classroom interactions of other (i.e., experienced) teachers. Videography activities are similar in scope as they create spaces for teacher training based on the critical analysis of videos and the focal classroom contexts of other teachers (e.g., Blell & von Bremen, 2020; Blume & Schmidt, 2020). What are also notable in videography and video club studies are (i) the references and contributions to Goodwin’s construct, professional vision (1994), and (ii) the focus on prospective-oriented reflective practice. Therefore, viewing and critically analyzing videos are well-established LTE practices that also facilitate reflection-for-action. Further gaps regarding the operationalization of the knowledge base are seen in the dedicated CALTE models reviewed in detail earlier in the chapter (e.g., IMDAT, Sert, 2015, 2021; SETT, Walsh, 2006; SWEAR, Waring, 2021). These models commonly start with an introduction to the knowledge base (e.g., introducing CIC in IMDAT model, Sert, 2015), however, it is not clearly articulated how such an introduction will lead to teacher learning and to what extent the impact of such an introduction will be identifiable in the subsequent LTE activities. Therefore, the training methods such as the video club and videography are not much represented in the published work although they might have played

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

55

a role in the real-time implementations of these dedicated models. I see great potential in generating data from all various steps of these models for a better illustration of the ways that the inherent LTE activities play out in situ and for validating the feasibility of the models, therefore adding to their sustainability. So far, the sustainability problem in the growth of the knowledge and praxis bases of CALTE and the strategic use of classroom videos as a digital solution have been discussed. Another point of significance here is the strong emphasis on language classrooms as spaces within the physical borders of a school. Let me clarify first that I think classroom-based research will continue covering the largest proportion of the CALTE knowledge base in the future as well. However, the COVID-19 pandemic showed us that the knowledge base needs to be enriched with research findings from mediated settings, therefore with the recordings of video-­ mediated interactions in instructional settings. An initial attempt relevant to CALTE came from Moorhouse et al. (2021) in their survey-based study on e-classroom interactional competence. A micro-analytic look into online classrooms is, however, still scarce (Hochuli, forthcoming; Malabarba et al., 2022; Y. Park & Park, 2022; Ro, 2022; Badem-Korkmaz & Balaman, 2022). I anticipate this line of research will grow in the near future. A systematic effort to see the interactional unfolding of videomediated classrooms and its topicalization in the video-mediated postobservation conversations will be presented in Chap. 4. Let me continue with the existing gaps in the praxis base of CALTE: One thing to note at this point is that the conceptualization of CALTE is undertaken by closely examining the existing CA work on LTE settings and/or relevant research outcomes that provide direct implications for LTE practices. The literature shows that the praxis base covers only the physical borders of the classrooms and there is a dearth of research on learning facilitation activities. L2 education (or TESOL in our case) is undoubtedly beyond being a profession that solely comprises the teaching of a language as a subject in classroom settings. The discipline also covers the design of multimedia learning environments (Colpaert, 2020), hence the practice of LTE requires a closer attention to this area. More specifically, the training of pre-service language teachers for designing pedagogic tasks that create rich opportunities for learner-learner

56 

U. Balaman

interactions in digital spaces should be given priority for a more complete teacher development experience. This experience would be multiplied if an interculturality component is included, which would work well with learners who are geographically dispersed, who come from varying cultural backgrounds, and who engage in collaborative tasks in video-­ mediated interactional settings. This practice is known as Virtual Exchange (or telecollaboration, online intercultural exchange) and gains momentum in LTE settings worldwide (cf. Dooly & Sadler, 2013; Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2017; Moalla et al., 2020; O’Dowd et al., 2020; O’Dowd & Lewis, 2016). Accordingly, the existing gap regarding the lack of learning facilitation can be closed by encouraging CALTE practices that pay special attention to the design of digital learning environments for Virtual Exchange activities or directly putting CALTE into practice by integrating a Virtual Exchange component while operationalizing the knowledge and praxis bases. Chapter 5 presents a full-fledged CALTE model and aims to close this gap. Additionally, language teaching practice during pre-service teacher education should not be confined to physical settings as has been clearly seen by all stakeholders due to the pandemic. Similar to most professional practices, practicum teaching went online during the pandemic which also called for re-designing the preparation and revision stages of the CALTE praxis base by attending to the affordances and constraints of the digital spaces. However, there is no micro-analytic research, to the best of my knowledge, on the preparation, implementation, revision activities (i.e., the CALTE praxis base) that describe how to manage LTE in digital spaces. Therefore, the CALTE praxis base oriented to online practicum remains completely unexplored. This monograph fills this gap with empirical evidence for the affordances of video-mediated post-­ observation conversations for creating teacher learning opportunities in Chap. 4. Broadly speaking, the CALTE praxis base does not include any published reports that would make the diverse research findings accessible to practitioners in need of effective LTE practices for eliciting teacher learning outcomes in digital spaces. This also results in a gap between the reportedly feasible CALTE practices and the existing efforts to engage in LTE in digital spaces which are widely represented by the scholars dealing

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

57

with teacher education in the field of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) (e.g., Farr & Murray, 2020; Hubbard & Levy, 2006; Kessler & Hubbard, 2017; Torsani, 2016). In a recent meta-analytic study presenting an overview of 134 empirical studies on online (language) teacher education practices, Carrillo and Flores (2020) found that (non-CA) research interest was mostly in interaction among pre-service teachers, online communities of practice, pre-service teacher participation, video use in pre-service teacher education, and feedback, reflection and peer-assessment activities. Accordingly, the digital spaces that create opportunities for collaborative teacher learning facilitated with a reflectivity component in preparation, implementation, and revision phases of LTE practices hold great potential for teacher development. What is more, all these research topics fall into the scope of the research methodology of CA, which marks the significance of operationalizing CALTE in digital spaces. Addressing this gap, this monograph sits at the crossroad of all these topics of research interest (Carrillo & Flores, 2020) by drawing on a new approach to LTE in digital spaces that (i) informs the design of the LTE practices in various projects, (ii) guides the analysis of data collected from these projects, and (iii) uses empirical evidence to cultivate new thinking in LTE. In a nutshell, the following chapters present original research on the CALTE knowledge and praxis bases by exclusively focusing on (i) video-­ mediated pre-service teacher interactions and collaboration, (ii) video-­ mediated reflective talk between a trainer and trainee, and (iii) design, feedback, and reflection for video-mediated L2 interactions. In doing so, the aim is to complete the conceptualization of CALTE and even move it forward by transcending the physical locations and making space for translocating LTE.

References Aldrup, M. (2019). ‘Well let me put it uhm the other way around maybe’: Managing students’ trouble displays in the CLIL classroom. Classroom Discourse, 10(1), 46–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1567360

58 

U. Balaman

Amir, A., & Musk, N. (2013). Language policing: Micro-level language policy-­ in-­ process in the foreign language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 4(2), 151–167. Amobi, F. A. (2005). Preservice teachers’ reflectivity on the sequence and consequences of teaching actions in a microteaching experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 115–130. Antaki, C. (2011). Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. Palgrave Macmillan. Arano, Y. (2020). Doing reflecting: Embodied solitary confirmation of instructed enactment. Discourse Studies, 22(3), 261–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461445620906037 Arcario, P.  J. (1994). Post-observation conferences in TESOL teacher education programs [Ed.D.]. Teachers College Columbia University. Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. Aus der Wieschen, M. V., & Sert, O. (2021). Divergent language choices and maintenance of intersubjectivity: The case of Danish EFL young learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(1), 107–123. Badem-Korkmaz, F., & Balaman, U. (2020). Third position repair for resolving troubles in understanding teacher instructions. Linguistics and Education, 60, 100859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100859 Badem-Korkmaz, F., & Balaman, U. (2022). Eliciting student participation in video-mediated EFL classroom interactions: Focus on teacher responsepursuit practices. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 0(0), 1–23. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2127772 Badem-Korkmaz, F., Ekin, S., & Balaman, U. (2022). Pre-service language teachers’ resistance to teacher trainer advice on task design for video-­mediated L2 interaction. Classroom Discourse, 13(2), 212–230. Baecher, L., Kung, S.-C., Ward, S.  L., & Kern, K. (2018). Facilitating video analysis for teacher development: A systematic review of the research. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(2), 185–216. Baecher, L., & McCormack, B. (2015). The impact of video review on supervisory conferencing. Language and Education, 29(2), 153–173. https://doi. org/10.1080/09500782.2014.992905 Balaman, U. (2018). Embodied resources in a repetition activity in a preschool L2 classroom. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 12(1), 27–51. Balaman, U., & Daşkın, N. C. (2019). A series of conversation analysis based pedagogical activities for increasing interactional awareness. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities, 9(1), 1–13.

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

59

Balaman, U., Sert, O., & Seedhouse, P. (2018). Editorial to the special issue “conversation analytic studies on teaching and learning practices: International perspectives.”. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(SI), 1–3. https:// doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2018038792 Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (1997). Teaching conversation and sociocultural norms with conversation analysis. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. Supplement Series, 14(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1075/aralss.14.04bar Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811412878 Batlle, J. (2021). “Muy bien” as a transition token in teacher-student interactions in the Spanish as a foreign language classroom. System, 97, 102438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102438 Batlle, J., & del Suárez, M. (2020). An analysis of repair practices in L2 Spanish listening comprehension materials with implications for teaching interactional competence. Classroom Discourse, 12, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.108 0/19463014.2020.1810724 Batlle, J., & Murillo-Wilstermann, I. (2018). Learner initiative in the Spanish as a foreign language classroom: Implications for the interactional development. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33, 113–133. Batlle, J., & Seedhouse, P. (2020). Affiliation and negative assessments in peer observation feedback for foreign language teachers professional development. Applied Linguistics Review. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-­2020-­0001 Bell, N. D. (2007). Microteaching: What is it that is going on here? Linguistics and Education, 18(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2007.04.002 Blell, G., & von Bremen, F. (2020). Assessing pre-service teachers’ reflective classroom observation competence in English language teaching. In F. Lenz, M. Frobenius, & R. Klattenberg (Eds.), Classroom observation (pp. 225–244). Peter Lang D. https://doi.org/10.3726/b16732 Blume, C., & Schmidt, T. (2020). All kinds of special: Using multi-perspective classroom videography to prepare EFL teachers for learners with special educational needs. In F. Lenz, M. Frobenius, & R. Klattenberg (Eds.), Classroom observation (pp. 201–224). Peter Lang D. https://doi.org/10.3726/b16732 Bowles, H., & Seedhouse, P. (Eds.). (2007). Conversation analysis and language for specific purposes. Peter Lang. Box, C. (2017). Navigating competing demands in pre-service TESOL supervision [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. Teachers College, Columbia University.

60 

U. Balaman

Bozbıyık, M., Sert, O., & Bacanak, K. D. (2022). VEO-integrated IMDAT in pre-service language teacher education: A focus on change in teacher questioning practices. In P. Seedhouse (Ed.), Video enhanced observation for language teaching: Reflection and professional development (pp.  97–116). Bloomsbury Publishing. Brandt, C. (2008). Integrating feedback and reflection in teacher preparation. ELT Journal, 62(1), 37–46. Broth, M., Laurier, E., & Mondada, L. (2014). Studies of video practices: Video at work. Routledge. Can Daşkın, N. (2015). Shaping learner contributions in an EFL classroom: Implications for L2 classroom interactional competence. Classroom Discourse, 6(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2014.911699 Can Daşkın, N., & Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2019a). Reference to a past learning event as a practice of informal formative assessment in L2 classroom interaction. Language Testing, 36(4), 527–551. Can Daşkın, N., & Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2019b). Reference to a past learning event in teacher turns in an L2 instructional setting. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 16–30. Carpenter, L.  B. (2021). Supporting student–teacher development of elicitations over time: A conversation analytic intervention. Classroom Discourse, 0(0), 1–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.1946112. Carrillo, C., & Flores, M. A. (2020). COVID-19 and teacher education: A literature review of online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 466–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/0261976 8.2020.1821184 Carroll, D. (2005). Learning through interactive talk: A school-based mentor teacher study group as a context for professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005. 03.005 Cheng, T.-P. (2013). Codeswitching and participant orientations in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 869–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-­4781.2013.12046.x Cheng, T.-P. (2016). Authentic L2 interactions as material for a pragmatic awareness-raising activity. Language Awareness, 25(3), 159–178. https://doi. org/10.1080/09658416.2016.1154568 Christ, T., Arya, P., & Chiu, M. M. (2017). Video use in teacher education: An international survey of practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.005

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

61

Church, A., & Bateman, A. (2019). Methodology and professional development: Conversation Analytic Role-play Method (CARM) for early childhood education. Journal of Pragmatics, 143, 242–254. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.022 Church, A., & Bateman, A. (2020). Conversation analytic role-play method (CARM) for early childhood teacher education. Teacher Development, 24(5), 652–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2020.1820371 Colpaert, J. (2020). Editorial position paper: How virtual is your research? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(7), 653–664. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/09588221.2020.1824059 Copland, F. (2008). Deconstructing the discourse: Understanding the feedback event. In S. Garton & K. Richards (Eds.), Professional encounters in TESOL (pp. 5–23). Palgrave Macmillan. Copland, F. (2010). Causes of tension in post-observation feedback in pre-­ service teacher training: An alternative view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 466–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.001 Copland, F. (2012). Legitimate talk in feedback conferences. Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr040 Copland, F., Ma, G., & Mann, S. (2009). Reflecting in and on post-observation feedback in initial teacher training on certificate courses. ELTED, 12, 14–22. Deppermann, A. (2018). Chapter 9. Changes in turn-design over interactional histories – The case of instructions in driving school lessons. In A. Deppermann & J. Streeck (Eds.), Pragmatics & beyond new series (Vol. 293, pp. 293–324). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.293. 09dep Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. DC Heath. Dikilitaş, K., & Hanks, J. (2018). Developing language teachers with exploratory practice: Innovations and explorations in language education. Springer. Dobie, T. E., & Anderson, E. R. (2015). Interaction in teacher communities: Three forms teachers use to express contrasting ideas in video clubs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate. 2015.01.003 Donaghue, H. (2020a). Teachers and supervisors negotiating identities of experience and power in feedback talk. The Modern Language Journal, 104(2), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12633

62 

U. Balaman

Donaghue, H. (2020b). ‘Time to construct positive identities’: Display questions in post observation teacher feedback. Classroom Discourse, 11(3), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1581626 Dooly, M., & Sadler, R. (2013). Filling in the gaps: Linking theory and practice through telecollaboration in teacher education. ReCALL, 25. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0958344012000237 Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press. Due, B. L., & Lange, S. B. (2015). Video-based reflection on team interaction (The ViRTI-method). CIRCD Working Papers in Social Interactions, 1(3), 1–38. Duran, D., & Jacknick, C. M. (2020). Teacher response pursuits in whole class post-task discussions. Linguistics and Education, 56, 100808. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100808 Ekin, S., Balaman, U., & Badem-Korkmaz, F. (2021). Tracking telecollaborative tasks through design, feedback, implementation, and reflection processes in pre-service language teacher education. Applied Linguistics Review. https:// doi.org/10.1515/applirev-­2020-­0147 Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2013). Learning to become a CLIL teacher: Teaching, reflection and professional development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 334–353. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13670050.2013.777389 Escobar Urmeneta, C., & Evnitskaya, N. (2014). ‘Do you know Actimel?’ The adaptive nature of dialogic teacher-led discussions in the CLIL science classroom: A case study. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 165–180. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889507 Eskildsen, S.  W. (2018). Building a semiotic repertoire for social action: Interactional competence as biographical discovery. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1437052 Evnitskaya, N., & Berger, E. (2017). Learners’ multimodal displays of willingness to participate in classroom interaction in the L2 and CLIL contexts. Classroom Discourse, 8(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/1946301 4.2016.1272062 Fagan, D.  S. (2012). Conversation analysis as a methodology for examining teacher knowledge in practice. In D. Soneson & E. Tarone (Eds.), Selected papers from the 6th and 7th International Language Teacher Education Conferences (pp. 183–206).

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

63

Fagan, D. S. (2013). Managing learner contributions in the adult ESL classroom: A conversation analytic and ethnographic examination of teacher practices and cognition [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. Teachers College, Columbia University. Farr, F. (2010). The discourse of teaching practice feedback: A corpus-based investigation of spoken and written modes. Routledge. Farr, F., Farrell, A., & Riordan, E. (2019). Social interaction in language teacher education. Edinburgh University Press. Farr, F., & Murray, L. (Eds.). (2020). The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology. Routledge. Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A framework for TESOL professionals. Routledge. Farrell, T. S. C. (2018). Operationalizing reflective practice in second language teacher education. Journal of Second Language Teacher Education, 1(1), 1–20. Filipi, A., & Markee, N. (Eds.). (2018a). Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Filipi, A., & Markee, N. (2018b). From research to applications: Pedagogical considerations in language alternation practices. In A. Filipi & N. Markee (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom (pp. 205–223). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-­4781.1997.tb05480.x Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury. Garton, S. (2012). Speaking out of turn? Taking the initiative in teacher-fronted classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 3(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/19463014.2012.666022 Geist, B., Kupetz, M., & Glaser, K. (2019). Accounting for spellings: Ambisyllabic consonants in L2 German spelling discussions. Classroom Discourse, 10(1), 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1567361 Girgin, U., & Brandt, A. (2020). Creating space for learning through ‘Mm hm’ in a L2 classroom: Implications for L2 classroom interactional competence. Classroom Discourse, 11(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/1946301 4.2019.1603115 Glaser, K., Kupetz, M., & You, H.-J. (2019). ‘Embracing social interaction in the L2 classroom: Perspectives for language teacher education’ – An introduction. Classroom Discourse, 10(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/1946301 4.2019.1571260

64 

U. Balaman

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press. Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 272–302. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1475-­682X.1980.tb00023.x Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, New Series, 96(3), 606–633. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0378-­2166(99)00096-­X Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003 Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press. Gray, J., & Block, D. (2012). The marketisation of language teacher education and neoliberalism. In D. Block, J. Gray, & M. Holborow (Eds.), Neoliberalism and applied linguistics (pp. 114–143). Routledge. Greer, T., & Leyland, C. (2018). Naming an activity: Arriving at recognitionals in team-teacher planning talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 126, 52–67. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.11.009 Hale, C. C., Nanni, A., & Hooper, D. (2018). Conversation analysis in language teacher education: An approach for reflection through action research. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.16986/ HUJE.2018038796 Hall, J. K. (1995). "Aw, man, where you goin’?”: Classroom Interaction and the Development of L2 Interactional Competence. p. 27. Hall, J. K. (2018). From L2 interactional competence to L2 interactional repertoires: Reconceptualising the objects of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1433050 Hall, J. K. (2019). The contributions of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics to a usage-based understanding of language: Expanding the ­transdisciplinary framework. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12535 Hall, J. K. (2020). L2 classroom interaction and its links to L2 learners’ developing L2 linguistic repertoires: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000397 Hall, J.  K., Hellermann, J., & Doehler, S.  P. (Eds.). (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. Multilingual Matters.

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

65

Harris, A. (2013). Professionals developing professionalism- the interactional organisation of reflective practice [Doctor of Philosophy]. Newcastle University. Harris, J., Keogh, J., & Jervis-Tracey, P. (2013). Doing collaborative reflection in the professional experience. Australian Journal of Communication, 40(2), 33–46. Harris, J., Theobald, M., & Keogh, J. (2019). Combining analytical tools to inform practice in school-based professional experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 143, 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.04.002 Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. SAGE Publications. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781526435385 Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Multilingual Matters. Hellermann, J. (2011). Members’ methods, members’ competencies: Looking for evidence of language learning in longitudinal investigations of other-­ initiated repair. In J.  K. Hall, J.  Hellermann, & S.  P. Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 147–172). Multilingual Matters. Hellermann, J. (2018). Languaging as competencing: Considering language learning as enactment. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/19463014.2018.1433052 Hellermann, J., Eskildsen, S.  W., Pekarek Doehler, S., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2019). Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action: The complex ecology of second language interaction ‘in the wild’ (Vol. 38). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­22165-­2 Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2011). Designing the recipient: Managing advice resistance in institutional settings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74(2), 216–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272511408055 Hochuli, K. (forthcoming). Non talking heads: How architectures of digital co-­ presence shape question-silence-answer sequences in university teaching. In D. vom Lehm, W. Gibson, & N. Ruiz-Junco (Eds.), People, technology, and social organization: Interactionist studies of everyday life. Routledge. Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (Eds.). (2006). Teacher education in CALL. John Benjamins Pub. Co. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Polity. Huth, T. (2014). “When in Berlin…”: Teaching German telephone openings. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 47(2), 164–179. https://doi. org/10.1111/tger.10168

66 

U. Balaman

Huth, T. (2021). Interaction, language use, and second language teaching. Routledge. Huth, T., Betz, E., & Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2019). Rethinking language teacher training: Steps for making talk-in-interaction research accessible to practitioners. Classroom Discourse, 10(1), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.108 0/19463014.2019.1570529 Huth, T., & Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2006). How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr184oa Ishino, M. (2018). Micro-longitudinal conversation analysis in examining co-­ teachers’ reflection-in-action. System, 78, 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2018.07.013 Jakonen, T. (2015). Handling knowledge: Using classroom materials to construct and interpret information requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 89, 100–112. Jakonen, T. (2018a). Retrospective orientation to learning activities and achievements as a resource in classroom interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 102(4), 758–774. Jakonen, T. (2018b). The environment of a bilingual classroom as an interactional resource. Linguistics and Education, 44, 20–30. Jakonen, T. (2020). Professional embodiment: Walking, re-engagement of desk interactions, and provision of instruction during classroom rounds. Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 161–184. Jakonen, T., & Evnitskaya, N. (2020). Teacher smiles as an interactional and pedagogical resource in the classroom. Journal of Pragmatics, 163, 18–31. Jenks, C.  J. (2020). Applying critical discourse analysis to classrooms. Classroom Discourse, 11(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/1946301 4.2020.1761847 Johansson, E., Lindwall, O., & Rystedt, H. (2017). Experiences, appearances, and interprofessional training: The instructional use of video in post-­ simulation debriefings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11412-­017-­9252-­z Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 235–257. https://doi. org/10.2307/40264518 Johnson, K.  E. (2009). Trends in second language teacher education. In J. C. Richards & A. Burns (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to language teacher education (pp. 20–29). Cambridge University Press.

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

67

Johnson, K.  E., & Golombek, P.  R. (2016). Mindful L2 teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on cultivating teachers’ professional development. Routledge. Kampen Robinson, C., & Liebscher, G. (2019). Relationship building in L2 telecollaboration: Examining language learner closings in online text-based chats. Classroom Discourse, 10(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/1946301 4.2019.1567359 Kardaş İşler, N., Balaman, U., & Şahin, A. E. (2019). The interactional management of learner initiatives in social studies classroom discourse. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 23, 100341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lcsi.2019.100341 Kardaş İşler, N., & Can Daşkın, N. (2020). Reference to a shared past event in primary school setting. Linguistics and Education, 57, 100815. Kasper, G., & Kim, Y. (2007). Handling sequentially inapposite responses. In Z.  Hua, P.  Seedhouse, L.  Wei, & V.  Cook (Eds.), Language learning and teaching as social inter-action (pp. 22–41). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https:// doi.org/10.1057/9780230591240_3 Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 117–142). Routledge. Keogh, J. (2010). (In)forming formal evaluation: Analysis of a practicum mentoring conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 7, 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v7i1.51 Kessler, G., & Hubbard, P. (2017). Language teacher education and technology. In C. A. Chapelle & S. Sauro (Eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (1st ed., pp.  278–292). Wiley. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781118914069.ch19 Killion, J. P., & Todnem, G. R. (1991). A process for personal theory building. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 14–16. Kim, Y., & Silver, R. E. (2016). Provoking reflective thinking in post observation conversations. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(3), 203–219. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022487116637120 Kim, Y., & Silver, R. E. (2021). “What do you think about this?”: Differing role enactment in post-observation conversation. In S.  Kunitz, N.  Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (Vol. 46, pp. 303–328). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­52193-­6

68 

U. Balaman

Konzett-Firth, C. (2020). Co-adaptation processes in plenary teacher-student talk and the development of L2 interactional competence. Classroom Discourse, 11(3), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1597744 Kunitz, S., Markee, N., & Sert, O. (Eds.). (2021). Classroom-based conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy. Springer International Publishing. Kurek, M., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2017). Task design for telecollaborative exchanges: In search of new criteria. System, 64, 7–20. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.004 Lazaraton, A., & Ishihara, N. (2005). Understanding second language teacher practice using microanalysis and self-reflection: A collaborative case study. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 529–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1540-­4781.2005.00328.x Lee, Y.-A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(6), 1204–1230. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.003 Lerner, G. H. (Ed.). (2004). Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. John Benjamins Pub. Lester, J. N., & O’Reilly, M. (2018). Applied conversation analysis: Social interaction in institutional settings. SAGE Publications. Lewis, K. B., & Wagner, S. (2022). The potential of complaining as reflective practice in mentoring. ELT Journal. Leyland, C. (2016). ‘Pre-enactment’ in team-teacher planning talk: Demonstrating a possible future in the here-and-now. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 26(4), 675–704. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.4.07ley Leyland, C. (2021). The interactional construction of the academic reader in writing tutorials for international students: An advice-giving resource. Linguistics and Education, 61, 100900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged. 2020.100900 Li, L. (2017). Social interaction and teacher cognition. Edinburgh University Press. Li, L. (2020). Language teacher cognition: A sociocultural perspective. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-­1-­137-­51134-­8 Liddicoat, A. (2011). An introduction to conversation analysis. Continuum. Logren, A., Ruusuvuori, J., & Laitinen, J. (2017). Self-reflective talk in group counselling. Discourse Studies, 19(4), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461445617706771 Looney, S. D., & He, Y. (2020). Laughter and smiling: Sequential resources for managing delayed and disaligning responses. Classroom Discourse, 1–25.

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

69

Ma, G. (2009). An enquiry into the discourse of postobservation feedback on the TESOL course at Wits Language School. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Warwick. Malabarba, T., Mendes, A. C. O., & de Souza, J. (2022). Multimodal resolution of overlapping talk in video-mediated L2 instruction. Language, 7(2), 154. Mann, S., Davidson, A., Davis, M., Gakonga, J., Gamero, M., Harrison, T., Mosavian, P., & Richards, L. (2019). Video in language teacher education. (ELT Research Papers 19.01 (p. 48). British Council, Teaching English. Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2013). RP or ‘RIP’: A critical perspective on reflective practice. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1515/ applirev-­2013-­0013 Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2017). Reflective practice in English language teaching: Research-based principles and practices. Routledge. Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional ­education (Vol. 14). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-­94-­007-­4369-­4 Markee, N. (1994). Toward an ethnomethodological respecification of second language acquisition studies. In E. E. Tarone, S. M. Gass, & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp.  89–116). Routledge. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates. Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 491–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.00267902.2004.t01-­14-­.x Matsumoto, Y., & Dobs, A.  M. (2017). Pedagogical gestures as interactional resources for teaching and learning tense and aspect in the ESL grammar classroom. Language Learning, 67(1), 7–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/ lang.12181 Mehan, H. (1979). ‘What time is it, Denise?’: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory Into Practice, 18(4), 285–294. Minaříková, E., Píšová, M., Janík, T., & Uličná, K. (2018). Video clubs: EFL teachers’ selective attention before and after. ORBIS SCHOLAE, 9(2), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2015.80 Moalla, A., Abid, N., & Balaman, U. (2020). Task-enhanced virtual exchange between University of Sfax, Tunisia, and Hacettepe University, Turkey. In F. Helm & A. Beaven (Eds.), Designing and implementing virtual exchange – A collection of case studies (1st ed., pp.  117–126). Research-­publishing.net). https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2020.45.1120

70 

U. Balaman

Mondada, L. (2006). Video recording as the reflexive preservation and configuration of phenomenal features for analysis. Video Analysis, 51–68. Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2019.01.016 Moorhouse, B. L., Li, Y., & Walsh, S. (2021). E-classroom interactional competencies: Mediating and assisting language learning during synchronous online lessons. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220985274 Morton, T., & Gray, J. (2010). Personal practical knowledge and identity in lesson planning conferences on a pre-service TESOL course. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 297–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810365243 Nguyen, H. T., & Malabarba, T. (Eds.). (2019). Conversation analytic perspectives on English language learning, teaching and testing in global contexts. Multilingual Matters. O’Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (2016). Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice. Routledge. O’Dowd, R., Sauro, S., & Spector-Cohen, E. (2020). The role of pedagogical mentoring in virtual exchange. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 146–172. https:// doi.org/10.1002/tesq.543 O’Reilly, M., Kiyimba, N., Nina Lester, J., & Muskett, T. (2020). Reflective interventionist conversation analysis. Discourse & Communication, 14(6), 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481320939710 Öztürk, F.  F. (2020). A comparative conversation analytic study on pre-service teachers’ trouble design in micro teachings and actual troubles in pre-school EFL classrooms [Unpublished MA Thesis, Hacettepe University]. http://openaccess.hacettepe.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/11655/23067 Park, I. (2012). Seeking advice: Epistemic asymmetry and learner autonomy in writing conferences. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(14), 2004–2021. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.012 Park, I. (2014). Stepwise advice negotiation in writing center peer tutoring. Language and Education, 28(4), 362–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950078 2.2013.873805 Park, I. (2017). Questioning as advice resistance: Writing tutorial interactions with L2 writers. Classroom Discourse, 19, 253. Park, Y., & Park, S. (2022). Eliciting student participation in synchronous online L2 lessons: The use of oral and written DIUs. Linguistics and Education, 71, 101085.

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

71

Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759 Pekarek Doehler, S., & Balaman, U. (2021). The routinization of grammar as a social action format: A longitudinal study of video-mediated interactions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(2), 183–202. https://doi. org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899710 Pekarek Doehler, S., Bangerter, A., de Weck, G., Filliettaz, L., González-­ Martínez, E., Petitjean, C., & (Eds.). (2017). Interactional competences in institutional settings. Springer International Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­46867-­9 Pekarek Doehler, S., Wagner, J., & González-Martinez, E. (Eds.). (2018). Longitudinal studies on the organization of social interaction. Palgrave Macmillan. Reddington, E. (2018). Managing participation in the adult ESL classroom: Engagement and exit practices. Classroom Discourse, 9(2), 132–149. Reddington, E. (2020). Managing multiple demands in the adult ESL classroom: A conversation analytic study of teacher practices [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. Teachers College, Columbia University. Richards, K., & Seedhouse, P. (Eds.). (2005). Applying conversation analysis. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230287853 Ro, E. (2022). Going beyond practicing English: Language alternation in an L2 book club’s Zoom meetings. Language Teaching Research, 1. https://doi. org/10.1177/13621688221114731 Robinson, C.  K. (2014). “i’ve got to go now. bis dann”: Teaching closing sequences. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 47(2), 180–192. https:// doi.org/10.1111/tger.10169 Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation: Volumes I & II. Blackwell. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 Salaberry, M. R., & Kunitz, S. (Eds.). (2019). Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Sandlund, E. (2014). Prescribing conduct: Enactments of talk or thought in advice-giving sequences. Discourse Studies, 16(5), 645–666. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461445614539065

72 

U. Balaman

Sandlund, E., Sundqvist, P., & Nyroos, L. (2016). Research-based professional development workshops for EFL teachers: Focus on oral test interaction and assessment. Nordic Journal of Modern Language Methodology, 4(1) Article 1. https://doi.org/10.46364/njmlm.v4i1.295 Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E.  A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-­ correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 Schön, A. D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Schwab, G. (2011). From dialogue to multilogue: A different view on participation in the English foreign-language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 2(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2011.562654 Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell Pub. Seedhouse, P. (2008). Learning to talk the talk: Conversation analysis as a tool for induction of trainee teachers. In S.  Garton & K.  Richards (Eds.), Professional encounters in TESOL (pp. 42–57). Springer. Seedhouse, P. (2019). L2 classroom contexts: Deviance, confusion, grappling and flouting. Classroom Discourse, 10(1), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.108 0/19463014.2018.1555768 Seidel, T., Blomberg, G., & Renkl, A. (2013). Instructional strategies for using video in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.004 Sert, O. (2010). A proposal for a CA-integrated English language teacher education program in Turkey. Asian EFL Journal, 12(3), 62–97. Sert, O. (2011). A micro-analytic investigation of claims of insufficient knowledge in EAL classrooms. [PhD Thesis]. Newcastle University. Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh University Press. Sert, O. (2017). Creating opportunities for L2 learning in a prediction activity. System, 70, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.08.008 Sert, O. (2019a). Mutual gaze, embodied go-aheads and their interactional consequences in second language classrooms. In J.  K. Hall & S.  D. Looney (Eds.), The embodied work of teaching (pp. 142–159). Multilingual Matters. Sert, O. (2019b). Classroom interaction and language teacher education. In S.  Walsh & S.  Mann (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English language teacher education (1st ed., pp. 216–238). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.432 4/9781315659824-­16

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

73

Sert, O. (2021). Transforming CA findings into future L2 teaching practices: Challenges and prospects for teacher education. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation analytic research (Vol. 46, pp. 259–279). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-­3-­030-­52193-­6_13 Sert, O., & Amri, M. (2021). Learning potentials afforded by a film in task-­ based language classroom interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 105(S1), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12684 Sert, O., & Balaman, U. (2018). Orientations to negotiated language and task rules in online L2 interaction. ReCALL, 30(3), 355–374. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0958344017000325 Sert, O., & Jacknick, C. M. (2015). Student smiles and the negotiation of epistemics in L2 classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics, 77, 97–112. Sert, O., & Walsh, S. (2013). The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English language classrooms. Language and Education, 27(6), 542–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2012.739174 Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tate.2003.08.001 Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57. 1.j463w79r56455411 Shvidko, E. (2018). Writing conference feedback as moment-to-moment affiliative relationship building. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 20. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley-Blackwell. Sikveland, R. O., Solem, M. S., & Skovholt, K. (2021). How teachers use prosody to guide students towards an adequate answer. Linguistics and Education, 61, 100886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100886 Sinwongsuwat, K., & Nicoletti, K. (2020). Implementing CA-T model lessons in schools: A preliminary study in southern border provinces of Thailand. English Language Teaching, 13(11), 15. https://doi.org/10.5539/ elt.v13n11p15 Skinner, B. (2012). Changing identities: An exploration of ESL trainee teacher discourse in microteaching. Classroom Discourse, 3(1), 46–64. https://doi. org/10.1080/19463014.2012.666026

74 

U. Balaman

Skogmyr Marian, K., & Balaman, U. (2018). Second language interactional competence and its development: An overview of conversation analytic research on interactional change over time: L2 interactional competence and its development. Language and Linguistics Compass, 12(8), e12285. https:// doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12285 Skovholt, K. (2018a). Anatomy of a teacher–student feedback encounter. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tate.2017.09.012 Skovholt, K. (2018b). Establishing scientific discourse in classroom interaction teacher students’ orientation to mundane versus technical talk in the school subject Norwegian. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(2), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1212263 Skovholt, K., Nordenström, E., & Stokoe, E. (2019). Evaluative conduct in teacher–student supervision: When students assess their own performance. Linguistics and Education, 50, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. linged.2019.03.001 Skovholt, K., Solem, M. S., Vonen, M. N., Sikveland, R. O., & Stokoe, E. (2021). Asking more than one question in one turn in oral examinations and its impact on examination quality. Journal of Pragmatics, 181, 100–119. Solem, M. S., & Skovholt, K. (2020). Retningslinjer for vurderingssamtaler: Første delrapport fra forskningsprosjektet CAiTE (Conversation Analytic innovation for Teacher Education). Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge. Somuncu, D., & Sert, O. (2019). EFL trainee teachers’ orientations to students’ non-understanding: A focus on task instructions. In H.  T. Nguyen & T.  Malabarba (Eds.), Conversation analytic perspectives on English language learning, teaching and testing in global contexts (pp.  110–131). Multilingual Matters. Stokoe, E. (2011). Simulated interaction and communication skills training: The ‘conversation-analytic role-play method. In J. N. Lester & M. O’Reilly (Eds.), Applied conversation analysis (pp. 119–139). Springer. Stokoe, E. (2014). The Conversation Analytic Role-play Method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-­ play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 255–265. https:// doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.925663 Strong, M., & Baron, W. (2004). An analysis of mentoring conversations with beginning teachers: Suggestions and responses. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.09.005

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

75

Ta, B. T., & Filipi, A. (2020). Storytelling as a resource for pursuing understanding and agreement in doctoral research supervision meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 165, 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.03.008 Tai, K. W., & Brandt, A. (2018). Creating an imaginary context: Teacher’s use of embodied enactments in addressing learner initiatives in a beginner-level adult ESOL classroom. Classroom Discourse, 9(3), 244–266. Tai, K. W., & Wei, L. (2020). Constructing playful talk through translanguaging in the English medium instruction mathematics classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 1, 34. Teng, B., & Sinwongsuwat, K. (2015). Teaching and learning English in Thailand and the integration of conversation analysis (CA) into the classroom. English Language Teaching, 8(3), 13. https://doi.org/10.5539/ elt.v8n3p13 Topal, P. (2021). Fluctuations in epistemic (a)symmetry in video-mediated post-­ observation conversations [Unpublished MA Thesis]. Boğaziçi University. Topal, P., & Aptoula, N. Y. (2022). Going beyond the post-observation’s interactional agenda: The observers’ references to their practices and pedagogical understandings. Linguistics and Education, 12. Torsani, S. (2016). CALL teacher education: Language teachers and technology integration. Sense Publishers. Tůma, F. (2018). Enabling audience participation and stimulating discussion after student presentations in English as a foreign language seminars. Linguistics and Education, 47, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged. 2018.08.004 van Es, E. A. (2012). Examining the development of a teacher learning community: The case of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.005 van Es, E.  A., & Sherin, M.  G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.005 van Kruiningen, J. F. (2013). Educational design as conversation: A conversation analytical perspective on teacher dialogue. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.007 Vasquez, C. (2004). “Very carefully managed”: Advice and suggestions in post-­ observation meetings. Linguistics and Education, 26, 12. Vehvilainen, S. (2001). Evaluative advice in educational counseling: The use of disagreement in the “stepwise entry” to advice. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 34(3), 371–398.

76 

U. Balaman

Vehviläinen, S. (2003). Avoiding providing solutions: Orienting to the ideal of students’ self-directedness in counselling interaction. Discourse Studies, 5(3), 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030053005 Vehviläinen, S. (2009a). Problems in the research problem: Critical feedback and resistance in academic supervision. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830902757592 Vehviläinen, S. (2009b). Student-initiated advice in academic supervision. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 42(2), 163–190. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08351810902864560 Wagner, S., & Lewis, K. (2019). Complaining as reflective practice in TESOL teacher–mentor post-observation meetings. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 34(1), 1–26. Wagner, S., & Lewis, K.  B. (2021). Third-party complaints in teacher post-­ observation meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 178, 378–390. Waite, D. (1992). Supervisors’ talk: Making sense of conferences from an anthropological linguistic perspective. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7(4), 349–371. Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3–23. https:// doi.org/10.1191/1362168802lr095oa Walsh, S. (2003). Developing interactional awareness in the second language classroom through teacher self-evaluation. Language Awareness, 12(2), 124–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410308667071 Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. Routledge. http://site.ebrary. com/id/10163732 Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge. Walsh, S. (2013). Classroom discourse and teacher development. Edinburgh University Press. Waring, H.  Z. (2005). Peer tutoring in a graduate writing centre: Identity, expertise, and advice resisting. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 141–168. https:// doi.org/10.1093/applin/amh041 Waring, H.  Z. (2007). The multi-functionality of accounts in advice giving. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 11(3), 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-­9841.2007.00328.x Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-­4781.2008.00788.x

2  Conceptualizing CALTE 

77

Waring, H.  Z. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities in the language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 2(2), 201–218. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19463014.2011.614053 Waring, H. Z. (2012). “Any questions?”: Investigating the nature of understanding-­checks in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 722–752. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.48 Waring, H.  Z. (2013a). Managing Stacy: A case study of turn-taking in the language classroom. System, 41(3), 841–851. Waring, H. Z. (2013b). Two mentor practices that generate teacher reflection without explicit solicitations: Some preliminary considerations. RELC Journal, 44(1), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212473296 Waring, H.  Z. (2014). Mentor invitations for reflection in post-observation conferences: Some preliminary considerations. Applied Linguistics Review, 5(1), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-­2014-­0005 Waring, H.  Z. (2015). Promoting self-discovery in the language classroom. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(1), 61. Waring, H. Z. (2016). Theorizing pedagogical interaction: Insights from conversation analysis (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315751351 Waring, H. Z. (2017). Going general as a resource for doing advising in post-­ observation conferences in teacher training. Journal of Pragmatics, 110, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.009 Waring, H.  Z. (2018). Teaching L2 interactional competence: Problems and possibilities. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.108 0/19463014.2018.1434082 Waring, H. Z. (2021). Harnessing the power of heteroglossia: How to multi-­ task with teacher talk. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-­ based conversation analytic research (Vol. 46, pp.  281–301). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­52193-­6_14 Waring, H. Z., & Creider, S. C. (2021). Micro-reflection on classroom communication: A FAB-framework. Equinox Publishing LTD.. Waring, H. Z., & Hruska, B. L. (2011). Getting and keeping Nora on board: A novice elementary ESOL student teacher’s practices for lesson engagement. Linguistics and Education, 22(4), 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. linged.2011.02.009 Waring, H. Z., Reddington, E., Yu, D., & Clemente, I. (2018). Going general: Responding to yes–no questions in informational webinars for prospective grant applicants. Discourse & Communication, 12(3), 307–327. https://doi. org/10.1177/1750481318757762

78 

U. Balaman

Wong, J., & Waring, H.  Z. (2009). ‘Very good’ as a teacher response. ELT Journal, 63(3), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn042 Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2020). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. Routledge. Yılmaz, A. (2020). The participatory role of cooperating teachers during practicum teaching in pre-school L2 classrooms [Unpublished MA Thesis, Hacettepe University]. http://openaccess.hacettepe.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/ handle/11655/23087 You, H.-J. (2015). Reference to shared past events and memories. Journal of Pragmatics, 87, 238–250. Zepeda, S. J. (2007). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts. Taylor & Francis.

3 Pre-service Teacher Learning in Video-Mediated Interactions

The CALTE Context and Data The CALTE context in this chapter specifically aims to present the operationalization of the knowledge base of CALTE and of the actionable disciplinary knowledge while also aligning with all of the defining features of CALTE (see p. 19 in Chap. 2). I will elaborate on the relationship with each feature in order to describe the context and data: 1. Maintaining a strictly evidence-based and data-led approach to language teacher education: In the focal CALTE model in this chapter, there are multiple teacher education activities including lecture captures (i.e., screen-recorded lecture videos), critical reading and reflective summary writing, and pre-service teacher collaboration via video-­mediated interaction. The contents of these activities are entirely informed by published peer-reviewed scientific papers, therefore inclusive of research evidence that is essential for language teaching practices in the future. The activities are designed in a way to encourage pre-­service teachers to discover the evidence themselves by critically analyzing the contents of the scientific papers and the video recordings from actual

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 U. Balaman, Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education in Digital Spaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19127-5_3

79

80 

U. Balaman

classrooms. Additionally, the screen-recorded lectures include the teacher trainer’s analysis of actual classroom interaction, which describe the data-led component of the model. 2. Recognizing multimodal CA research findings on L2 classroom discourse and L2/classroom interactional competence as the knowledge base: The focal CALTE model is put into practice in a fully online (i.e., due to the pandemic) course entitled ‘Analysis of Discourse and Language Teaching’ at the third year of a four-year undergraduate English language teacher education program in Turkey. The course contents are designed to operationalize the CALTE knowledge base in digital spaces. The course specifically focuses on multimodal Conversation Analysis to meet the ‘Analysis of Discourse’ component of the module while the ‘Language Teaching’ component is delivered based on the research findings on L2 classroom discourse, more specifically based on the construct, classroom interactional competence. Accordingly, the knowledge base of CALTE defines the course contents. The fundamental structures of conversation (i.e., turn taking, sequence and preference organization, repair, embodiment; cf. Sidnell & Stivers, 2013) are the title of the four cycles in the semester. L2 classroom discourse and classroom interactional competence find representation in lecture captures through the references of the teacher trainer and more directly through the targeted reading tasks in each of the four cycles (i.e., for Turn Taking, Waring, 2013, Somuncu & Sert, 2019; for Sequence and Preference Organization, Wong & Waring, 2009, Can Daşkın, 2015; for Repair, Waring, 2015, Amir & Musk, 2013; for Embodiment, Sert, 2015; Kääntä, 2012). 3. Raising the interactional awareness of pre-service teachers by providing teacher learning opportunities to operationalize the knowledge base: The main strength and the primary objective of the CALTE model in this chapter are to operationalize the knowledge base by utilizing the affordances of digital spaces. For this purpose, the model follows a cyclical procedure. The focus of each cycle is defined by the fundamental structures of conversation in an order. The format of the LTE activities in each cycle is the same while the contents of the lectures (Part 1), reading tasks (Part 2), and the teacher collaboration meetings (Part 3) vary in each cycle. The course starts with an introduction to the course

3  Pre-service Teacher Learning in Video-Mediated Interactions 

81

structure in the first week and a lecture on Classroom Interactional Competence in the second week. From the third week of the semester onward, the following structure is pursued (Table 3.1): In Part 1, the lectures were prepared using Wong and Waring’s book (2020) as the basis and incorporated diverse published work from the literature. Each lecture included an additional sample classroom video analysis. The videos at this stage were selected from the CEAPP using the ‘Actions and Practices’ module that were readily catalogued in alignment with the scope of each lecture1 and other relevant, purpose-specific, natural classroom recordings. The lectures and the sample analysis were published on the learning management system, Moodle. Given that the course was fully online, the pre-service teachers’ clarification questions were received using the forum function of Moodle, and the teacher trainer responded to the trainee inquiries here as well so that both questions and the relevant answers would be publicly available to the registered trainees. In Part 2, the targeted reading materials were also shared using Moodle, and the trainees submitted their reflective summaries in a period of one week. Lastly, in Part 3, short, transcribed video clips that are aligned with the focal social action of each cycle and that were captured from diverse language classrooms were shared with the trainees. They used private meeting rooms on Microsoft Teams to collaborate with peer trainees to critically analyze the interactional practices of the language teachers in the short video clips. 4. Centralizing reflective practice by strategically attending to reflection for-, in-, and on-action in and through talk-in-interaction: The reflective practice component of the course structure was enacted in Parts 2 and 3 and specifically aimed at providing opportunities for reflection-for-­ action—that is, being concerned with the future teaching practices of the pre-service teachers. In Part 2, the trainees were asked to submit their reflective summaries of the reading materials in response to the following (e.g., for turn taking) questions:  Consent for the pedagogical use of CEAPP videos was given upon submission of a signed consent form to [email protected]. The form can be found at ceapp.la.psu.edu. 1

Data types

Participants

Mode of delivery Digital spaces/tools

LTE activity

• Lecture capture • Sample classroom video analysis • Q&A Asynchronous • OBS screen recorder (for the lectures and sample analyses) • Moodle discussion forum (for Q&A) • Teacher trainer (for the lectures and sample analyses) • Pre-service teachers (for Q&A) • Screen-recording (of the lecture and sample analysis) • Text (Q&A on the discussion forum)

Part 1

Synchronous • Microsoft Teams (for live meetings of pre-­service teachers)

• Pre-service teacher collaboration

Part 3

• Teacher trainer (the • Pre-service teachers (for deliverer of reading the analysis of a short materials) classroom video • Pre-service teachers (readers recording) and writers) • Text (Reflective summaries) • Screen-recording (of pre-service teachers’ MS Team meetings)

• Critical reading of target readings • Reflective summaries of target readings Asynchronous • Moodle (for accessing the readings and submitting individual reflective summaries)

Part 2

Table 3.1  Operationalizing the CALTE knowledge base in digital spaces

82  U. Balaman

Cycle 3: Repair Cycle 4: Embodiment

Timeline of Cycle 1: activities Turn taking Cycle 2: Seq. & pref. organization

• Week 3 (Turn taking)19–23 October 2020 • Week 6 (Sequence and preference organization)09–13 November 2020 • Week 9 (Repair)01–04 December 2020 • Week 12 (Embodiment)21–25 December 2020

• Week 4 (Turn taking) 26–30 October 2020 • Week 7 (Sequence and preference organization)16–20 November 2020 • Week 10 (Repair) 07–11 December 2020 • Week 13 (Embodiment)28–31 December 2020 • Week 11 (Repair) 14–18 December 2020 • Week 14 (Embodiment)4–8 January 2021 End of Semester

• Week 5 (Turn taking) 2–6 November 2020 • Week 8 (Sequence and preference organization) 23–27 November 2020

3  Pre-service Teacher Learning in Video-Mediated Interactions 

83

84 

U. Balaman

Q1—What are the main implications of the article for the use of teacher talk in teaching English language in the classroom? Article #1: Article #2: Q2—What do you think about the importance of turn-taking for teaching English language in the classroom? Based on both articles:

In Part 3 of each cycle (i.e., pre-service teacher collaboration through video-mediated interactions on Microsoft Teams), the pre-service teachers were instructed to respond to the following (e.g., for repair practices) critical reflection questions for collaborative analysis of the short video clips: Overarching Question: 1. What do you observe in the recordings in terms of repair practices? What do you think about the role of repair practices in this language classroom? Classroom Interactional Competence and Teacher Talk Related Questions: 2. How does the teacher maximize interactional space and encourage student participation? What do you observe in terms of students’ willingness to participate to the class? Does the teacher do anything to resolve unwillingness to participate? 3. How does the teacher elicit student contributions? What are the interactional resources that she uses while trying to elicit student contributions? 4. What does the teacher do with the students’ responses/contributions? Does she just accept the contributions and move on with another topic? Does she evaluate students’ responses? Does she use them for building new turns? What do you observe in terms of her pedagogical use of student contributions? 5. How does the teacher check knowledge of the students? 6. How does the teacher check the understanding of the students? 7. How does the teacher use embodied resources (hand movement, gaze etc.)? 8. Do you observe any interactional troubles in the recording? If yes, how does the teacher resolve it?

3  Pre-service Teacher Learning in Video-Mediated Interactions 

85

9. What do you observe in terms of language teaching pedagogy in the recording? What do you think is the teacher’s pedagogical aim/focus in the clip? 10. How does the teacher give instructions? What are the interactional resources that you can observe while giving instructions to the students? 11. Do you observe any references to past learning events? If yes, what is the purpose of the teacher in using it? 12. Do you observe any relevance to the contents of the focal readings of the week, my lectures, and sample analysis? 13. Would you design your talk-in-interaction any different than the teacher in the clip? Why and how? 14. Do you think there are some excellent teacher talk practices in this clip that you can use in your future teaching? 15. What are your overall ideas about the teacher’s classroom interactional competence?

While some groups structured their meetings to respond to each question one-by-one, some others simply engaged in lively, unstructured discussions, which created a screen-recordings database of diverse group interactional practices in the video-mediated interactional setting. 5. Maximizing interactional space in trainer-trainee and trainee-trainee participation frameworks during LTE practices and generating natural data in due course: The trainee-trainee participation framework is the main focus of the CALTE model in this chapter based on the pre-­ service teacher collaboration in and through video-mediated interactions on Microsoft Teams. The generation of natural data was enacted through the built-in screen-recording feature of Microsoft Teams that directly saved the recordings to a dashboard and made it accessible to the teacher trainer (and the researcher). The screen-recordings collected from 10 teacher collaboration groups of 3 or 4 trainees formed a corpus of around 12 hours of video data (165min from Cycle 1; 196min from Cycle 2; 175 minutes from Cycle 3; 175 minutes from Cycle 4). This chapter closely examines the video-mediated interactions of one group in particular. The focal group engages in four meetings (26min from Cycle 1, 22min from Cycle 2, 17min from Cycle 3; 16min from Cycle 4). Additionally, the textual records available in

86 

U. Balaman

Moodle are used as ethnographic data to track a teacher learning object (i.e., reformulation as a teacher interactional resource), specifically the reflective summaries of pre-service teachers. The reflective summary data comprises a total of 90,193 words (i.e., 23,176 words in Cycle 1; 24,723 words in Cycle 2; 22,394 words in Cycle 3; 19,900 words in Cycle 4). The case study in this chapter deals with the reflective summaries of one pre-service teacher in particular, HAN, in the first (i.e., Turn Taking) and second (i.e., Sequence and Preference Organization) cycles. This part of the textual data consists of 3,820 words. 6. Documenting the LTE practices using multimodal CA and providing implications for future practices: Using multimodal CA as the research methodology, this chapter presents a case study. As a result of the unmotivated examination of the database, one interactional practice emerged as a potential research interest, namely epistemic search sequences (Jakonen & Morton, 2015). The epistemic searches in the focal interactional setting are in all cases oriented to the interactional resources deployed by the language teachers in the short video clips, thus the disciplinary terminology. Therefore, the collaborating pre-­ service teachers engage in the analysis of the video clip and try to carefully incorporate the actionable disciplinary knowledge (i.e., CALTE knowledge base) into their analysis after working on the lectures and the reading materials. This observation on the screen-recordings data marks the institutionality in the setting, thus explicating the learning status of the pre-service teachers as part of their teacher education course work. In the collection of cases including the recurrent use of epistemic search sequences, one instance was particularly interesting. During this instance, one of the pre-service teachers initiated the search by asking a question ‘was there a term for that’ with reference to the reformulation of the teacher in the video clip. The resolution of the epistemic search by another pre-service teacher, HAN, encouraged me to take a look at other references to reformulation as a teacher interactional resource across the multiple teacher education events. This closer look required a tracking methodology to better report the

3  Pre-service Teacher Learning in Video-Mediated Interactions 

87

references to this particular term over time. For this purpose, Markee’s (2008) learning behavior tracking (LBT) was found highly feasible. Markee’s LBT consists of two components, namely learning object tracking (LOT) and learning process tracking (LPT). LBT was devised by Markee to systematically illustrate language learning behaviors on a longitudinal basis in ways that are true to the ethnomethodological foundations of CA. Markee’s LBT proves to be an invaluable contribution to CA-SLA research, thus directly informing the CALTE knowledge base. One important thing to note at this point is that unlike Markee’s focus on language learning, I track teacher learning over time by focusing both on a specific learning object (i.e., reformulation) and the processes that make the strategic references across multiple teacher education events accessible to me as the researcher. 7. Incorporating the defining features above into dedicated CALTE models and putting them into action: Overall, Chap. 3 sets out to present a dedicated LTE model by specifically targeting the knowledge base of CALTE and strategically puts all CALTE defining features into action in digital spaces. The implications for CALTE and the mainstream LTE will be provided briefly in the conclusion of the chapter and thoroughly in the final chapter of the book.

 ocumenting Teacher Learning in Digital D Spaces The section starts with the analysis of Extract 1 in three segments. Extract 1 shows how a teacher interactional practice (i.e., reformulation) is topicalized during the pre-service teacher collaboration on a Microsoft Teams meeting. Later, this focal interactional practice will be tracked to identify the teacher education event that it originally appears (i.e., retrospective tracking) and to see how it is strategically deployed in subsequent teacher education events (i.e., prospective tracking).

88 

U. Balaman

Identifying a Teacher Learning Object in Video-Mediated Interactions In the first cycle of the CALTE model in this chapter, the focal structure of conversation was turn taking. Therefore, the pre-service teachers (HAN, CAR, NAT, BUR) initially worked on the lecture of the teacher trainer on the topic (Part 1), read the target reading materials and wrote their reflective summaries (Part 2), and one week later joined a pre-­service teacher collaboration meeting on Microsoft Teams to analyze a short video clip recorded in an actual language classroom (Part 3). I primarily deal with the video-mediated interactions in Part 3 of Cycle 1 and show how one pre-service teacher’s initiation of an epistemic search sequence (Jakonen & Morton, 2015) is resolved by a co-participant with the provision of the reformulation as a teacher interactional resource. Extract 1 comes from the screen-recording of the meeting captured on 8 November, one week after the deadline for submitting the reflective summaries. It starts with NAT’s ongoing analysis of a moment in the short video clip and CAR’s interruption with multiple overlaps: Extract 1/Segment 1: 8 November, Cycle 1 (Turn Taking) Part 3 (Pre-­service Teacher Collaboration) 1

CAR:

[i suppo:se

2

NAT:

[and she al↓so

3

(0.7)

4

uh i'm sorry

5

CAR:

[+no no problem

6

NAT:

[+and she also uh+

car

+raises right hand towards the screen,,,lifts head up,,, closes eyes+

7

(0.7)

8

rephrased her (.) ↑own question in one hundred and forty six

9

(0.3)

i guess

3  Pre-service Teacher Learning in Video-Mediated Interactions  han

fig1-raises eyebrows,,,nods--->

fig1 10

BUR:

11

CAR:

[>yeah


13

NAT:

14

CAR:

uh yes

[“what their roles” [>did-< did ↑tha:t

15

(0.9)

16

yeah

17

there (.) [there was a

18

NAT:

["were or what"

19

(0.5)

20

yeah,

21

(0.4)

22

CAR:

ther- ↑i'm so sorry i keep

23

(0.6)

24

+i keep+ [*butting in but car

25

+wiping movement once with hands towards opposite sides+

NAT:

[*no no (.) no problem=

ALL

*fig2-smile-->

fig2 26

BUR:

=no [problem

27

CAR:

[uhm

28

(0.4)* ALL

--->*

89

90 

U. Balaman

The extract starts with CAR and NAT’s overlapping turns. The overlap is resolved with the subsequent 0.7s silence in line 3, and the resolution is registered with NAT’s apology (uh i’m sorry) in line 4. Despite being projected with the apology, NAT does not withdraw the competition for the floor, and her recycled turn beginning (and she also uh) overlaps with CAR’s acceptance of NAT’s apology (no no problem). The second overlap is resolved with the same length of silence as the first overlap, and in what follows, NAT syntactically completes her turn (she also rephrased her own question) in line 8. This marks the first analytic move in the extract as can be seen with NAT’s reference to a line number in the transcribed video material (one hundred and forty six). Following 0.3s pause, she ends her analytic turn with an epistemic stance marker (i guess) in line 9. HAN bodily orients to NAT’s analysis by raising her eyebrows and nodding (fig1). Subsequently, all co-participants verbally demonstrate compliance with NAT’s analysis in lines 10, 11, and 12. So far in the extract, NAT shares her analysis of line 146 in the transcribed video material, that is the teacher’s rephrasing of her own question, and the coparticipants display mutual agreement. In line 13, NAT starts quoting the focal line in the video (“what their roles”). Before she can complete her quoting by reading from the shared screen on the video-­mediated interaction tool, another overlap between NAT and CAR occurs. CAR’s overlapping turn is initiated with the interrogative question particle in turn-initial position (>did-< did) and an indexical reference (↑tha:t). Similar to earlier instances of overlap, 0.9s seconds of silence emerges. For the third time in this very short period in the extract, the overlap is resolved with the silence in the post-resolution position (Schegloff, 2000). In line 16, CAR deploys a turn-entry device (yeah) and restarts her turn with a different syntactic formation (there (.) there was a) than her earlier question design. Her turn, for the fourth time, overlaps with NAT’s continuation of quoting from the video ("were or what"). NAT is the only participant who has constructed an analytic turn in the extract so far and she seems to support her analysis by referring to specific points in the video; however, her attempts to do so are repeatedly interrupted by CAR. The reason as to why the interruption is recurrent becomes clear in the subsequent lines. Before then, silence becomes instrumental in post-resolution position in lines 19 and 21. NAT deploys yeah in-between two short durations of silence. Her yeah is followed by 0.4s of silence, and it appears to act a

3  Pre-service Teacher Learning in Video-Mediated Interactions 

91

­ re-­emptive device to avoid a potential fifth round of overlap. In line 22, p CAR enters the turn by recycling the overlapping utterance (ther-) but cuts it off in turn-initial position and initiates an apology instead (↑i'm so sorry i keep). After a short pause in line 23, she continues her apology turn (i keep butting in) accompanied with an embodied action (wiping movement). Her bodily behavior, and possibly her word choice (butting in), is treated as laughable by the co-participants (fig2). In synchronicity with the beginning of the whole-group smile and in overlap with CAR for one last time, NAT explicitly accepts the apology (no no (.) no problem). Interestingly, BUR does the same in line 26 (no problem) although she has not engaged in any actions to claim entitlement to accept an apology. I argue that this marks the multiparty participation framework: The troubles of progressivity delay the task completion for the entire group, thus expanding the entitlement to all co-participants. This said, this argument requires further evidence, which is beyond my aims in this chapter. In what follows, CAR deploys a turn-entry device (uhm) in line 27 and takes the turn to explicate the interactional project behind the repetitive overlapping turns. Extract 1/Segment 2: 8 November, Cycle 1 (Turn Taking) Part 3 (Pre-­service Teacher Collaboration) 29

CAR:

30

was there a term for that >i [huh huh^ --->^

CAR:

+i'll say

car

+uttered rhythmically and enacting --->

han

this thing differently& φto see

CAR:

φsmiles--->

--->

nat 41

because

--->& if it brings up a different ans↑wer+

car

--->+

42

HAN:

$ah hah$

43

CAR:

but it $&ah hah hah (.) ah$

nat

&smiles--->

44

NAT:

°.hah°

45

HAN:

°hm°

3  Pre-service Teacher Learning in Video-Mediated Interactions 

93

After the multiple instances of overlap resolution and CAR’s explicit apology that is accepted by the competing co-participant, NAT, CAR reveals the reason for her interruption across the conversation so far. She designs a question turn in line 29 (was there a term for that) and initiates an epistemic search sequence (Jakonen & Morton, 2015). CAR invokes a partially knowledgeable epistemic stance by referring to her search as a result of a trouble in remembering (i don't specifically remember) in line 30. She upgrades the state of not remembering by bodily marking it (hand departing from head) and with an explicit reference to her brain in line 31. Also note that CAR’s epistemic search sequence is shown an immediate orientation by NAT, and she moves away from the screen and gazes at her desk. Although her desk is outside the recording coverage, it is noticeable that she checks an external epistemic resource (e.g., notes, research articles, another screen, etc.). Taken together, it becomes observable by line 30 that CAR’s recurrent overlaps with NAT were designed to challenge NAT’s terminological choice (rephrasing). Accordingly, we see that CAR does not seem to have accepted the use of rephrasing as a term to analytically describe the action in line 146 in the transcribed video material. Therefore, CAR’s earlier turns in line 14 (>did-< did ↑tha:t), line 17 (there (.) [there was a), and line 22 (ther-) turn out to be originally devised to initiate the epistemic search sequence yet failed to do so due to the multiple overlaps. CAR’s design of the question turn in line 29 provides further evidence for her misalignment with NAT’s terminological choice. CAR designs the turn to implicate that the earlier word choice (that) was not a term (was there a term for), and hence it requires an epistemic search to find the relevant term. NAT’s embodied action shows that she understands that the search is related to her earlier terminological choice. In what follows, HAN produces a candidate word (reformulation) in line 32 in response to CAR’s search. HAN marks the candidacy of her proposal with the short pause and the turn-final mitigation (maybe). By mitigating her epistemic authority while resolving the search, HAN makes the co-participants’ displays of (dis)agreement relevant next. Despite the overlap, it is seen that HAN’s proposal is heard

94 

U. Balaman

by the co-­participants including CAR.  Subsequently, CAR explicitly agrees with the proposed term across two turns in lines 33 and 34. BUR noddingly approves while NAT withdraws eye gaze from her desk, gazes back at the screen, curls her lip (fig3), and nods which altogether demonstrate NAT’s change of state, or possibly her surprise oriented to the alternative term proposed instead of her earlier use of rephrasing. In line 35, HAN acknowledges the co-participants’ agreement (yea:h) in overlap with CAR’s repetition of HAN’s proposal (reformulation). By line 35, we see that all participants treat reformulation as more preferred than rephrasing. Therefore, the epistemic search is resolved after multiple overlapping turns until CAR poses the searching question and HAN responds to it. Accordingly, the extended episode of challenging NAT’s terminological choice and coming up with an alternative is closed, and an interactional space for moving forward the analysis of the transcribed video material emerges. In line 37, CAR delivers the same analysis as NAT’s by replacing rephrasing with reformulation (she reformulates (0.5) her question). Additionally, she inserts because and initiates an explanation turn to describe the teacher’s interactional practice in the transcribed video. CAR’s initiation is oriented with nods by all co-participants and the verbal acknowledgment by BUR (huh huh) in line 39. CAR designs an enactment turn and rhythmically produces a turn that is seemingly representing the teacher’s voice (i'll say this thing differently to see if it brings up a different ans↑wer) and CAR’s understanding of the teacher’s rationale for doing the reformulation. CAR’s turn design includes her own analysis of the teacher’s action, namely saying differently for eliciting a different answer. By doing so, CAR gives the second analytic move in the extract and extends NAT’s earlier analysis by reflecting on the teacher’s pedagogical goal with the reformulation. Her enactment and prosodically marked rhythmic turn receive laughter and smile from the co-­participants.

3  Pre-service Teacher Learning in Video-Mediated Interactions 

95

Extract 1/Segment 3: 8 November, Cycle 1 (Turn Taking) Part 3 (Pre-­service Teacher Collaboration) 46

CAR:

i mean >uh i< it seems to work u:hmm

47

HAN:

*yeah*(.) [$ah hah hah$

han

*nods*

48

CAR:

[while line one hundred forty eight but until then&% there's about likeφ the:%

49 nat

--->&%gets closer to the screen,,,nods% --->φ

han 50

(0.9)

51

one two:: almost three seconds of silence ^(.) bur

52

BUR:

^nods---> [huh huh^

bur 53

CAR:

54

--->^ [and (0.3) more than a couple extended turns %(0.7)%

nat

%-nods-%

HAN:

*yeah*

han

*nods*

56

BUR:

[you are right

57

HAN:

[and (.) %in forty five the line forty five

55

nat

%gets closer to the screen--->

58

she actually (0.2) uh waits (.) a little bit (0.3)

59

%*like one and a hal- (.)* one nat-->% ALL

60

CAR:

*-----nod---------------* [°>yeaeh eh
+/e e e/+< if i understand correctly% because

nat

+three quick nods+

han 11

HAN: han

12

CAR:

%nods--> °uh huh°% --->% you know it's about i think

13

(0.8)

14

what y'al- you said "describe your something" and then um

15

she kind of corrects ↑tha:t

16

there's this↓line28

fig11

24

HAN:

25

er: (0.8)

26

CAR:

[the topic

27

HAN:

[main sequence (0.5) uh after &

29

BUR:

uh huh

30

HAN:

er >you know< (0.2) to make students (0.3)

31

uhhh ↑add something to her

32

NAT:

hm mm

33

HAN:

%to their% (0.3) classmates (.) point

han

%blinks and quickly tilts head to her right once and withdraws%

34

because uh i think he was struggling to uh- (0.3)

35

er: explain er: his point

36

so someone says "describe your something" (0.5)

112 

U. Balaman

37

and like you said er::: she is (0.5) correcting

38

CAR:

[§mm hm

39

BUR:

[§huh huh

40

HAN:

[§by reformulating§ the sentence (0.4)

all

§-----nod--------§

After 1.2s pause, CAR transitions into another analytic observation that is related to the focal interactional practice examined in the teacher education cycle (i.e., Sequence and Preference Organization). By connecting her earlier analytic comments into this one (so (.) that's like), CAR refers to the teacher’s extended turn and correction as re-initiating a sequence (leading back into the sequence) and ends the turn with an epistemic stance marker (i sup↓pose). Subsequently, she maintains her epistemic stance (i'm not sure) and uses it as the basis for the initiation of an epistemic search sequence (what we would call that). To briefly remind at this point, it was CAR who initiated the epistemic search sequence in Extract 1, and here she kicks-off a similar interactional trajectory. Unlike her earlier question design back in line 3 (i.e., yes/no interrogative requesting clarification), CAR asks a wh-question in line 19 and creates interactional space for the delivery of a term that would technically help better frame her just-completed analysis. As in Extract 1, HAN takes the turn in the next relevant space following an epistemic search; however, she does not immediately resolve the search with a candidate proposal this time. Instead, she enters the turn with an agreement (yeah i think so) oriented to CAR’s analysis of re-initiating a sequence (going back to the). Also note that HAN’s turn is grammatically incomplete. After HAN takes the turn and displays agreement with CAR’s analysis, CAR brings her hands together and places them under her chin in a way to demonstrate listenership (fig11). We see that her listenership is attentive in design as she acknowledges HAN’s agreement in line 23 and completes HAN’s turn (the topic) after HAN’s hesitation and silence in lines 25 and 26. CAR’s turn completion overlaps with HAN’s self-resolution of her own word search (main sequence). HAN’s reference to ‘main sequence’ is sequentially registered as a candidate proposal in response to CAR’s epistemic search. However, CAR’s initiative to complete HAN’s turn shows the completed part is not the sought-for-term. Therefore, the search is not meant to

3  Pre-service Teacher Learning in Video-Mediated Interactions 

113

seek for a term for the type of the re-initiated sequence (i.e., main sequence) but possibly to the action of ‘leading back to the main sequence’. Also due to overlap, the production of main sequence in line 27 does not resolve the epistemic search. Subsequently, HAN quotes from the video in line 27 and analyzes the silence after the quoted line as ‘waiting’ (she waits for a little bit). This is another recurrent practice for HAN as she previously referred to silence as wait time in Extract 1 and even earlier in her reflective summaries (allowing sufficient time). BUR minimally acknowledges HAN’s analysis in line 29. HAN’s continuation implicative turn (to::,) in line 28 is furthered in line 30. She increments her previously incomplete utterance by restarting it (to make students). Then, she identifies the teacher’s wait time as an effort to elicit participation (add something to her) that is relevant to the earlier student contributions (to their classmate’s point). This is oriented by NAT for the first time in the extract with a minimal listenership token (hm mm) in line 32. HAN relates her analysis of the wait time so far to the struggle of a student (he was struggling to explain his point) in the video clip. In line 36, HAN quotes a student turn from the video as the next action (i.e., peer help to the struggling student) after the teacher’s wait time and deploys a past reference to acknowledge CAR’s earlier analysis (like you said) and cites her analysis (correcting) after 0.5s pause in line 37. All co-participants (all bodily and CAR and BUR verbally) immediately acknowledge HAN’s contribution in overlap with HAN’s turn completion that is observably an addition to CAR’s cited analysis. HAN identifies the type of correcting as reformulation (correcting by reformulating) and displays her knowledgeability about the term (i.e., reformulation as the teacher learning object) in this extract, too. One thing to note at this point is that the sequential context of the reformulation is different than the earlier appearances of the term in the database. The teacher in the video reformulates a student’s contribution (from your something to my characteristics), thus the reformulation being addressed to a co-participant’s turn (i.e., not one’s own turn). This finding deserves special attention. In addition to her recurrent and knowledgeable use of the reformulation in its triadic sequential context, Extract 4 clearly illustrates that HAN can also identify it when it occurs in a two-­turn sequential format. Accordingly, HAN’s analysis does not

114 

U. Balaman

only add to her teacher learning process by seeing the learning object in another context at another time, but it also brings evidence for the expansion of her teacher interactional repertoire. Extract 4/Segment 3: 28 November, Cycle 2 (Sequence and Preference Organization), Part 3 (Pre-service Teacher Collaboration) 41

HAN

42

and then er like CAR said with the help of “okay” and “uhm” uh she's you know th- *holding the turn*

bur

*moves cursor horizontally twice over uhm

in the transcript*fig12

fig12 43

CAR:

huh huh

44

HAN:

to ex::>tend< the turn actually

45

CAR:

huh huh

46

HAN:

and then &(0.3)&

han

&gets slightly closer to the screen and leans back&fig13

fig13 47

she's asking an another question to *make it clear (.)* bur

48

*moves cursor horizontally

twice over the question in the transcript* +what they are talking+ about and then

nat 49

+--three quick nods--+ she is going to the main sequence i think

50

CAR:

huh huh

51

BUR:

yes

52

CAR:

yeah

53

BUR:

i think so

3  Pre-service Teacher Learning in Video-Mediated Interactions 

115

The transitions between the description of the analytic units are commonly done with and then. In line 41, HAN uses this resource to continue her analysis and acknowledges CAR’s earlier analysis with another past reference (like CAR said). Following this, HAN quotes from the transcribed video material (“okay” and “uhm”) and relates her quotation to the practice of turn holding. BUR engages in the screen-based marking activity as earlier and moves the cursor to the quoted part in the transcript (fig12). CAR acknowledges HAN’s analysis including a reference to CAR’s earlier comment. Subsequently, HAN increments her analysis of holding the turn with reference to the teacher’s purpose of doing so (to ex::>tend< the turn actually), which is acknowledged again by CAR in line 45. After using the generic transition marker (and then), HAN bodily orients to the screen briefly (0.3s) and leans back to continue with her analysis (fig13). In line 47, HAN describes the ­teacher’s action (asking an another question) along with its interactional outcome (to make it clear). This is accompanied with BUR’s activity on the shared screen. Unlike BUR’s earlier cursor movement, this time the ongoing analysis does not include a reference to a line number or quotations from the transcript. Therefore, BUR demonstrates her understanding of HAN’s reference to asking a question. Following a micro-pause, HAN specifies the target of clarification (what they are talking about) in line 48. Right after deploying the same transition marker, HAN completes her analysis (she is going to the main sequence) and ends the turn with an epistemic stance marker (i think). All co-participants display agreement in the final parts of the extract. HAN’s final analytic comment is a repetition of her initial response to CAR’s epistemic search with a very minor omission (from going back to going). Despite CAR’s overlap and non-aligning proposal back in line 26, HAN seems to maintain her stance on the sought-for-term with an exception of the omission of back. Therefore, it can be concluded that HAN’s use of the main sequence as sought-for-term in line 28 was indeed a candidate response to resolve the epistemic search and now we see in line 49 that she comes back to the same analytic observation on a line-byline basis.

116 

U. Balaman

Conclusion The last extract marks the final point in HAN’s teacher learning process mainly because it is the last time in the database that the term reformulation emerged in interaction. This final emergence calls for closer attention. The close examination of Extract 4 showed that reformulation is evidently a part of HAN’s teacher interactional repertoire as a sequential resource. Additionally, HAN’s knowledgeability about the term went beyond reformulating one’s own turn, and an understanding of a new sequential context was demonstrated. That is to say, HAN displayed the ability to identify reformulation not only when the teacher reformulates her own turns but also the students’ turns. This is observably an expansion of her interactional repertoire regarding the extent to which reformulation is operationalized in L2 classroom discourse. What is more, HAN’s analysis showed that she can also identify the relevance of post-­ reformulation practices as an integral part of the sequential environment of reformulation. HAN’s reference to holding the turn and extended turn in the post-reformulation position was linked to the teacher’s attempts to resolve understanding troubles (to make it clear in line 47) and consequently to re-initiate the main sequence in the transcribed video material. Accordingly, HAN’s repeated references to reformulation as a sequential resource to attend to students’ non/mis-understanding seem to work completely context-sensitive by recognizing the local contingencies in the video. Finally, the sequential context of reformulation in Extract 4 was the same as Somuncu and Sert’s (2019) analysis in the reading material (see above), which illustrates another point in her teacher learning process. Although I find it difficult to attribute her knowledgeability to her careful reading of the published work, the chronology of the teacher training events promises an attractive angle. Using the methodological tools of multimodal CA and drawing on Markee’s (2008) learning behavior tracking (LBT) to track a teacher learning object (i.e., reformulation) and HAN’s teacher learning process, I identified that the operationalization of CALTE through a well-­ structured pedagogical plan that strategically utilized the affordances of multiple digital spaces in harmony brought about observable teacher

3  Pre-service Teacher Learning in Video-Mediated Interactions 

117

learning outcomes. Considering that the data comes from a fully online course, the longitudinal analysis enabled a clear perspective for an overall understanding of the role of digital spaces in teaching the knowledge base of CALTE to pre-service teachers. The longitudinal tracking showed the lecture captures and sample classroom video analyses (Part 1); the use of the learning management system for providing access to the reading materials and collecting the reflective summaries of the target readings (Part 2); and the video-mediated group interactions played an active role in facilitating pre-service teacher learning. The digital spaces, more specifically the learning management system and Microsoft Teams, both enabled tracking the learning trajectories of the pre-service teachers and facilitated the emergence of learning outcomes. The multimodal CA analysis revealed that the pre-service teachers skillfully harnessed the affordances of the video-mediated interaction tool on a moment-by-­ moment basis by sharing their screens to collaboratively analyze the short clips, engaging in publicly accessible screen-based activities to help navigate the transcript on the screen, and deploying references to line numbers on the screen. Their bodily actions were also accessible to each other despite the fractured ecology and the small-frame format due to the shared screen. All in all, the chapter aimed to present teacher learning in digital spaces as part of an LTE cycle that is designed to operationalize the CALTE knowledge base and to familiarize pre-service teachers with the actionable disciplinary knowledge. I found convincing evidence for that reformulation becomes part of HAN’s teacher interactional repertoire with its sequentially diverse positions. Reformulation is a teacher interactional resource and an important component of teacher talk in language classrooms. The multimodal CA examination of the multiple teacher education events showed that HAN came to know about how it works in the language classrooms. The CALTE model here that utilizes the affordances of various digital spaces both facilitated her displays of such actionable knowledge and made her pre-service teacher learning process accessible to me. Therefore, the digital spaces involved in the model proved observably useful for the eventual pre-service teacher learning. The transferability of this knowledge to her actual teaching practice, however, requires an

118 

U. Balaman

even more longitudinal perspective and investigation into her practicum teaching. Although I do not have access to such data yet, I do closely examine other pre-service teachers’ video-mediated classroom interactional practices and the teacher trainer’s organization of reflective talk in the next analytic chapter.

References Amir, A., & Musk, N. (2013). Language policing: Micro-level language policy-­ in-­ process in the foreign language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 4(2), 151–167. Badem-Korkmaz, F., & Balaman, U. (2020). Third position repair for resolving troubles in understanding teacher instructions. Linguistics and Education, 60, 100859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100859 Can Daşkın, N. (2015). Shaping learner contributions in an EFL classroom: Implications for L2 classroom interactional competence. Classroom Discourse, 6(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2014.911699 Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A framework for TESOL professionals. Routledge. Jakonen, T., & Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt031 Kääntä, L. (2012). Teachers’ embodied allocations in instructional interaction. Classroom Discourse, 3(2), 166–186. Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 404–427. https://doi.org/10.1093/ applin/amm052 Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation: Volumes I & II. Blackwell. Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29(1), 1–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0047404500001019 Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh University Press. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.

3  Pre-service Teacher Learning in Video-Mediated Interactions 

119

Somuncu, D., & Sert, O. (2019). EFL trainee teachers’ orientations to students’ non-understanding: A focus on task instructions. In H.  T. Nguyen & T.  Malabarba (Eds.), Conversation analytic perspectives on English language learning, teaching and testing in global contexts (pp.  110–131). Multilingual Matters. Waring, H. Z. (2013). Managing Stacy: A case study of turn-taking in the language classroom. System, 41(3), 841–851. Waring, H.  Z. (2015). Promoting self-discovery in the language classroom. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(1), 61. Waring, H. Z. (2017). Going general as a resource for doing advising in post-­ observation conferences in teacher training. Journal of Pragmatics, 110, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.009 Wong, J., & Waring, H.  Z. (2009). ‘Very good’ as a teacher response. ELT Journal, 63(3), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn042 Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2020). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. Routledge.

4 Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated Post-­Observation Conversations

The CALTE Context and Data The language teacher education context in this chapter specifically presents insights into the revision stage of the CALTE praxis base. I will describe how the context and the data relate to the defining features of CALTE (see p. 19 in Chap. 2) and show how the current chapter informs CALTE in digital spaces: 1. Maintaining a strictly evidence-based and data-led approach to language teacher education: Sert (2019) calls for “a technology-enhanced, reflective, and micro-analytic teacher education framework” (p. 216) and argues for the impact of technology integration to reflective processes on teacher development. More specifically, Sert (2021) explores the affordances of Video Enhanced Observation (VEO) and reports great potential in its use as a part of his dedicated CALTE model, IMDAT (see p. 31, Chap. 2 for a detailed overview). VEO (https://veo.co.uk/) is a video-tagging tool that facilitates marking selected moments during real-time observations or by uploading recordings post hoc for the purpose of using the tagged instances to engage in critical reflection commonly in post-observation meetings. Therefore, VEO is an extremely valuable tool for using data as © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 U. Balaman, Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education in Digital Spaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19127-5_4

121

122 

U. Balaman

the evidence for feedback and providing situated teacher learning opportunities to trainees. Therefore, the strategic use of VEO helps maintain a strictly evidence-based and data-led approach to LTE. Previous research brought evidence for the feasibility of VEO (Çelik et al., 2018; Schwab, 2020), for example, in enhancing the L2 classroom interactional competence of pre-­service teachers (cf. Bozbıyık, 2017; Bozbıyık et al., 2022, for a case study on the development of teacher questioning practices). VEO is increasingly attracting the attention of professional development practitioners among many other fields, and language teacher education professionals are not exceptions. The tool has already been the subject of two European Union projects (i.e., VEO Europa, proPIC Europe) and inspired research studies and rich practical outcomes (cf. Seedhouse, 2022 for more than 10 case studies). This chapter aims to bring research and practical insights into a previously unexplored domain, namely the use of VEO in video-mediated postobservation conversations. Additionally, this chapter also presents the first research paper, to my knowledge, that describes the use of VEO for delivering feedback oriented to language teaching in video-mediated classroom contexts. Let me elaborate on the focal language teacher education context and the ways in which VEO is used: First, the data comes from the course module, Practicum in an undergraduate English language teacher education program. The practicum course is offered in the last semester of the program and includes weekly pre-observation meetings. The trainees participate both to the trainer-organized meetings (i.e., lectures, revision of lesson plans, etc.) in the faculty and to the mentor teacher-organized meetings (i.e., student profiles, expected learning outcomes, etc.) in the practicum school. Due to the pandemic, the course went fully online, and all pre-observation meetings, teaching practice, and post-observation meetings were conducted on the videoconferencing tool, Zoom. The database consists mainly of the screen-recordings of the video-mediated post-observation conversations which also host the online practicum teaching when they are topicalized by the teacher trainer during the collaborative viewing of the tagged instances in the meeting. In online practicum classrooms, one teacher trainer (TRA), one peer trainee (given in pseudonyms), one mentor teacher (TEA, the actual teacher of the practicum class), a group of high

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

123

school students (28 ­students in the case study in this chapter), and the teacher trainee took part. Although the close analysis of the database shows otherwise, the institutional norms require the practicum teaching to be completed only with the participation of the trainee and the students. There was a total of six trainees enrolled in the Practicum course offered by the focal teacher trainer. Each trainee taught two online classes in a row, each class being 20 minutes with a break of 10 minutes in between. The trainer did not provide immediate feedback to the trainees. Instead, she recorded the online practicum classroom (on Zoom), uploaded the screenrecordings to VEO, selected the instances that she deemed significant to share with the trainees, and met with the trainees to deliver her feedback in and through video-mediated post-observation conversations. She also recorded these post-observation meetings using the built-in screen recorder of the video-conferencing tool, Zoom. The screenshot from the meeting (Fig. 4.1) is representative of the entire database. The teacher trainer (TRA) uses VEO by sharing her screen and keeps it shared until the final moments of the meeting. The number of the tags and the length of the separate meetings with the six trainees vary. Nevertheless, the database consists of six hours of screen-­recordings, and my focus is on a 55-minute-long meeting with one trainee in particular (GUL). In the shared screen, the interface of VEO and the TRA’s screenbased activities on it becomes observable to GUL.  At the center of the VEO interface, there is the built-in video player of VEO which TRA uses to play the clips. The clips are auto-generated by VEO as a result of TRA’s use of the video-tagging feature, which is the main technical affordance of VEO. There is a list of tagged instances on the right-hand side of the screen. Once TRA clicks on a tag, the video player automatically moves to the onset of the tagged instance, the name of the tag appears in the middle of the video player, and a note pops up on the right below corner of the player (if TRA wrote one while tagging). TRA and GUL maintain the talking heads format (Licoppe & Morel, 2012) through the small Zoom frames (right top corner of Fig. 4.1). Therefore, in the video-mediated post-observation conversations, the bodily conduct of TRA and GUL is mutually accessible, albeit in a small frame, in real time while the online practicum teaching is monitored post hoc during the collaborative viewing of the clips. The transcription of this multilayered interactional context also

124 

U. Balaman

Fig. 4.1  A screenshot from the video-mediated post-observation meeting

requires taking additional measures. I use zig zag borders to mark the positions of VEO video playing in the extracts and use boldface to indicate parallel talk in the post-observation meeting layer while the videos are still playing (see Extract 1 below for an example). 2. Recognizing multimodal CA research findings on L2 classroom discourse and L2/classroom interactional competence as the knowledge base: The focal language teacher education activity as a part of the practicum teaching of pre-service teachers is not built on a dedicated CALTE model. Also, the teacher trainer does not come from a CA research and practice background although she has a working understanding of CA and familiarity with the published work on L2 classroom discourse. This said, she is an emerging researcher dealing with fundamentally interactional constructs such as willingness to communicate and an expert of mixed methods research. To these ends, the CALTE knowledge base is only indirectly recognized in the reflective talk between the trainer and trainee (see the third feature below). ­Nevertheless, I see great potential in analyzing a non-CA informed LTE practice for a clearer understanding of the role of the CALTE knowledge base in LTE.

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

125

3. Raising the interactional awareness of pre-service teachers by providing teacher learning opportunities to operationalize the knowledge base: Despite the indirect role of the CALTE knowledge base in the focal setting, the findings show that the trainer recurrently topicalizes the interactional practices of the trainee (e.g., reciprocal nature of instruction-­giving, establishment of mutual understanding in interaction, turn design features of teacher talk). More importantly, the collection of cases examined in the chapter comes from the moments of situated interventions to the trainee by a peer, the mentor teacher, and the teacher trainer in and through video-mediated classroom interactions. These interventions are known as reflection-in-action and they are ‘completely indistinguishable from any other conversational structures’ (see Chap. 2, p. 41) except for the pedagogical orientation in the institutional context. 4. Centralizing reflective practice by strategically attending to reflection for-, in-, and on-action in and through talk-in-interaction: VEO proves to be an effective reflection-on-action tool by bringing the action (language teaching) to the attention of the trainee for the purpose of creating teacher learning opportunities as a result of the critical analysis of the micro-moments of teaching. Let me remind the definition of reflective talk presented earlier: critically analyzing the micro-moments of teaching and learning facilitation practices in interaction with others (mentor/peer) commonly for the purpose of ensuring informed, improved future practices ... I argue that reflective talk covers advice, feedback, and assessment delivery while it also goes beyond these actions by centralizing an interactional perspective to promote the trainees’ voices and comprising in all cases a considerable number of take-away lessons for the trainees. (see Chap. 2, p. 39)

VEO inherently facilitates the evidence-based, data-led critical analysis of micro-moments of language teaching by merits of its features. By ­strategically using VEO, the teacher trainer selects diverse instances, delivers feedback and assessment that is commonly followed by advice giving. Therefore, the main components of reflective talk are addressed in the video-mediated post-observation conversations repeatedly. What is more, the trainer specifically tags the moments of interventions to the trainee’s ongoing teaching so as to reflect on their reasons. This is a

126 

U. Balaman

carefully informed selection by the trainer in line with her institutionally invoked role as the feedback provider. Brandt (2008) describes feedback as “information supplied to trainees concerning some aspect of their performance on a task, by a peer or a tutor, with a view to enhancing practice” (p.  39). Therefore, feedback giving primarily requires the identification of improvable practices in their performances, that is, in their online practicum teaching in this chapter. The situated interventions to the trainee’s online teaching mark a convenient spot to identify the improvable practices in that these practices have already been problematized earlier in the online classroom. Seeing this relevance while tagging the instances, the teacher trainer selected the moments of the peer trainee’s, the mentor teacher’s, and her own reflection-in-action to use them as the basis for reflection-­on-­action. As a result of the close examination of the 55-minute-long video-mediated meeting using multimodal Conversation Analysis, I identified nine instances of reflection-in-action that the trainer tagged and topicalized to engage in the reflective talk with the participation of the trainee. I present most of these instances in five extracts. Additionally, the multidimensionality of the reflective talk, that is, the coverage of both reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action, was multiplied by the participants in their account giving turns. Both the trainee and the trainer referred to pre-observation meetings during their post-observation conversations, thus establishing links with the reflection-for-action component in the focal LTE setting. Therefore, the focal LTE context does not only cover feedback, assessment, and advice delivery but also extends the post-observation to the earlier LTE activities by making space for reflection-­for-action and reflection-in-action. However, one important component of reflective talk remains very limited in the focal setting—that is, promoting trainee voice. 5. Maximizing interactional space in trainer-trainee and trainee-trainee participation frameworks during LTE practices and generating natural data in due course: The database largely comprises reflection-on-action during which the teacher trainer interacts with the trainees following the prompts (i.e., tagged instances) on the VEO interface. Although the meeting framework addresses trainer-trainee interaction, I observe troubles in maximizing the interactional space for the trainee’s active

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

127

participation. The trainer strictly follows the tags, describes the contents of the video clips, explains her rationale for tagging particular instances, delivers her predictions for the occurrences of improvable teaching practices, and dominates the floor in doing so. Therefore, there is only minimal space for the trainee’s reflective talk. I argue that this is also because the video-mediated post-observation meetings did not take place immediately after the completion of the online practicum. Accordingly, the trainer prefers dominating the floor initially to remind what happened in the online classrooms and to account for her selection of these particular instances. This also implicates that the trainees might find it difficult to remember the background of their pedagogical choices due to the time gap between the practicum teaching and the post-observation meeting. Additionally, the time gap and the pre-meeting tagging by the trainer mean that the trainer is more familiar with the contents of the practicum teaching, and she is also the only one with the meeting structure (including the order of tags) in mind. Nevertheless, the close analysis of the data shows that the trainee (GUL) manages to reflect on her own practice even by interrupting the trainer’s extended turns and more commonly by bodily and verbally demonstrating her understanding, alignment, surprise, and frustration. These instances of minimal trainee participation prove to be truly reflective in nature, thus showing great potential for more trainee-oriented meeting structures for future LTE activities. Therefore, the analytic observations in the chapter highlight the importance of the CALTE perspective in designing full-fledged LTE processes for maximizing interactional space and then eliciting multiple teacher learning opportunities in return. All of these conclusions are reached due to the openness of the teacher trainer, trainees, students, and the mentor teacher to generate data for research purposes. 6. Documenting the LTE practices using multimodal CA and providing implications for future practices: The original multimodal CA research that will be presented in the subsequent section shows that the teacher trainer’s design of the meeting in order to reflect on reflection-in-­action

128 

U. Balaman

creates diverse teacher learning opportunities. The reflective talk in and through video-mediated post-observation conversations addresses the pedagogical consequences of the pre-service teacher’s moment-bymoment, on-line (and also online) decision-making for language teaching in digital spaces. By clearly articulating the potential reasons for technical, pedagogical, and interactional troubles in online classrooms, the teacher trainer manages to lead the trainee to notice the take-away lessons for her future practices. In a broader perspective, the empirical research in this chapter also points to the digital and pedagogical affordances of VEO especially when used in video-mediated interactional settings. By doing so, the findings create ground for arguing for a way forward informed by CALTE in digital spaces. 7. Incorporating the defining features above into dedicated CALTE models and putting them into action: In almost all of the dedicated CALTE models, there is some space for reflective practice, especially reflection-­ on-­action. However, the data for this chapter does not come from the implementation of a CALTE model. Nevertheless, the chapter clearly presents how the findings can inform future practices and how VEO can be integrated to the dedicated CALTE models in digital spaces (also see Sert, 2019, 2021), which will be discussed in great detail in Chap. 6.

 eflective Talk and Teacher Learning R Opportunities in Digital Spaces Based on the context and data introduced in the earlier section, this chapter deals with reflective talk in video-mediated post-observation conversations that take place in the videoconferencing tool, Zoom and that are facilitated with the tagged instances on VEO. There are five extracts in the chapter. Extract 1 and 2 are oriented to the same trouble—that is, the trainee checks the audibility of her teaching material with a problematic turn structure (Can you see my voice?) and fails to identify the ongoing trouble for a while during her practicum teaching.

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

129

 eflecting on Identified Troubles in Online R Practicum Teaching Extract 1 presents the emergence of this trouble (Can you see my voice?) and the subsequent reflective talk initiated by the trainer during the video-mediated post-observation conversation. In doing so, Extract 1 also lays the ground for Extract 2 in which we see some initial cases of reflection-in-action related to this trouble. From Extract 3 onward, I analyze the problematized moments of reflection-in-action with reference to the reasons for these interventions and relevant solutions for them. Also note that all extracts are chronologically ordered. Following the analyses of all extracts, the findings will be summarized in the Conclusion section. Let me also remind that GUL is the pre-service teacher delivering her online practicum teaching; TRA is the teacher trainer who selected the clips and leads the post-observation meeting; TEA is the mentor/actual teacher of the practicum classroom; and the zigzag borders mark the moments of video viewing in VEO thus showing clips taken from practicum teaching of GUL: Extract 1: Can You See My Voice?—0:07:06.1–0:08:08.9 ((VEO video starts)) 1 2

(4.2) GUL:

3

(2.6)

4

Sx:

5

Sy: tea

6 7

okay↓ (.) ↑can you see my screen?

ye[a:h [+yes+ +nods and turns off camera+ (0.6)

GUL:

grea::th

8

(3.6)

9

okay let's start↓

130 

10

U. Balaman

vid:

comparative and sup-*&

gul

*pauses the video in the Zoom class

tra

&Accuracy tag appears on VEO player/fig15

fig15 11

GUL:

can you see my (0.3) voice

¬

((VEO video ends)) 12

(0.9)

13

TRA:

14

GUL:

well as you [see [*can you see my* $ah ah hahhh$

gul 15

TRA:

16

*---smiles----* $ah hah$

&yeah it's (.) quite *normal*& tra

&----------smiles------------&

gul

*-fig16-*

17

>*yeah< eh- it is problematic (0.3) ↑su::re* ↑GUL gul

*------------------fig17-------------------*

fig16

fig17

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs  18

131

*but it is (0.3) normal* *as i mentioned, you are a bit nervous* gul

*--------smiles-------*

19

GUL:

[°hm hm°

20

TRA:

[so what i (*0.4) er >you know< recommend you to you know (0.4)

gul 21

*---seven quick brief nods in a row--*

*smiles---> i

*mostly (.) give an emphasis on it

-->* 22

during our lectures together

23

>i mean the< one week↓ (.) ↑meeting

24

uh sorry one hour meeting uh weekly (0.5)

25

so what i mention here is that GUL (0.8)

26

especially in our novice years

27

we should study our instructions (0.3)

28

>uh< ↑*it is clear for us* because we are the ones *who you know gul

29

*--two brief nods--*

*--->

prepare this material* or ↑choose this material seven quick brief nods*

30

(0.5)

31

GUL:

°uh huh°

32

TRA:

but what about the students↑ (0.3)

Extract 1 starts with the trainer’s initiation of the clip of a tagged instance. TRA starts the video using VEO, and after 4.2s of silence GUL asks a confirmation question (can you see my screen?) addressed to the students in the online classroom. Two students respond in overlap following the 2.6s of silence in line 3. TEA bodily confirms in line 5 and immediately turns off her camera. In the third turn, GUL positively assesses (grea::th) the students’ responses and closes the sequence. The three-turn sequence here operates as a visibility check (Jakonen & Jauni, 2021) before initiating the online activity, and GUL marks this initiation (okay let’s start↓) in line 9. She plays the beginning of the video in the Zoom class and interrupts the playing by the end of line 10. This also coincides with TRA’s

132 

U. Balaman

activation of the tag, ‘Accuracy’ which also includes the following VEO note: ‘What do you mean here if they heard your voice or the video?’ (see fig15). Subsequently, another confirmation check, now oriented to audibility, is delivered by GUL in line 11 (can you see my (0.3) voice). However, GUL’s audibility check is problematic in structure. First, it is not clearly articulated whether GUL is checking the audibility of her own voice, thus her microphone, or of the video playing in the online class. Second, GUL uses the verb ‘see’ instead of ‘hear’. TRA topicalizes this problematic structure primarily through the VEO tag ‘Accuracy’ and the enclosed note on the VEO interface. Later, TRA uses this question to deliver a set of feedback turns and devise relevant solutions. Following 0.9s of silence, TRA takes the turn after ending the VEO video playing and initiates a moment of reflection by referring to GUL’s potential noticing of the trouble in the tagged instance (as you see). In partial overlap with TRA’s turn, GUL repeats the problematic part of her question turn with an accompanying smile which later turns into a hearable laughter. TRA responds to GUL’s laughter and repetition with a brief laughter. At this point, it can be concluded that GUL becomes aware of the trouble source in her turn and treats it as a laughable. In line 16, we see that TRA identifies a moment of professional self-deprecation, which could be a threat to GUL’s professional competence in situ, and initiates an affiliative (e.g., TRA’s smile), mitigated turn to tone down the extent of the trouble (yeah it’s (.) quite normal). By the end of line 16, GUL moves her right hand and covers her eyes and forehead (see fig16) and maintains this embodied action by later covering her mouth (see fig17), which possibly marks surprise and/or frustration. In line 17, TRA explicitly refers to GUL’s turn design in the online class as problematic (it is problematic (0.3) ↑su::re) and immediately mitigates it similar to her earlier action in the previous line. After calling it ‘normal’ again, TRA produces an account on behalf of GUL. After receipting TRA’s mitigation with smile, GUL engages in a series of quick nods that co-occur with TRA’s account provision and bodily displays her alignment with this account. Subsequently, GUL also verbally acknowledges the receipt of this account in line 19. So far in the extract, we observe that GUL was not aware of this ‘accuracy’ problem prior to the post-observation meeting, and she demonstrates her

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

133

noticing on a moment-by-moment basis while TRA is setting the scene for the forthcoming advice delivery. In line 20, TRA initiates the delivery of an extended advice turn (what i (0.4) er >you know< recommend you). TRA primarily refers to the pre-­observation meetings (during our lectures together) that take place in the focal teacher education context as an institutional requirement. Although the data were not available for the analysis of these meetings, TRA’s turn design draws on the preparation phase prior to the online practicum, thus opening a window into the earlier interactional encounters in the language teacher education processes. In a way, this calls for a closer attention in the earlier stages of the CALTE praxis base for a fuller understanding of the post-observation conversations. Therefore, the reflection-­on-­action that unfolds in the video-mediated interactional setting at hand also invites a look into the reflection-foraction component. Following her reference to the preparation phase in multiple units including self-repairs, in line 26, TRA invokes the ‘noviceness’ of GUL using inclusive language (in our novice years) and delivers an advice oriented to instruction giving (we should study our instructions) in line 27. In doing so, TRA maintains the use of inclusive language and topicalizes the interactional nature of instruction giving by referring to the requirement of mutual understanding (but what about the students↑). GUL displays embodied alignment with TRA’s advice initially with two brief nods, later followed by seven quick, brief nods in lines 28 and 29. Subsequently, GUL verbally acknowledges the receipt of the advice in line 31. At this point, let me discuss the extent of the reflectivity in Extract 1. In line with the definition of reflective talk (see Chap. 2, p. 39), we observe that micro-moments of teaching practices in the online practicum setting are critically analyzed with the involvement of the trainer and the trainee. The extract included instances of feedback, assessment, and advice giving. The feedback was delivered by merits of the teacher trainer’s pre-meeting tagging work on VEO and the presentation of tagged instances (e.g., ‘Accuracy’ tag, fig15) to the trainee for critically analyzing these instances in interaction. The assessment component was designed to identify the ‘problematic’ (i.e., negative assessment) teaching moments that were carefully

134 

U. Balaman

delivered to the trainee in mitigated turns. The advice giving was specifically referred to as such (i.e., recommend in line 20) and aimed at improving the trainee practice by studying more on instruction giving and keeping in mind its interactional nature. Therefore, we see that the strategic use of VEO by the trainer, turn design features, and successful management of feedback, assessment, and advice giving led to the emergence of some takeaway lessons for the trainee, thus creating teacher learning opportunities. Nevertheless, one component in the defining features of reflective talk remains questionable, namely promoting trainee voice. In the focal setting, the trainer individually managed VEO, decided when and in what order to play the tagged instances, determined the topics of feedback, assessment, and advice giving, and mostly dominated the floor. I argue that the predetermined solo tagging feature of VEO shapes the structure of the postobservation meeting and requires the trainer to utilize diverse resources for eliciting true reflection from the trainee, which we did not see much in the extract. This said, GUL’s turns showed that she raised awareness to a problem that she did not notice during her teaching, agreed with the import of the problem for the quality of her teaching, and bodily complied with the trainer’s suggestion. Also note that GUL’s agreement with the import of the problem created the ground for the subsequent reflective talk about similar technical problems, which I now turn to initially with Extract 2. The initial problematization of a technical trouble by TRA in Extract 1 is designedly the first of a series of tagged instances to share with GUL. I specifically focus on the cases during which the technical and pedagogical troubles are problematized primarily during the online classes and then tagged on VEO for post-observation conversations. Therefore, the extracts from this point on will show how reflection-in-action (during the actual teaching practice) becomes the subject of reflection-on-action (during the post-observation meeting). Extract 2 presents relevant cases of such an occurrence in three parts (2.1 for peer reflection-in-action; 2.2 trainer reflection-in-action; 2.3 trainee’s account giving and trainer’s advice). Following an almost 30 seconds of advice giving after the end of Extract 1, TRA continues problematizing GUL’s question design (Can you see my voice?) in Extract 2.1.

135

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

Extract 2.1: Peer Involvement in the Response Slot—0:08:41.8– 0:10:12.7 1

TRA

if you ask such a question (0.6)

2

i suppose because you will get (0.2) ↑ye:s (0.4) as a response

3

let's see

4

(0.9) ((VEO video starts))

5

Sx: tra

6

yes& &raised eyebrows,,,single nod---> (0.6)& --->&

7

PER:

*yes teacher i can hear*

gul

*------nods twice------*

8

(0.6) ((VEO video ends))

9

TRA:

so:: one of ↑ph (.) ↑actually your peer in the classroom

10

also (.) answered (.) yes teacher

11

this yes (0.4) u::h erm: is for (0.3) >uh< in my opinion

12

if they are hearing ↑your voice (0.3)

13

*not the voice* of the video gul

14 15

*two brief nods* because [you will see

GUL: gul

16

>we can-< i can hear (.) so

[↑*hmmm (0.3)* *slightly moves back and returns noddingly*

TRA:

*in a minute* because you ask (0.6)

gul

*two brief nods*

17

can you see my vid- (.) er can you see my voice

18

*you use this term* (0.5) *so that (0.7)* gul

*-smiles and nods-*

*---fig18-----*

(0.3)

fig18 19

because it was not a yes (0.3)

20

because it was (0.4) appearent (0.4)

21

that we can't hear your video

22

GUL:

23

TRA: gul

24

*huh

[huhm * [let's* see

*nods twice* (2.6)

((VEO video starts)) 25

GUL:

*↑uuuuhh*

gul

*--fig19-*

fig19 26

(0.6) ((VEO video ends))

27

TRA:

so you see:? (0.5)

28

that's (0.4) that's the way that we are hearing your video

29

so it was (0.3) ↑it was something (0.6) not understandable

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

137

In line 1, TRA continues her talk about GUL’s question design and gradually transitions into the subsequent moments in the online classroom. Before playing the video recording on the VEO player, she hints at the content of the video (you will get (0.2) ↑ye:s (0.4) as a response). Then, she alerts GUL to the incipient screen-based activity (let's see) (Pekarek Doehler & Balaman, 2021) in line 3 and starts playing the video from the earlier tagged episode onward. TRA’s tagging initially marks the moment when a student responds to the earlier ‘can you see my voice’ question affirmatively. In what follows, the peer teacher trainee (PER) shows active participation and delivers an additional affirmative response to GUL (yes teacher i can hear). To briefly remind, the trainees teach their practicum lessons with the participation of the teacher trainer, the mentor teacher, and a peer trainee who teaches to the same group of students, along with the students of the online classroom. One thing to note here is that the student’s response is very short (yes), and the PER’s (the peer) response does not include an object, thus leaving what is being heard unstated despite being type conforming. After pausing the video on the VEO player, TRA starts describing the tagged instance in line 9. TRA initiates her turn with so and focuses on the peer trainee’s response. Subsequently, she engages in the analysis of this peer response and identifies it as a response to the audibility of GUL’s voice (if they are hearing ↑your voice) rather than the sound of the video (not the voice of the video). In line 14, TRA deploys an incipient screen-­based activity alert (you will see) which overlaps with GUL’s acknowledgment in line 15. Also note that GUL primarily nods twice albeit briefly, then changes her body posture while nodding more explicitly and finally delivers two more brief nods. After completing her alert in line 16, TRA cites GUL’s problematic question turn in line 17 (can you see my voice) again. TRA’s reminder of GUL’s problematic turn is responded with a smile and nodding that is followed by a hand covering face gesture as in Extract 1. From line 19 onward, TRA comes back to her earlier analysis of the peer response and explicitly states in lines 20 and 21 that the video

138 

U. Balaman

was not audible (it was (0.4) appearent (0.4) that we can't hear your video). GUL acknowledges the receipt of TRA’s analysis of the peer response with acknowledgment tokens and nods. As in almost all cases in the database, in line 23, TRA uses the routine formula (let's see) for alerting to an incipient screen-based activity, specifically playing the recordings of the online class on VEO. The video starts playing, and GUL immediately notices the audibility problem with it and marks her noticing verbally with a prolonged change of state token (uuuuhh) and bodily by opening her mouth to demonstrate her surprise. Subsequently, TRA pauses the video and refers to the audibility problem in the last lines of the extract. GUL apparently registers the audibility problem as new information. Therefore, we see that GUL was neither aware of the accuracy problem with her question nor the audibility problem with the video she uses as the teaching material in her online practicum class. The accuracy problem would be tolerable if mutual understanding would be established in interaction. However, TRA’s selection of tagging this instance seems to aim at clearly showing that mutual understanding was also at stake, which multiplied the extent of the problem. Additionally, the accuracy problem would remain circumstantial if the video would be heard clearly by all participants; however, this was not the case either. Therefore, TRA initially showed the accuracy problem in Extract 1 and later presented how it relates to the audibility problem in Extract 2. While she establishes a link between accuracy and instruction giving in Extract 1, she marks a similar link between the lack of mutual understanding due to the accuracy problem and the unresolved technical trouble in Extract 2. On a final note, we see that a non-student participant, the peer trainee produces a response turn because she possibly treats the short student response in the previous turn as insufficient. Although this marks a moment of reflection-in-action, TRA does not topicalize it extensively unlike the subsequent instances of similar kind (Extracts 3, 4, 5). Here we continue with the second part of Extract 2 which starts with another VEO instance during which a student proposes a solution to the ongoing technical trouble.

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

139

Extract 2.2: Trainer Involvement—I Wrote to You from the Chat Box—0:10:12.7–0:11:00.5 five lines omitted ((VEO video starts)) 35

GUL:

oka::y

36

Sx:

turn the volume up

((VEO video ends)) 37 38

(0.8) TRA:

you can (0.2) ↑one of the students (0.4) u:h after a while

39

say that can you vo- vo- (0.5)

40

can you turn on the volume kind of

41

[she- he (0.2)

42

43

GUL:

[*°huh huh°*

gul

*two nods*

TRA:

asks *such- you such a question* (0.5)

gul

*--four quick brief nods--*

44

and

45

GUL:

46

TRA:

[so: [°hu huh°

you just show (.) that

47

this is the last volume that i have in my computer

48

but it was not about the (.) ↑volume

49

maybe >you ↓know< the internet connection

50

or (0.3) something like this

51

(0.7)

52

so: (0.3) actually you did yourrr (0.4) ↑si:de (0.2)

53

but the way that you are asking your questions (0.2)

54

↑i ↓think cannot get any (0.5) uhm meaning (0.3)

55

*from the audience* in the *classroom,* gul

*---lip parting---*

*,,,fig20...*

140 

U. Balaman

fig20 56

from the students in the class↑room

57

and they said yes to you (0.4)

58

*but as you see that's the way that we were* hearing, gul

*-------------------fig21-------------------*

fig21 59

(0.6)

60

*and i suppose i wrote you from the chat box* gul

*----------------fig21 above---------------*

After the completion of another round of problematization of GUL’s unclear question, TRA continues playing the video on VEO.  In the tagged instance, a part of a student’s turn is heard (turn the volume up) in line 36, and TRA pauses the video. In what follows, TRA describes this student’s turn to GUL, and it becomes clear that the student is asking

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

141

a question that also operates as a proffer of a potential solution for the ongoing technical trouble. GUL acknowledges the receipt of TRA’s description verbally and bodily in an overlapping fashion in line 42. TRA completes her description in line 43 that is oriented with multiple quick brief nods by GUL followed by a low volume acknowledgment in line 45. Therefore, we observe that GUL displays understanding of the student’s question in the classroom as well as TRA’s enactment of the classroom event in the post-observation meeting. From line 46 onward, TRA continues her enactment by quoting GUL’s response to this student that declines the student’s potential solution. In line 48, TRA problematizes this question-answer sequence in the classroom by referring to the trouble in the identification of the source of the problem (but it was not about the (.) ↑volume). TRA try-marks another potential source of the technical trouble in line 49 (the internet connection). Unlike the earlier instances following the video viewing on VEO, TRA does not produce a negative assessment of GUL’s practice (you did yourrr (0.4) ↑si:de). However, she subsequently returns to the ‘accuracy’ problem with GUL’s question (the way that you are asking your questions) and the trouble in the mutual understanding due to this problem (cannot get any (0.5) uhm meaning from the audience). In line 55, GUL displays her willingness to take the turn by parting her lips and then raising her left hand to bid for the floor (see fig20). However, this is not oriented by TRA as she continues her turn with the self-repair (from the students in the class↑room) in line 56. TRA’s continuation leads GUL to suspend her bidding for the turn until the next transition relevance place, the 0.4s of pause in line 57. Following another round of reference to the audibility problem by TRA, GUL bids for the turn again by raising her pointing finger (see fig21). She briefly suspends her finger raising and raises it again in line 60. However, TRA does not show any orientations to GUL but continues her talk. This instance leads to some important conclusions regarding the reflectivity of the post-observation conversations at hand. Similar to the earlier instances, TRA does not seem to put any observable efforts to promote the trainee voice for true reflection. So far in the post-observation

142 

U. Balaman

meeting, we have not observed any moments that GUL provided an account, initiated any reflective talk, and/or resisted to trainer advice. GUL participated only through acknowledgment tokens and embodied actions to signal her alignment with TRA’s turn. When she bids for a turn for the first time, she is not given any interactional space. Therefore, I conclude that despite the successful management of feedback, assessment, and advice giving, reflectivity remains limited due to the limited space allocated to the trainee. Another important action to note in Extract 2.2 is seen in line 60. After the peer involvement in GUL’s ongoing teaching practice in the online classroom, we see that TRA was also involved (and i suppose i wrote you from the chat box). Previously, I analyzed how GUL registered the audibility problem as new information. Now we see that TRA alerted GUL to the audibility problem using the chat feature of Zoom during the actual teaching practice. Therefore, for a second time, reflection-in-­action is mentioned during reflection-on-action. However, TRA neither waits for GUL’s confirmation of the receipt of the chat message during the online practicum teaching nor notices her finger raising. Instead, she continues with her feedback delivery using VEO and starts playing the recording until GUL enters the turn without waiting any longer for TRA’s turn allocation. We see how it plays out during the part of the post-observation meeting in Extract 2.3. Extract 2.3: Account Giving and Trainer Suggestion—0:11:00.5– 0:12:49.1 61

TRA:

62

(here is) GUL (0.9)

((VEO video starts)) 63

GUL:

[uhm (it's it's)

64

GUL:

[i thought that (0.2) this situation

((VEO video ends))

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs  65

GUL:before (0.4) annd for that reason

66 67

i (0.2) erm (0.7) opened the (0.3)[subtitles TRA:

68 69

[°subtitles° (0.3) [*yes*

GUL: [*yeah* (0.3) gul

*two nods*

70

TRA:

[i caught it

71

GUL:

[yea:h

72

(0.6)

73

huh huhm (0.4)

74

and then they (0.4) can (0.6) watch easily with this way

75 76

(0.6) TRA: ↑well yes (0.2)in * a sense you opened the subtitles(.) gul

77

*hands brought together under chin/fig 22---> so and* >* and also< in the video --->**hands slightly move away from chin --->

fig22

143

144  78 79

U. Balaman there are some (0.2) explanations about=

GUL:

=+huh huh+*

gul

+two nods+ --->*

13 lines omitted 93

+and+ at the very same time↓ >you know- ↑you know< gul

+nods+

94

looking at the subtitles make this activity as a reading one

95

(0.7)

96

GUL: gul

97

TRA:

[*°huh huh°* *--nods--* [so: not a listening one therefore the idea behind

98

using this activity as a listening activity (0.4)

99

failed then (0.2)

100

so there is no (0.5) uh (0.2) more

101

>you know< effectiveness (0.4)

102

↑what it could be the you know you might ask (0.3)

103

okay then what is your solution to this (0.5)

104

i might (0.3) you know ask (0.2) you you mi-

105

you ↑can use your mobile phone (0.2) in such [you know cases

106

GUL: gul

[↑*hmmm* *nods with eyebrows

slightly raised*

After making it clear for GUL to notice that her video-based material was not audible to the students in the classroom and failing to create interactional space for GUL’s talk, TRA starts playing another instance on VEO.  GUL’s talk in the classroom becomes hearable through the video clip playing on VEO in line 63. However, GUL stops waiting for TRA’s turn allocation and uses the video viewing as a transition space and enters the turn in line 64. GUL initially refers to her preparedness for such a technical trouble (i thought that (0.2) this situation

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

145

before). GUL’s turn taking leads TRA to pause the video. Following the statement about her preparedness, GUL projects an explanation (annd for that reason). Subsequently, GUL elaborates on her preparation and refers to the subtitles integrated to the video material (i (0.2) erm (0.7) opened the (0.3) subtitles) in line 66. Here we see that

GUL’s earlier efforts to take the turn in Extract 2.2 were meant to provide an account in response to TRA’s extensive problematization for about five minutes of the post-observation meeting. GUL’s account addresses an alternative solution for the ongoing technical trouble, which has already been recognizable to TRA as seen in the turn-final overlap (°subtitles°) in line 67. The overlapping nature of the production of subtitles by both GUL and TRA shows that TRA recognized the completion of GUL’s account giving turn. In what follows, we observe two more overlaps, initially in lines 68 and 69 and then in lines 70 and 71. The latter one includes TRA’s reference to her noticing of the alternative use of subtitles during the online class. Therefore, three consecutive overlaps occur in the post-observation conversation, and it happens right after the first time that GUL takes the floor to provide an account. Accordingly, this becomes another moment in the conversation that trainee voice is not promoted even when the trainee demonstrates willingness to provide an account. Nevertheless, the three overlaps do not lead GUL to withdraw her account giving, and after the overlap resolution in line 72 (0.6s of silence), GUL primarily acknowledges TRA’s recognition of her alternative solution and signals the continuation of her account giving (and then). GUL completes giving her account in line 74 and refers to the feasibility of her solution (they (0.4) can (0.6) watch easily with this way). TRA takes the turn in line 76 and quotes GUL’s account (you opened the subtitles) yet priming it with in a sense that possibly shows the lack of a complete alignment with this account. Also note that GUL changes her posture and adopts a listenership gesture (see fig22). In what follows, despite the implicated misalignment, TRA upgrades GUL’s account on behalf of GUL and inserts new potential sources of resolution (and also< in the video there are some (0.2) explanations about), which is acknowledged by GUL in line 79. TRA’s turn is a reference to the textual input in the video. In the omitted part, TRA

146 

U. Balaman

briefly talks about the length of the video and repeats the audibility problem again. Then, she returns to GUL’s account regarding the subtitle use. We saw in the extract that TRA set the scene for an advice delivery oriented to the textual input. GUL mentioned the subtitles, and TRA added the textual explanations in the video contents. TRA’s interactional project with the upgrade of GUL’s account becomes clear by line 94. Following the transition into a new topic (and at the very same time) in line 93, TRA topicalizes the type of activity that the textual materials invoke (looking at the subtitles make this activity as a reading one). GUL acknowledges TRA’s contribution in line 96. In what follows, TRA starts problematizing this pedagogical choice hence GUL’s account for the technical trouble (not a listening one) and refers to the pedagogical outcome of this potential solution as a failure (the idea behind using this activity as a listening activity failed then). With this turn, TRA initiates the delivery of a negative assessment and even upgrades her reference to the negativity (there is no ... more ... effectiveness). Subsequently, she enters into an advice delivery turn. Note that the transition from the negative assessment to advice delivery occurs only after 0.4s of pause, thus leaving limited space for speaker change. The initiation of the advice delivery is another interesting moment for traineecenteredness in that TRA formulates a hypothetical question on behalf of GUL (you might ask ... what is your solution to this). Rather than making space for GUL’s questions and the reflective talk, TRA asks the question herself and answers it herself (you ↑can use your mobile phone) and delivers her advice in doing so. TRA’s turn design includes this hypothetical question as a pre-advice unit. However, given the limited space for trainee reflection, these moments that would be easily made relevant for GUL’s talk become even more consequential for true reflection. All in all, what started with an unclear question turn became the topic of trainer feedback through VEO, and this created ground for rich feedback giving, assessment, and advice giving instances oriented to trainee practices during online practicum teaching. Extracts 1 and 2 (i.e., 2.1,

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

147

2.2, 2.3) covered around five minutes of the post-observation meeting during which diverse technical, interactional, and pedagogical concerns were reflected on in talk-in-interaction. Despite GUL’s embodied and verbal orientation to the problems in her teaching practices, noticing of the improvable aspects, and the teacher learning opportunities that these moments created, I argue that reflectivity remained very limited due to the lack of trainee voice. One reason for that seems to be the structure of VEO or simply the way that TRA used it: She worked on the recording of the online teaching, determined points of feedback prior to the meeting, and followed a certain structure by pursuing each tagged instance one-by-one. Therefore, the use of VEO led to a tightly structured meeting format. However, this meeting format could have been more open to trainee reflection if TRA considered eliciting GUL’s reflection after viewing the videos. This said, both TRA and the teacher trainees refer to these conversations as feedback meetings, and this is also what I observe having been mostly done in and through the post-observation conversations at hand.

 eflecting on Reflection-in-(Inter)action during Online R Practicum Teaching The research interest of this chapter is in the moments when TRA topicalizes reflection-in-action during reflection-on-action. We see that reflection-in-action is strategically selected by TRA as it marks in situ interventions to resolve problematic practices in the online classrooms, which completely aligns with the feedback-oriented and trainer-fronted nature of the focal meeting. However, it does not necessarily mean that reflection-in-action is a welcomed practice during the practicum teaching. TRA topicalizes reflection-in-action and uses it to problematize both these interventions (Extract 3 peer intervention; Extract 4 trainer intervention; Extract 5 teacher intervention) and their underlying reasons in the following three extracts.

148 

U. Balaman

Extract 3: Peer Intervention—0:22:36.2–0:24:27.2 1

(0.8)

2

TRA:

3

GUL:

huh ((VEO video starts)) and (0.4) er also

(0.3) er

4

this rules (0.2) has an (.) er (0.3)

5

ex (0.3) exjept- uh exceptions,

6

(0.8)

7

ermmm

8

(1.9)

9

do you (0.3) have any uhmmm

10

(1.1)

11

idea about what uh- what are they↑

12

(1.7)

13

gul

14

*did you write anything about it

*both hands hold head on the sides/fig23---> (4.8)&

&VEO note appears on the screen/fig23

fig23 15

GUL:

disappointment $hhh$

16

Sx:

+most*=

17

PER:

gul

tra

18 19

--->*

+smiles-->

=%teacher (0.4) are we talking about superlatives %smiles--->

(0.7) GUL:

uhm+ not rea- (.) >ye-< ↑ye:s --->+

((VEO video ends))

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs  20

149

(1.5)% --->%

21

TRA:

22

actually (0.2) ↑no:: (0.4) what you were (.) uh talking about *was >you know*
uh uh< (.) ↑i suppose what you were >wel- wa-< waiting

31 32

*raised eyebrows, left hand touches left cheek, smiles*

is a response as (0.5) good (0.5) better (0.3) and [bad GUL:

*[huh huh* (0.3)

gul 33

TRA:

*--nods--* kind of (0.2) so (0.6)

34

uh but it was not clear for the students (0.2)

35

and your friends couldn't help herself

36 37

and she just intervere again and GUL:

gul

*yess $ah hah$*

*raised eyebrows, left hand touches left cheek, smiles*

150  38

U. Balaman TRA:

she just say that (0.3) are we talking about *(0.2) superlatives

39 gul

*curls lower lip--->

40

and with hesitations* you say yes

41

*(0.7)

--->* gul

*raises eyebrows w/ smile--->

42

GUL:

°(yeah)°*

43

TRA:

but it was not (0.4)

--->* 44

so at the very- (0.3) well along with GUL- uh sorry PER

45

one of the students was also talking

46

and you couldn't (0.3) catch it

47

*because it's (0.4*) really hard in zoom gul

48

*------nods------* when there are *ov- overlaps (0.4*) in sounds to catch the rest

gul

*------nods------*

Extract 3 starts with the collaborative viewing of another tagged instance on VEO. TRA marks the identification of the next instance to play in line 2 and starts playing it. In the online classroom, GUL initiates an extended question turn. She enters the turn with reference to the exceptions in the focal topic, comparatives and superlatives (this rules (0.2) has an (.) er (0.3) ex (0.3) exjept- uh exceptions,). However, her turn entry is disrupted due to multiple pauses (from 0.2s to 1.9s), same turn self-repairs (ex (0.3) exjept- uh exceptions,), and the extended hesitation marker in line 7. Subsequently, she delivers the question (do you (0.3) have any uhmmm idea about what uh- what are they↑) again in a dis-

rupted manner. Following 1.7s of silence, in line 13, GUL inserts an additional question (did you write anything about it) that aims to check alignment with her earlier instruction for note taking during the viewing of the video material. Let me also note that at some point in the post-­observation meeting, TRA problematized the instruction for taking notes due to the audibility problem (not shown in the selected extracts). At the onset of this additional question in the video clip, GUL engages in

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

151

an embodied action in the video-mediated meeting layer (given in boldface when co-occur with the viewing of the video clips) that becomes ­observable in the Zoom frame (see fig23). GUL brings both hands together on the sides of her head to mark her frustration of the way she asked the question during her practicum teaching. She maintains this embodied action during 4.8s of silence by the end of which TRA’s note on the VEO appears. The note (see fig23) states the following: The one who was talking here your friend. As you see, she also hesitated what you were asking. She asked if you were asking examples. However here what you wanted from the ss were not examples the exception!

Right after the appearance of the note on VEO and while maintaining her embodied action, GUL produces a self-deprecating assessment of her own performance (disappointment $hhh$) in line 15. Co-occurring with the next turn of the video clip from the online classroom, she smiles and ends her ongoing hands on the sides of head gesture. The next turn in the clip, on the other hand, includes a response from a student (most). The student response is delivered after the 4.8s of silence in line 14. Latching this response turn, the peer trainee (PER) shows active participation for a second time in the meeting and asks a clarification question (teacher (0.4) are we talking about superlatives) in line 17. PER observably invokes a student identity by addressing GUL as the teacher, just like she did earlier in Extract 2.1. PER’s clarification question is different in shape than the earlier instance. She participated in the response slot in Extract 2.1 to confirm the audibility of GUL’s voice, here, on the other hand, she identifies an ongoing trouble in understanding GUL’s question and possibly in the details of the activity. TRA watches PER’s clarification question with a smile until the end of the tagged instance. Following 0.7s of silence, GUL responds to PER’s clarification question with a turn that is initiated with a seemingly negative response (uhm not rea-) and immediately cuts it off to self-repair her response by replacing it with a positive one (>ye-< ↑ye:s). After the end of the tagged instance and following 1.5s of silence, TRA takes the turn in line 21 and shows disagreement with GUL’s response in the online classroom (actually (0.2) ↑no::). In line 22, TRA starts

152 

U. Balaman

elaborating on her disagreement that leads GUL to repeat the hands to head gesture (see fig24). TRA refers to GUL’s production of the response to PER’s clarification in line 19 as a hesitation (you hesitated to say ↑yes (0.4) to this question). After mentioning her failure to spot a moment in the recording in the subsequent three lines (i couldn't find it exactly), TRA summarizes her understanding of the reference of GUL’s question turn (so you were talking about the exceptional (.) exception) in line 27. GUL complies with the summary verbally (°yes°) and bodily and puts her left hand to her cheek in a way to mark her changing state from the earlier frustration to the listenership. In lines 29, 30, and 31, TRA continues her turn and produces her candidate understanding of the preferred responses that GUL expects (a response as (0.5) good (0.5) better (0.3) and bad), which is confirmed by GUL in line 32. TRA completes telling her candidate understanding in line 33 (kind of) and transitions into (so) another aspect of the trouble in the tagged instance. Despite the minimal participation by GUL, TRA manages to elicit confirmation for her candidate understanding by line 32. The fact that it requires extensive interactional work to clarify the meaning of a teacher turn also implicates that it was not much accessible to the participants in the online classroom. In line 34, TRA initially refers to such a trouble in clarity (but it was not clear for the students) and brings the reflection-in-­ ­ action component into the post-observation that also defines the analytic focus of this chapter. In line 35, TRA describes the extent of this intervention with a somewhat interesting formulation (your friends couldn’t help herself). ‘Not being able to help oneself ’ structure here also seems to mark the institutional preference for such interventions. That is to say, what is expected from a peer is that she should not intervene, and the intervention happens only because she could not manage to remain a non-participant observer. However, TRA’s turn design does not necessarily attribute the violation of the institutional participation norm to PER’s clarification question but to the unclarity of GUL’s question turn. This finding becomes sequentially observable in GUL’s previous turn construction in line 34. In line 36, TRA refers to

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

153

this as an intervention (albeit uttered as intervere) and marks the recurrence of PER’s involvement (again). This again is an additional emic evidence for the collection of cases presented in this chapter because it shows TRA’s awareness of the recurrence while tagging these instances prior to the meeting. In what follows, GUL complies with TRA’s formulation oriented to PER’s intervention. Toward the end of the extract, in lines 38 to 43, TRA repeats her earlier analysis of GUL’s question and PER’s intervention during the online practicum which is bodily and verbally confirmed by GUL. In line 44, TRA transitions into (with so again) another phenomenon and topicalizes the student’s response turn in the tagged instance (see line 16). TRA problematizes a missed learning opportunity (you couldn't (0.3) catch it) and immediately mitigates the problematization with reference to the technical difficulty of clearly hearing student contributions in online classrooms. Overall, TRA included the peer intervention among the tagged instances and engaged in feedback and assessment. The fact that Extract 3 did not include advice-giving is simply due to brevity purposes (the same goes for Extracts 4 and 5). In the following moments of the post-­ observation meeting, TRA delivers various advice-giving actions. As for the trainee voice, we mostly observed acknowledgment and compliance tokens that showed GUL’s raised awareness by attentively receipting TRA’s feedback and assessment turns. One instance was particularly interesting and different than the earlier cases, though. GUL’s self-­ deprecating negative assessment turn while the video clip was playing marked a moment of critical analysis by a trainee. Therefore, we saw how even short utterances might operate as extremely valuable reflective moments, which calls for promoting the trainees’ interactional space as much as possible. Lastly, TRA’s reference to PER’s intervention and its centrality for the tagged instance in this extract require a closer look. I argue that reflection-in-action is a convenient way of inviting reflective talk during reflection-on-action in that it inherently includes the emergent problems in situ that can be critically analyzed for improved future practices. In the following extract, we continue with another instance of reflection-in-action, this time by the teacher trainer herself.

154 

U. Balaman

Extract 4: Trainer Intervention—We Don’t See Your Slides— 0:26:48.1–0:28:35.4 1

TRA:

2

uh (0.3) then (0.2) after your summary let's see [what you are doing ((VEO video starts))

3

GUL:

[err slide

4

(1.9)

5

okay

6

(1.1)

7

&what are the comparative adjectives? &Ignored tag appears on the VEO screen/fig25--->

fig25 8

(0.6)& &Ignored tag disappears, VEO note is still on the screen--->

9

comparative adjectives are (0.2) words

10

used to compare& the↑ (0.6) difference between two things (0.5) note disappears&

11

as you (0.2) can from- (.) see from the video (0.8)

12

and (0.4) err we say (0.3) smaller bigger

13

(1.5)&

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

&Quick Tag appears on the VEO screen/fig26

fig26 14

TRA:

if you are showing us your slides, (0.2) we can't((VEO video ends))

15

TRA:

&so:: here i am

i can't help myself, (.)

&Quick Tag disappears, VEO note is still on the screen 16

>uh uh< i shouldn't do this (0.2) to be honest

17

i need to be as a shadow here (0.3)

18

so it was very you know (0.4) unprofessional of me here

19

*(0.4)* gul

*lateral headshake twice*

20

but i couldn't help myself because you were talking about

21

you know (0.2) i i suppose you were showing your slides (0.2)

22

but as you see (.)

23

this (0.2) screen was the one that they (0.2) we are seeing

24

(0.5)

25

[so::

GUL:

[*thank you for letting

gul

*smiles--->

26

TRA:

$ah

27

GUL:

=nobody (0.5) say anything

28

hah$ it was=

(0.4)

155

156  29

U. Balaman TRA: ↑yes nobody said so:* (0.2) --->*

30

i was waiting and then

31

i just realized that nobody (0.2) actually caught it

32

so i just (0.3) would like to share it (0.5)

33

so because you prepared something

34

and you were talking about your slides

35

GUL:

*°huhm°*

gul

*nods*

Toward the part of the post-observation meeting that covers the end of GUL’s first class (of two classes in a row) in the practicum, TRA completes the reflection-on-action oriented to GUL’s summary of the first class-hour and delivers an incipient video viewing (let's see) alert similar to the earlier extracts. TRA starts playing the video before syntactically completing her alerting turn (what you are doing) and the sound of the video clip overlaps with the completion point of TRA’s turn. In the online classroom, GUL refers to a slide in line 3. Following 1.9s of silence, she marks transition into (okay) an activity and asks an information question (what are the comparative adjectives?). The onset of GUL’s question in the online classroom coincides with the tag ‘Ignored’ that appears along with a note: ‘You were showing your slides here I guess?’ In what follows, it becomes clear that this question format is not addressed to the students but simply a pre-explanation turn to hint at the forthcoming explanation. In line 9, GUL engages in a grammatical description about the focal topic at that moment, comparative adjectives. She delivers an explicit grammar instruction turn in lines 9 and 10. In the meantime, the ‘Ignored’ tag and then the note on the VEO screen disappear. In line 11, GUL refers to the materials in the video (as you (0.2) can from- (.) see from the video) not the slide that she mentioned back in line 3. Subsequently, she reads the content from the shared screen (smaller bigger); however, these materials are not visible in the screen. This helps TRA identify another technical trouble that has pedagogical consequences. Accordingly, following 1.5s of silence, TRA initiates the ‘Quick Tag’ with a note on the VEO screen. The note states the following: ‘I could not help myself but interfere here, which I should not have done’. This note

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

157

and the subsequent turns clearly show TRA’s strategic selection of a moment of reflection-in-action to talk with GUL during the reflection-­on-­action. Right after the appearance of the new tag, TRA’s reflection-in-­action turn plays in the video clip (if you are showing us your slides, (0.2) we can't-). TRA pauses the video without playing the syntactical completion of her turn during the online class. In what follows, she verbalizes the statement on the first part of the note in line 15 (i can't help myself) and the remaining part in line 16 (i shouldn't do this). She upgrades her stance regarding the requirement of her institutional role (i need to be as a shadow here) and explicitly criticizes her action (it was very you know (0.4) unprofessional of me). GUL’s lateral headshake in line 19 marks her disagreement with TRA’s self-criticism albeit minimally. By harshly criticizing her active participation behavior to alert GUL for an ongoing technical trouble, TRA also sets the scene for delivering an account for her behavior. In line 20, TRA initiates a new turn prefaced with but, and uses the same structure that she used previously to reflect on the peer intervention in Extract 3. In the earlier instance, ‘not being able to help oneself ’ structure was framed as the violation of the institutional roles to pursue during the practicum but not necessarily treated negatively. Here, TRA initially treats her own action negatively but reuses this structure for a second time in the extract in line 20 to provide a reasoning for her action (but i couldn't help myself because). TRA’s reasoning includes her candidate understanding (i suppose you were showing your slides) in relation to the technical trouble that she uses to build this part of the post-observation conversation. Then, she notifies GUL about the visibility problem (this (0.2) screen was the one that they (0.2) we are seeing). In overlap with TRA’s signal to transitioning into possibly another component of her reflective talk, in line 15, GUL thanks TRA (thank you for letting). This moment in the meeting makes it observable that TRA’s identification and the relevant intervention were well-placed. Despite GUL’s ambiguous references initially to the slides and then to the video, TRA correctly diagnoses the source of the trouble. GUL’s thanking turn is responded by TRA with a turn-initial laughter, and TRA’s continuation is blocked by GUL with an account delivery. Similar to the short, reflective self-­deprecation (disappointment) turn previously, GUL produces a very short reflective turn in

158 

U. Balaman

line 27 (nobody (0.5) say anything). TRA confirms this in line 29 and states that this is another reason for her intervention in lines 30, 31, and 32. Subsequently, TRA refers to the pedagogical aspect of the technical trouble at hand. In line 33, she addresses GUL’s preparation of a language teaching material (because you prepared something) and its use in the online classroom (and you were talking about your slides) in line 34. GUL receipts this comment in line 35. Overall, we have seen in Extract 4 that reflective talk is multidimensional in nature (Kanat Mutluoğlu & Balaman, in preparation). While TRA did not hesitate to bring the moments of reflection-in-action to the attention of GUL in the post-observation meeting, she explicitly criticized reflection-in-action regardless of its pedagogical role in the online practicum teaching. However, in all of the cases in the collection, reflection-­in-action marks problematic moments in the online teaching practice, thus being rich interactional domains for reflection-on-action. Another thing to note at this point, both the peer trainee (PER) in Extract 3 and the teacher trainer (TRA) in Extract 4 intervened the ongoing practicum teaching only when they identified trouble in the pedagogical, technical, and interactional progressivity of the teaching. Given that the post-observation meeting is between GUL and TRA, and PER is not present to provide accounts, TRA’s account giving can be considered expectable. By using the reflection-in-action for feedback purposes, TRA provided a teacher learning opportunity. The close analysis of the extract shows that GUL’s turn design did not make the identification of the trouble source easy for TRA.  Nevertheless, TRA managed to successfully identify it and reflected on her own action to facilitate GUL’s noticing in situ which became observable in her short reflective turn in the form of an account giving. GUL’s account was oriented to the students’ passive participation and failure to alert her to the trouble. However, I argue that it was not because of the students’ behaviors but because of GUL’s ambiguous turn design. In any case, GUL found the opportunity to critically examine this sequence with TRA. Lastly, similar to the earlier extracts, GUL’s reflection-on-action remained limited and largely reliant on TRA’s extended turns. This does not seem to unfold much different in the last extract of the chapter during which the mentor teacher intervention in the online classroom is topicalized by TRA in and through video-­ mediated post-observation conversations.

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

159

Extract 5: Teacher Intervention—0:36:10.2–0:38:04.0 1

2

TRA:

3

((VEO video starts))

so as you see, (.) ↑right now↓

you were waiting fo:r (0.2)

↑the students to come here to the kahoot game

4

the erm (0.7) ↑TEA will say it (.) in a minute

5

(0.4)

i think she shouldn't (0.5) u:h (0.7) but

6

>uh i< (0.2) as far as what i see↑ (0.2)

7

and what i observed from the students

8

sorry from the teachers (0.4) from the mentor teachers (0.4)

9

she couldn't help herself as well (0.6)

11

there were twenty eight students in the classroom

10

anyway she just say that (0.3)

12

so: (.) >at that time>

13

there were only eighteen students (0.3) er in the classroom

14

&so you were waiting for them (.)

&Proper Instruction tag appears on the VEO screen/fig27-->line19

fig27 15

GUL:

16 17 18 19

still (1.2)

TEA: TRA:

(two) students (0.6) huh&= --->&

160  20

U. Balaman TEA:

21

=is there anyone who wants to (0.2) join the game (0.6) yes eighteen students ((VEO video ends))

22 23

(0.7) TRA:

so you were there (0.3)

24

she didn't (0.2) >you know< ask these questions to the students

25

(.) ↑anyway

26

i think just because of the &(0.4) unwillingness of the students &Quick Tag appears on the VEO screen/fig28--->line32

fig28 27

she just would like to (0.2) say this

28

(1.3)

29

GUL:

30

TRA:

[>°huh huh°< [and so half of your class >till the< (0.3)

31

as you see we were in you know (0.2)

32

two to three minutes we were on this page

33

&and we moved to the thirteen (0.3) er (0.3) uhm ↓uh (0.6) &back to Kahoot part in the video--->

34

you know thirteen& &fif↑teen (0.5) uh >you know for< (0.3)

35

↓yeah it means that half of your (0.2) class, (0.3)

--->& &back to fig28 above---> 36

uh you know *goes with this (0.2)* ↑kahoot game (0.8) gul

37

*curls lower lip, three quick nods* >*uh uh< i* (0.2)

gul

*lip parting*

38

GUL:

↑TEA says that erm (0.2) they-

39

TRA:

i understood it

40

*(0.6)*

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs  gul 41

161

*two quick brief nods* because you talked about it the- >it's the< [↑your

42

GUL:

43

TRA:

[*huh huh* (0.2)

gul 44

*nods twice* your mentor teacher advised you to: (0.2) include (0.2) kahoot games because [she

45

GUL:

46

TRA:

[*yeah*

gul

*big slow nod* just likes it

47

(0.8)

48

but here is my question (0.3) to you (0.2)

49

and to: (.) her as well she's not here appearently (0.5)

50

but uh- (0.2) >°the stude-°< (0.2)

51

there were twenty eight students in the classroom *(.)* gul

52

*brief nod* only the eighteen of them participate into this game↓

53

what about the rest *(0.3)* what are they doing↑ (0.2) gul

*fig29*

fig29 54

>↑well< we do not know (0.2) during online classes

The last extract of the chapter starts with the initiation of a tagged instance on VEO. In the earlier instances, we observed that TRA described the contents of the video and explained her rationale for her selection of these specific instances either prior to the viewing of the video or after doing so. Here, the video viewing co-occurs with TRA’s description of its

162 

U. Balaman

contents. The video covers GUL’s initiation of a Kahoot game to test the students’ learning of the focal topic, comparatives and superlatives. TRA’s description is clearly audible in the video-mediated meeting layer (given in boldface in the transcript) because it coincides with the moments when GUL waits for the students to log in to the Kahoot page, hence there are not any interactions in the online classroom at that moment. TRA marks GUL’s waiting in lines 2 and 3 and alerts GUL to the upcoming intervention by the mentor teacher, TEA (↑TEA will say it (.) in a minute) in line 4. Subsequently, TRA problematizes this intervention (i think she shouldn't) in line 5. After highlighting TEA’s teacher and mentor roles respectively in line 8, TRA uses the same structure as the earlier extracts (she couldn't help herself) and marks the recurrence of this phenomenon (as well) in line 9. Therefore, once again TRA selects a moment of reflection-in-action to critically analyze it during the reflection-on-­action. In what follows, TRA quotes TEA’s intervention turns which will play on VEO couple seconds later. TRA completes her description in line 14, and this coincides with the appearance of the ‘Proper Instruction’ tag along with the following note: ‘The teacher of the class checked the number of ss in the classroom and she interfered. There was no need’ (see fig27). What diverges from the earlier use of the ‘not being able to help oneself ’ structure oriented to peer and trainer interventions is TRA’s reference to ‘there is no need’. Previously, this structure implicated a need, for example, for clarification (peer intervention in Extract 3) and for resolution of a technical trouble (trainer intervention in Extract 4). From line 15 onward, the talk-in-interaction unfolds in the online classroom. In line 17, TEA actively participates for the first time in the extract. She hearably counts the students who logged in to the Kahoot game page ((two) students). TRA acknowledges TEA’s turn in the video-­mediated post-observation conversation layer in a way to mark the focal point in the tagged instance. TRA’s acknowledgment can be retrospective (line 17) or prospective (line 20) oriented. It also coincides with the disappearance of the ‘Proper Instruction’ tag and the enclosed note on VEO. In line 20, TEA asks a question clearly addressed to the students and designed to check their willingness to participate or their ongoing state of participation (is there anyone who wants to (0.2)

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

163

join the game). Following 0.6s of pause, TEA reports the current number on the Kahoot page (yes eighteen students) in line 21,

and the tagged instance comes to an end. TEA’s turns to check participation and reporting the latest count are observably an intervention to GUL’s management of her own practicum teaching, thus being reflection-in-action, and TRA builds the rest of the post-observation meeting to reflect on this practice. By transitioning into the post-viewing reflective talk with a turn-initial so in line 23, TRA initially indicates GUL’s presence in the online classroom (you were there). In line 24, TRA’s use of she as the subject pronoun is seemingly a reference to TEA. Therefore, it can be concluded that TRA analyzes that GUL is the addressee of the TEA’s check for participation. Although this does not entirely comply with TEA’s turn design back in line 20, it is possible that TRA aims to topicalize the reflection-in-action component during the online teaching which we observed in the earlier extracts as well. In line 25, TRA transitions into another component of her reflective talk and delivers her candidate understanding of TEA’s rationale for this intervention (because of the &(0.4) unwillingness of the students). Despite TRA’s earlier feedback through the VEO note (‘there was no need’), TRA’s reference to the rationale here ensures the alignment of this intervention with the other instances in the collection of cases, and we see that ‘not being able of help oneself ’ is deployed for a pedagogical purpose in this instance, too. While producing this turn, TRA also changes the VEO player to another tag, ‘Quick Tag’ with the following note: Half of the lesson was on this kahoot game. What about the ss who could not attend the game? Under such circumstances, you should enrich your materials (see fig28).

After she completes expressing her candidate understanding by line 27 and in overlap with GUL’s acknowledgment in line 29, TRA starts talking about the tagged instance that she has just shared on the VEO screen. TRA navigates the different parts of the Kahoot activity using the video player while also commenting on the number of active participants (line 30), the duration of the preparation before the actual activity (line 32), and GUL’s actions in due course. After shortly rewinding to the part where TEA

164 

U. Balaman

intervened, TRA comes back to the part with the ‘Quick Tag’ by line 34. Following the completion of this finely coordinated screen-­based activity and talk instance, in line 35, TRA explicates the main reason for tagging this specific part which she hinted earlier through the VEO note that is still visible on the screen. In line 36, GUL curls her lip, delivers three nods in a row, and finally parts her lip to demonstrate her willingness to take the turn. At this point, it might be useful to remind that GUL had to interrupt TRA’s turn earlier for delivering an account because TRA failed to identify GUL’s readiness to take the turn. As discussed earlier, TRA clearly dominates the meeting and fails to promote trainee voice even when the trainee takes the turn. We observe a similar instance from line 37 onward. In line 38, GUL takes the turn after interrupting TRA’s turn. As seen earlier, an interruption is the only way that GUL could take the turn to reflect on her own practice, and here she does so to deliver an account for the Kahoot game. Although TRA’s turn did not include any negative assessment yet, the VEO note included a question addressed to the non-­ participant students’ status that implicates a criticism of their exclusion from the activity. GUL’s account is designed as a response to this criticism, and she holds TEA accountable for this pedagogical choice in line 38 (TEA says that). GUL’s turn is among the other rare cases where she engages in reflective talk beyond minimal acknowledgment tokens and embodied alignment with TRA’s turns. However, as in the other cases, TRA does not use this as an interactional opportunity to promote trainee voice and interrupts GUL’s turn to claim her understanding of this account (i understood it) in line 39. GUL bodily acknowledges TRA’s understanding and withdraws her continuation. Then, TRA refers to the preobservation meetings (because you talked about it) during which GUL seemed to report TEA’s advice for using Kahoot (your mentor teacher advised you to: (0.2) include (0.2) kahoot games). Therefore, the reflection-for-action component becomes the

topic of the reflective talk during the reflection-on-action that was initiated by the problematization of the reflection-in-action. If the data would be available for reflection-­for-action phase of the language teacher education practices, we would have a fuller understanding of the entire praxis base. Therefore, this observation calls for generating data during all LTE practices for better informing the future LTE activities.

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

165

TRA completes her turn that marks her awareness of the rationale behind GUL’s pedagogical choice by elaborating on TEA’s reasons for promoting the use of Kahoot (because she just likes it) in lines 44 and 46, which is confirmed (yeah) in overlap by GUL in line 45. Following 0.8s of pause, TRA enters a question turn (but here is my question) addressed to both GUL (to you) and TEA (to: (.) her as well). However, TEA is not present in the video-mediated post-observation conversation, which leaves GUL as the main addressee as noted by TRA (she's not here appearently) in line 49. TRA delivers the rest of the question (what about the rest (0.3) what are they doing↑) in line 53 after setting the scene in lines 51 and 52. In line 53, we also observe GUL’s embodied action that is the head slightly tilted to her right, eyebrows raised, and lips flattened. TRA’s question makes GUL’s response conditionally relevant in the next space in interaction, which could mark a moment of effective reflective practice if this space would be utilized to elicit reflective talk from GUL. However, TRA continues her turn after a very short pause of 0.2s and delivers the response herself (we do not know (0.2) during online classes) in line 54. Overall, despite not being explicitly framed as such, the exclusion of some of the students was critically analyzed by TRA in the video-­mediated post-observation meeting. TRA’s feedback became observable based on her selection of the online classroom instances and relevant tagging using VEO.  Her assessment (and the relevant advice) was visible on VEO through the notes feature. In line with the other instances in the collection of cases, this extract presented how reflection-in-action is topicalized in reflection-on-action. Similar to the previous extracts, the intervention was reportedly pedagogical in nature aiming at the increased participation of the students. However, the participation remained limited to the half of the students in the classroom which was the main point of problematization by TRA. On an additional note, TRA showed knowledge of the reason for this problematic situation—that is the mentor teacher’s recommendation for Kahoot use. GUL interrupted TRA to deliver this as her account which included a high reflectivity potential. However, TRA interrupted GUL and blocked an extended account delivery. Therefore, the reflectivity in this extract remained largely reliant on TRA as a result of her own methods for managing the post-observation

166 

U. Balaman

meeting and possibly due to the pre-meeting tagging procedure on VEO. In any case, TRA used another reflection-in-action instance to raise GUL’s awareness toward the technical, pedagogical, and interactional problems during her online practicum teaching, thus creating a teacher learning opportunity even though seriously lacking a truly reflective engagement by GUL.

Conclusion All in all, the close analysis of the collection of cases during which the teacher trainer used the moments of reflection-in-action in online practicum teaching as the basis for reflection-on-action in video-mediated post-observation conversations showed that reflective talk in digital spaces leads to a number of pedagogically imperative conclusions for language teacher education. Reflective talk as defined earlier in the book requires the balanced management of feedback, advice giving, and assessment while also promoting the trainee voice. We observed that the way the teacher trainer used the features of VEO facilitated feedback, advice giving, and assessment, and created multiple teacher learning opportunities through critical analysis of the micro-moments of language teaching. TRA selected certain practicum teaching practices to engage in reflective talk with GUL and tagged these instances using VEO. The digital observation tool made it possible to present these instances through short video clips, the title of the tags, and the enclosed notes deployed as prompts for extended trainer feedback. TRA largely focused on the technical troubles that had pedagogical consequences and that directly had an impact on the quality of the trainee’s practicum teaching. Regarding the interactional management of online practicum teaching, TRA highlighted the reciprocal nature of instruction giving; the centrality of the establishment of mutual understanding for smooth progression; and the significant role of turn design features in teacher talk. Additionally, the pedagogical outcomes of various problematic moments in the online classroom were topicalized, for example, how a technical trouble results in the shift of the type of a planned activity from the teaching of listening to reading and the missed learning opportunities for students in due

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

167

course. The outcomes of the use of VEO during the video-mediated post-­ observation conversations can therefore be noted as the take-away lessons for the pre-service language teacher, GUL. However, the main potential of reflective talk reportedly lies in promoting the trainee voice by actively participating to the critical analysis of such micro-moments of teaching (Sert, 2019). This potential did not seem to occur commonly over the course of the meeting. The trainer did not only avoid promoting the trainee voice but also suppressed it repeatedly. The suppression was seen during the instances when the trainer (i) failed to identify the trainee’s willingness to participate; (ii) interrupted trainee turns with cut-offs and overlaps; (iii) predicted the trainee accounts about her pedagogical choices without waiting for the trainee’s explanations; (iv) gave accounts on behalf of the trainee; and (v) asked questions and responded to them on behalf of the trainee. Even so, the trainee showed active participation to some extent. Across the meeting, she (i) interrupted the trainer to deliver her accounts; (ii) marked her noticing of the problematic instances topicalized by the trainer; (iii) demonstrated her changes of epistemic state after trainer turns; (iv) bodily oriented to the trainer’s feedback, advice giving, and assessment turns; and (v) verbally acknowledged to display her understanding of and alignment with trainer turns. Nevertheless, the lack of trainee voice in the video-mediated post-­ observation conversations at hand should not be criticized without a clear understanding of the institutional context and how it plays out in and through talk-in-interaction. The dataset includes multiple instances (not shown in the selected extracts) that both the trainer and diverse trainees refer to these conversations as feedback meetings. Therefore, the trainer primarily drew on the conversational mechanisms, digital affordances of VEO, and video-mediated interaction for feedback purposes. This also explains TRA’s interest in selecting the moments of reflection-in-action. The trainer’s role is institutionally defined as the feedback provider which requires identifying problems in trainee performances and devising solutions for improved practice (Brandt, 2008; Waring, 2017). Relatedly, the situated interventions by the peer trainee, the mentor teacher, and the teacher trainer readily marked the problems over the course of online language teaching. Against this backdrop, it becomes clearer why the lack

168 

U. Balaman

of trainee voice did not necessarily indicate a misalignment with the trainer’s agenda. On the contrary, the trainer’s purpose was to provide teacher learning opportunities by delivering feedback, advice, and assessment, which was, I would argue, accomplished to a large extent. What is more, this calls for a closer look into the affordances of VEO in line with the institutional goals. VEO makes it extremely easy to engage in collaborative viewing of teaching practices with a critical ­perspective. The feedback becomes readily available based on the pre-­ meeting tagging by the trainer that also includes notes comprising feedback, advice, and assessment altogether. The only problem with the trainer’s use of VEO seems to design the meeting with a very tightly structured format. I would recommend including trainees in reflection on their own actions before trainers do so and possibly even in the selecting instances to reflect on. VEO opens up limitless opportunities to pursue diverse meeting frameworks and future research would bring new insights into its feasibility for language teacher education. Lastly, I should note that the trainer did not pursue a CALTE model at any stage of the practicum. However, she heavily drew on the role of successful interactional management of online language classrooms in multiple instances. Additionally, her focus on reflection-in-action and references to reflection-for-action clearly showed the need to navigate across the preparation, implementation, and revision phases of the CALTE praxis base for a fuller understanding of language teacher education in digital spaces. The next chapter presents a case for such an understanding.

References Bozbıyık, M. (2017). The implementation of VEO in an English language education context: A focus on teacher questioning practices. Gazi University. Bozbıyık, M., Sert, O., & Bacanak, K. D. (2022). VEO-integrated IMDAT in pre-service language teacher education: A focus on change in teacher questioning practices. In P. Seedhouse (Ed.), Video enhanced observation for language teaching: Reflection and professional development (pp.  97–116). Bloomsbury Publishing.

4  Reflective Talk in Video-Mediated POCs 

169

Brandt, C. (2008). Integrating feedback and reflection in teacher preparation. ELT Journal, 62(1), 37–46. Çelik, S., Baran, E., & Sert, O. (2018). The affordances of mobile-app supported teacher observations for peer feedback. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 10(2), 36–49. Jakonen, T., & Jauni, H. (2021). Mediated learning materials: Visibility checks in telepresence robot mediated classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 12(1–2), 121–145. Kanat Mutluoğlu, A., & Balaman, U. (in preparation). Video-mediated post-­ observation conversations in EFL teacher education using a digital video-based reflection tool. Licoppe, C., & Morel, J. (2012). Video-in-interaction: “Talking heads” and the multimodal organization of mobile and skype video calls. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(4), 399–429. https://doi.org/10.108 0/08351813.2012.724996 Pekarek Doehler, S., & Balaman, U. (2021). The routinization of grammar as a social action format: A longitudinal study of video-mediated interactions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(2), 183–202. https://doi. org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899710 Schwab, G. (2020). Conversation analysis gets mobile: Student participation in a bilingual primary classroom in Germany. In F.  Lenz, M.  Frobenius, & R.  Klattenberg (Eds.), Classroom observation (pp.  85–114). Peter Lang D. https://doi.org/10.3726/b16732 Seedhouse, P. (Ed.). (2022). Video enhanced observation for language teaching: Reflection and professional development. Bloomsbury Academic. Sert, O. (2019). Classroom interaction and language teacher education. In S.  Walsh & S.  Mann (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English language teacher education (1st ed., pp. 216–238). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.432 4/9781315659824-­16 Sert, O. (2021). Transforming CA findings into future L2 teaching practices: Challenges and prospects for teacher education. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation analytic research (Vol. 46, pp. 259–279). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-­3-­030-­52193-­6_13 Waring, H. Z. (2017). Going general as a resource for doing advising in post-­ observation conferences in teacher training. Journal of Pragmatics, 110, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.009

5 Design, Feedback, and Reflection for Video-Mediated L2 Interactions

The CALTE Context and Data The language teacher education context in this chapter showcases the operationalization of a full CALTE model including the knowledge and praxis bases. I will describe how the context and the data relate to the defining features of CALTE (see p. 19 in Chap. 2) and show how the current chapter informs CALTE in digital spaces: 1. Maintaining a strictly evidence-based and data-led approach to language teacher education: This chapter presents a dedicated CALTE model that carefully maintains an evidence-based and data-led approach to LTE by providing the pre-service teachers with the recordings of the implementation of their own task designs by 19 different dyads. The data for the current project comes from an undergraduate pre-service language teacher education program, from one course in particular, Instructional Technology and Materials Development. The course is offered in the third year of a four-year program and aims to equip pre-­ service teachers with the necessary skills for designing technology-rich materials for language teaching and utilizing them in classroom envi-

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 U. Balaman, Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education in Digital Spaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19127-5_5

171

172 

U. Balaman

ronments and digital spaces. In line with the course objectives, a Virtual Exchange project was designed to provide the pre-service teachers with an environment in which they can put their actual designs into practice and later reflect on the learning outcomes emerging as a result of the actual language learners’ engagement with the teachers’ designs. Therefore, the project includes two participant groups: The first participant group, also the main target of this chapter, is the pre-service teachers enrolled in the course. There were 35 pre-service teachers based in the department of English Language Teaching who took an active part in the project. The teachers were divided into nine groups of 3 (27 participants) and two groups of 4 (8 participants) and engaged in collaborative task design with their group members. The 11 groups in total designed one Virtual Exchange task each. These separate tasks were ordered to operate in a meaningful task sequence in whole-class discussions. As a result, the whole class created one task sequence consisting of 11 tasks to be delivered to the Virtual Exchange participants within a period of 4 weeks. The second participant group, Virtual Exchange participants are learners of L2 English based in Turkey and Tunisia. There were 19 dyads (i.e., one Turkish and one Tunisian student in each dyad) of Virtual Exchange participants (38 participants in total). The 11 tasks designed by preservice teachers were implemented by 19 dyads via video-mediated interaction and their interactions were screen-recorded. The screenrecordings were shared with the pre-service teachers upon the completion of their tasks by the Virtual Exchange participants. Therefore, each task designer group was given access to 19 different implementations of their design via video-­mediated interaction, which gave them an opportunity to comparatively and critically examine the language learning outcomes afforded by their own designs. To this end, the evidence-based and data-led approach to LTE here is a true strength of this project in that the pre-­service teachers dealt with multiple datasets that can offer evidence for various aspects of their own designs. Additionally, the evidence-based and data-led approach is also adopted during the operationalization of the knowledge base prior to the

5  Design, Feedback, and Reflection for L2 VMI 

173

preparation, implementation, and revision phases in the CALTE model, which I now turn to. 2. Recognizing multimodal CA research findings on L2 classroom discourse and L2/classroom interactional competence as the knowledge base: This project recognizes multimodal CA research findings mainly on L2 interactional competence (cf. Hall et al., 2011; Salaberry & Kunitz, 2019; Skogmyr Marian & Balaman, 2018) as the knowledge base. By treating language learning as a social interactional accomplishment, the pre-service teachers were encouraged to design pedagogic tasks that provide social interactional opportunities to language learners. The part of the CALTE knowledge base that the model in this chapter draws from also includes multimodal CA research on task-based interactions in L2 classrooms (e.g., Hellermann & Pekarek Doehler, 2010; Kunitz & Skogmyr Marian, 2017; Markee & Kunitz, 2013; Mori, 2002; Seedhouse, 1999; Seedhouse & Almutairi, 2009). The LTE procedures for familiarizing the pre-service teachers with task-based interactional realities of L2 classrooms were followed by unpacking the relationship between task design and computer-assisted language learning (CALL). Initially, a lecture on task design principles in CALL literature (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014; Hampel, 2006; Hauck & Youngs, 2008; Jauregi et  al., 2011; Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2017; O’Dowd & Waire, 2009) was delivered. Following that, the target of the task design was specified and the relevant training on Virtual Exchange was provided based on the recent literature on the subject (e.g., Dooly & Sadler, 2013; Fuchs et  al., 2017; Kurek & Müller-­Hartmann, 2017; Moalla et al., 2020; O’Dowd et al., 2020; O’Dowd & Lewis, 2016). While the lectures on L2 interactional competence and task-based interaction in L2 classrooms directly fall into the scope of the CALTE knowledge base, the lectures on task design, CALL, and Virtual Exchange were meant to address the technological knowledge required for the subsequent LTE practices. In line with the main objective of the book, the CALTE model at hand presents an original way of putting CALTE into practice in digital spaces, thus also incorporating such technological

174 

U. Balaman

knowledge into the CALTE knowledge base. Also note that earlier in the book (see p. 55), the lack of multimodal CA research on video-mediated interaction in and beyond L2 interactional settings has been framed as a missing component of the CALTE knowledge base. Taken together, these gaps would normally cause the course contents to remain outside the territory of CALTE. At this point, I used my own publications to close this gap and establish an alignment with the pedagogical goals of the dedicated CALTE model. Accordingly, my earlier work based on my doctoral dissertation (Balaman, 2015a, 2015b, 2016; Sert & Balaman, 2015) and the subsequent research articles (Balaman, 2018, 2019; Balaman & Sert, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c; Sert & Balaman, 2018) were carefully transformed into LTE materials which played a central role in the CALTE model. To further elaborate on the relevance of my earlier research for the current project, my doctoral research dealt with the impact of task design on L2 interactional competence development in and through video-­mediated interactions. I presented the first paper based on my dissertation in the 17th International CALL Conference in 2015 and described a new task type, namely emergent information gaps (Balaman, 2015a), by bringing together epistemics research in CA literature and technology-mediated task-based language teaching (TBLT) research in CALL literature. Later, I collected longitudinal data to see the impact of this specific task type on multiparty video-mediated interactions in L2 English and presented two cases of longitudinal development in my dissertation (Balaman, 2016). More recently, we published three papers describing on a longitudinal basis the interactional changes in (1) the epistemic stance displays of the participants for collaborative task accomplishment (Balaman & Sert, 2017b), (2) repair practices in negotiating and co-constructing language and task rules to follow during task engagement (Sert & Balaman, 2018), and (3) the diversification of the hinting and response mobilization practices that show the context-sensitive social accomplishments of L2 learners (Balaman, 2018). All three papers describe in fine-grained detail how the task design plays out in real time in video-mediated interactions in a way to create opportunities for language learning. We also investigated the different interactional practices of one participant in two task-based interactional settings, discussion tasks in L2 classrooms, and emergent information gap tasks in video-mediated interactions (Balaman & Sert,

5  Design, Feedback, and Reflection for L2 VMI 

175

2017c). For a closer look into the rich array of interactional resources in task-oriented video-mediated L2 interactional settings, in other papers, we focused on the interactional affordances of screen-based activities that are coordinated with video-mediated interactions (Balaman, 2019; Balaman & Sert, 2017a). Overall, these papers cumulatively formed the missing parts of the knowledge base for the current LTE project by establishing a strong CALTE ground regarding task design and video-­mediated interaction and by extending the CALTE knowledge base beyond L2 interactional competence and L2 classroom discourse. 3. Raising the interactional awareness of pre-service teachers by providing teacher learning opportunities to operationalize the knowledge base: The knowledge base was primarily introduced to the pre-service teachers in the lecture format. However, the operationalization took stage during whole-class sessions with the participation of all groups of pre-­ service teachers. In these sessions, the design ideas of each group were topicalized by the lecturer and the peer pre-service teachers. The lecturer used the description of design ideas for better communicating the design criteria informed by the CALTE knowledge base and the relevant disciplinary knowledge regarding the technological aspect of task design. This chapter primarily deals with the ways that such disciplinary knowledge that fully covers the CALTE in digital spaces is addressed by the pre-service teachers both in the preparation stage (i.e., design and feedback) and in the revision stage (i.e., reflection-on-action). This is to say, the pre-service teachers designed tasks that would reflect their knowledgeability about the affordances of task-oriented video-mediated L2 interaction. The lecturer and the peers alerted the designers to the potential problems in their designs, and the designers discussed these problems and the alignment of their designs with the co-constructed components of the knowledge base (i.e., design criteria), which would become the first opportunity to put their knowledge into practice. The second opportunity emerged during the data-led reflective writing in the revision stage during which the designers reflected on the outcomes of their designs with reference to the design criteria and other relevant components. By

176 

U. Balaman

closely tracking the LTE activities in the knowledge and praxis bases of the CALTE model (see Table 5.1 below), this chapter presents a longitudinal account for how the first and second opportunities described above Table 5.1  The CALTE model for the operationalization of teacher learning in digital spaces KNOWLEDGE BASE

PRAXIS BASE

Disciplinary Knowledge

1

Lectures on - Video-mediated interaction - Task design - Virtual Exchange - Computer Assisted Language Learning DATA: First 3 weeks of March, 2019 (no data collection)

Preparation

2

DATA: Last week in March, 2019 (audio recorded LTE classrooms) PARTICIPANTS: Lecturer + Whole Class of Pre-service Teachers

Revision

Task Design Conversations - Determining the initial design ideas (Extract 3)

3

Seeking initial alignment with the design criteria (Extract 4) DATA: First week of April, 2019 (audio recorded meeting spaces)

PARTICIPANTS: Lecturer + Whole Class of Pre-service Teachers Operationalizing the Knowledge Base in situ: - Whole class brainstorming - Selecting the theme of the task sequence in interaction (Extract 1) - Establishing the design criteria in interaction (Extract 2)

Implementation

4

5

PARTICIPANTS: Small Groups of Pre-service Teachers Reflection on Initial Design Ideas (Extract 5) - Lecturer feedback, assessment - Peer feedback, assessment - Reflective talk on the initial ideas DATA: Second week of April, 2019 (audio recorded LTE classrooms) PARTICIPANTS: Lecturer + Whole Class of Preservice Teachers Task Design Conversations - Determining the final design ideas, finalizing the design (Extract 6) DATA: Third week of April, 2019 (audio recorded meeting spaces) PARTICIPANTS: Small Groups of Pre-service Teachers

7 6 Task Implementation (Extract 7) - Video-mediated L2 interaction - Virtual Exchange DATA: Three weeks from late-April to mid-May, 2019 (screen recordings of Skype/Google Hangouts conversations) PARTICIPANTS: Virtual Exchange participants/L2 learners

Reflection-onaction - Transcribing two dyads completely - Selecting two extracts - Critical examination of the screen recording of task implementation - Reflective collaborative writing (Excerpts) DATA: Three weeks from midMay, 2019 (text/reflective writing documents) PARTICIPANTS: Small Groups of Pre-service Teachers

5  Design, Feedback, and Reflection for L2 VMI 

177

facilitate the emergence of teacher learning in digital spaces and how this entire process proves to be instrumental in equipping the pre-service teachers with the necessary skills for designing digital language learning environments in their future practices. 4. Centralizing reflective practice by strategically attending to reflection for-, in-, and on-action in and through talk-in-interaction: The CALTE model in this chapter primarily centralizes reflection-for-action and reflection-on-action in various stages of the LTE activities. The actionable disciplinary knowledge (i.e., CALTE knowledge base) included a heavy emphasis on reflection-for-action when the pre-service teachers enacted potential implementation scenarios during the task design conversations. Additionally, the task design criteria were established in and through talk-in-interaction in whole-class sessions. Later, the criteria were used to deliver assessment, feedback, and advice and invite pre-service teacher reflection for the implementation of their designs by the Virtual Exchange participants. The reflection-for-action component also became visible during the task design conversations of the pre-service teachers when they reflected on the alignment of their designs with the design criteria and discussed its potential implications for the implementations of the tasks. As for reflection-on-action, the revision stage hosts a data-led reflection component. Although the end products during this stage were the collaboratively written reflection papers, I anticipate that the group members needed to work together to draft this document in and through talk-in-interaction. However, I only have access to the written reflections that were prepared in response to the following guiding questions: 1. Write down the details of the recordings/participants you selected for this assignment. How did you decide to select these particular recordings? Please explain (200 words). From this point on, you can both focus on the selected recordings and extend responses based on all recordings: 2. How was your task implemented by the project participants? (Write a 200-word description of the task implementation. Provide a brief

178 

U. Balaman

summary of how they started, proceeded, and completed the task with reference to length and engagement.) 3. Were there any misfits between your projection of task design and its implementation? (Write a 200-word critique of your task design with reference to how you designed and how it did not work in some specific parts of the implementation.) 4. Can you spot any interactional outcomes of the implementation of your task design? (Choose an extract from your transcriptions of min. 20 sec.–max. 1 min. which is rich in terms of meaning negotiation. Write a 200-word description of the extract with reference to the interactional outcome you spot.) 5. Can you spot any interactional troubles due to your task design? (Choose an extract from your transcriptions of min. 20 sec.–max. 1 min. which includes a sample of interactional trouble that occurred due to your task design. Write a 200-word description of the extract with reference to the interactional trouble you spot.) 6. What were the strong and weak points of your task design? (Write a 200-word long overall evaluation for your task design. You can design this as a conclusion paragraph.) The instructions for the collaborative completion of the reflective writing guided the pre-service teachers to critically examine the implementation of their own designs. The first instruction was to watch all 19 recordings and then select the recordings of 2 dyads for a closer examination by orthographically transcribing them. The first guiding question led the pre-service teachers to reflect on their selection rationale. Following this question, the teachers utilized their own transcripts to engage in data-led reflection-on-action. They could also focus on the entire database and provide overall responses that would reflect their conclusions drawn from an analytic look into the recordings if they could not identify any analytically rich instances in the transcripts. The second guiding question demanded elaborations on the length and level of engagement of the Virtual Exchange participants, while the third question sought self-critiques by the designers. Subsequently, the fourth and fifth questions were designated to encourage a social interactional investigation into the database. Accordingly, the pre-service teachers initially selected

5  Design, Feedback, and Reflection for L2 VMI 

179

parts of their transcripts (or transcribe parts of other videos) that seemingly showcase the interactional outcomes (the fourth question) and troubles (the fifth question) afforded by their tasks. I will use an extract selected by a designer group to wholly reflect the pre-service teachers’ perspectives. I should note here that the teachers were not asked to write a CA analysis but more of a description of the interactional ­outcomes/ troubles that they identified in the selected extracts. The final question aimed to invite an overall reflection by the designer groups. Therefore, reflective practice was a central component of the CALTE model in this chapter from the very early stages of the LTE practices to the very last stage. 5. Maximizing interactional space in trainer-trainee and trainee-trainee participation frameworks during LTE practices and generating natural data in due course: The trainer-trainee and trainee-trainee participation is the most central component of the CALTE model in this chapter. The interactional space for such participation frameworks was maximized from the very first stages of the LTE activities onward. Accordingly, following few weeks of lectures on the relevant subjects, trainer-trainee participation took stage in the whole-class sessions for selecting the theme of the task sequence and establishing the design criteria during the operationalization of the actionable disciplinary knowledge phase. Subsequently, the trainee-trainee interaction emerged during the two rounds of collaborative task design conversations in the preparation phase. In between these two rounds, a whole-­class reflection on the design ideas created space for another round of trainee-trainee interaction. All of these activities completed by the end of the preparation stage were audio recorded and constituted a database for the conversation analytic examination. What is more in generating data was the Virtual Exchange participants’ implementation of the tasks via videomediated interaction that were screen-recorded. Lastly, the pre-service teachers’ selection of some instances from the recordings of the implementations of their own tasks also generated additional, textual data. The data from the implementation and revision stages were analyzed to provide supplementary evidence for the operationalization of teacher learning in digital spaces on a longitudinal basis.

180 

U. Balaman

6. Documenting the LTE practices using (multimodal) CA and providing implications for future practices: In this chapter, I present longitudinal evidence for teacher learning across the multiple LTE activities in the actionable disciplinary knowledge, preparation, implementation, and revision phases of the dedicated CALTE model. The research ­attention is primarily given to the preparation stage and with reference to the multiple social interactional encounters involved. I closely examine how the design criteria shape the design-related decision-making processes of one focal group in ways that are publicly observable in task design conversations and the whole group reflection session. More specifically, this chapter focuses on the operationalization of the actionable knowledge about task design for video-mediated interactions (i.e., during Virtual Exchange) and its transformation into teacher knowledge in action. However, this chapter is largely based on audio-recorded interactions between the teacher trainers and trainees in whole-class sessions and between the trainees and other trainees in their design groups. Therefore, embodiment is not an aspect of the analysis, which makes the methodological approach, Conversation Analysis rather than multimodal CA.  Additionally, the textual data (based on ‘excerpts’) was drawn on to support the CA analysis (based on ‘extracts’) (see Badem-Korkmaz et al., 2022 and; Ekin et al., 2021 for similar research designs). 7. Incorporating the defining features above into dedicated CALTE models and putting them into action: Overall, all of the defining features were strategically incorporated into the CALTE model in this chapter. Table 5.1 above summarizes the order and timeline of the activities with reference to operationalization of the knowledge and praxis bases; the participants; the data collection; and the setting in which the data was collected. The table also includes the extracts analyzed in the subsequent sections. By closely examining each extract and presenting a conversation analytic examination, I will bring evidence for the emergence of teacher learning in the LTE context structured to train the pre-service teachers for designing digital spaces informed by CALTE.

5  Design, Feedback, and Reflection for L2 VMI 

181

 perationalizing Teacher Learning O in and for Digital Spaces Actionable Disciplinary Knowledge The preliminary teaching of the disciplinary knowledge in the focal CALTE model was enacted in the lecture mode during the first three weeks of the semester. By the end of the third week, the designer groups of pre-service teachers (PSTs) were formed and instructed to start thinking about potential task design ideas. However, they were not asked to meet for the task design conversations. The third week also included a reminder of the timeline of the LTE activities. This preliminary work aimed to prepare for a whole-class brainstorming in the teacher education classroom and provide the pre-service teachers with an initial perspective regarding what might work well in the implementation stage. Accordingly, the pre-service teachers (designers) were engaged in individual (or group) work after the class time at the third week and attended the following week’s class with some preliminary ideas. The lecturer also used the diverse design ideas to select an overarching theme so that the designers (pre-service teachers) would have a more concrete framework to shape their design ideas. In what follows, we see the first extract of the chapter that shows how a potential theme is topicalized by the lecturer.

Selecting the Theme of the Task Sequence The extract comes from the 22nd minute of a 90-minute session. After eliciting multiple design ideas from various designers and discussing several potential themes, the lecturer (LEC) returns to one of the emergent themes. Note that line 1 (i like the idea of travel↓) is not a response turn but the initiation of a new episode.

182 

U. Balaman

Extract 1: I Like the Idea of Travel—0:22:01.0–0:22:21.6 1 2

LEC:

3

i like the idea of travel↓ (0.8)

because you might (0.3) attach your existing ideas to travel

4

(0.4)

5

food

6 7

SX:

9

LEC:

8 10 11

SY:

12

LEC:

14

LEC:

13 15 16 17 18 19 20

TAN: TAN: LEC:

(0.6)

°yeah°

(0.8)

can be attached to tra[vel

(0.4)

[°yes°

like (0.3) housing museums et cetera [museums [art

art >↑everything
↑everything↑like< as mu- ↑heritage (0.2) related to::, (0.3) ermm

LEC:

TAN:

LEC:

(1.1)

↑again, the question is why do they need to interact

with each other? (0.8) hmm

(1.2)

you always

[>i mean it's
i mean< (0.6) these are the things (0.5)

17

that does all of these four things

16

if you can come up with an idea (0.5)

18

intercultural ex↑change, (0.4)

19

real life relationship, (0.3) >and
at all< times

25 26

(1.2)

27

TAN:

29

LEC:

30

TAN:

32

TAN:

28

31

LEC:

so↓ (0.2) ↑these are the criteria (0.6) okay? and we're going for (0.2) travel.

(1.2)

yeah↓ >i mean,< it [looks like that=

[yeah

=we decided (.) okay↓

From line 1 onward, TAN engages in proposing an alternative design idea (how abou- (.) instead of). However, we see in line 4 that he leaves his turn incomplete (related to::, (0.3) ermm), and 1.1s of silence emerges, which indicates word search. Instead of resolving the word search, LEC treats TAN’s proposal as complete and uses this as an opportunity to question the social interaction aspect of this idea (the question is why do they need to interact with each other?). Also note that LEC’s again in turn-initial position marks the repetitive nature of his reminder oriented to the social interaction component in task design ideas, which was indeed the case in the earlier parts of the recording. TAN minimally acknowledges the receipt of LEC’s reminder in line 9, and after 1.2s of pause in line 10, TAN initiates the delivery of a critique toward LEC’s interactional behavior of blocking alternative design ideas. Before TAN’s turn completion, LEC initiates a self-repair turn in line 12 ([>i mean it’sat all< times). In doing so, LEC establishes the last criterion and adds social interaction during task engagement to the list even by marking its saliency more explicitly than the earlier ones through the time reference. After 1.2s pause in line 25, LEC closes the listing episode by reiterating the reason for listing and with a turn-final understanding check (okay?) in line 26. Subsequently, TAN takes the turn with a turn-initial continuation marker that shows his turn is designed to further LEC’s listing so far. He refers to the theme of the task sequence as an additional item. However, there is no explicit reference to the travel as a criterion in TAN’s turn design except for the continuation marker. In the following turns, it becomes clearer that TAN is taking the turn to clarify whether the decision is final regarding the travel as the task sequence theme. LEC, in line 29, initially confirms the travel and immediately mitigates his direct confirmation with a self-repair (it looks like that). Despite LEC’s mitigation, TAN treats this as the confirmation for the theme. Also note that TAN deploys we pronoun while demonstrating his understanding. This reflects the whole-class nature of the meeting and clearly shows that TAN views this decision as a collaborative one. Additionally, TAN’s turn in line 32 (we decided (.) okay) is accessible to all task designers in the teacher education classroom, thus transforming it into a final decision despite LEC’s mitigated turn design. This is also the end of the negotiation oriented to the theme, which shows both the lecturer and the pre-service teachers accept the travel as the theme. Extract 2 has shown that LEC successfully drew on TAN’s contributions to explicitly announce the design criteria to the whole class of task designers. Although LEC repeatedly addressed these criteria earlier in the meeting, this is the first and the most direct instance during which LEC explicitly refers to the design criteria as a list of four items. By establishing the criteria as intercultural exchange, real-life relationship, compatibility with digital spaces, and social interaction/task engagement, LEC strategically brings together Virtual Exchange, task-based language teaching, video-mediated interactional realities of digital spaces, and more broadly social interaction as the disciplinary knowledge required for the current project and marks their actionability with reference to task design activities of PSTs. More specifically, LEC’s listing turn marks a moment during

5  Design, Feedback, and Reflection for L2 VMI 

187

which the relevant parts of the CALTE knowledge base are operationalized in a language teacher education classroom. However, LEC’s turn and TAN’s response do not clearly show how these criteria are topicalized in the subsequent stages of the CALTE model, which becomes clearer across the multiple phases of the praxis base starting with the preparation stage.

Preparation After covering the actionable disciplinary knowledge through lectures and operationalizing the relevant parts of the knowledge base in a whole-­class session, the first month of the semester is ended (see Table 5.1 above). The next month includes the entrance into the praxis base of the CALTE model, and the lecturer and the pre-service teachers (i.e., task designers) actively participate to design tasks for video-mediated interaction in digital spaces. The first stage of the praxis base is the preparation which comprises (i) the groups of pre-service teachers’ task design conversations to draft an initial idea, (ii) the whole class reflection session oriented to these initial ideas, and (iii) a second round of task design conversations to finalize the design ideas. I will present these three activities in their chronological order and through the extracts that provide a representative picture of how design, feedback, assessment, advice-­giving/receipt, and reflection processes play out in the preparation stage of the CALTE model at hand.

Task Design Conversations for an Initial Idea At the beginning of the second month of the semester (i.e., April) and after operationalizing the co-constructed components of the knowledge base in the form of task design criteria in the teacher education classroom, the pre-service teachers met with their group members to decide on an initial design idea. These meetings, referred to as task design conversations, took place in physical spaces of the pre-service teachers’ selection and were audio recorded by the teachers themselves. The purpose of the meetings was to design a task for video-mediated interaction based on the pre-established theme (i.e., travel), to determine the task steps, and later to report the design idea to the lecturer and present it in the teacher

188 

U. Balaman

education classroom for a whole class reflection with the participation of all designers. Extract 3 comes from one designer group in particular (CEY, YEL, and DEN) that was selected randomly to see the impact of the earlier LTE activities on the design procedures. The focal group initially engaged in a discussion to select a topic for the task before finalizing the task steps, and Extract 3 presents an episode that showcases how the design talk unfolds in situ. The extract comes from the ninth minute of an 18-minute meeting. The focal designer group initiates the meeting by sharing their individual proposals for the topic of the task before proceeding with the task steps. However, until the beginning of Extract 3, there is no group decision as to what the task will be about. Here we see how they reach at a consensus by the end of the extract. Extract 3: Looking for Gift Shops—0:09:45.8–0:10:50.2 1 2

CEY:

4

YEL:

6

DEN:

3 5 7 8 9

10

CEY:

CEY:

11

DEN:

13

YEL:

12 14 15

CEY: CEY:

(3.2)

so::?

(1.1)

>the gift shops< (0.2) [gift shops?

[ohkay (.) for me↓

(0.6)

so we have gift shops and

we have some predictions (0.3) on the poster (2.0)

let's vote then $hah$= [$↑hah let's votehhh$ [$hah hah hah hah$

$hahhh↓ ohkay$ (0.2)

but

[the gift shops

16

DEN:

18

DEN:

ye:s and (0.6) needs mo:re (.) ↑communication i think (0.3)

DEN:

[↑i can buy these

17 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

CEY: CEY: CEY: DEN:

CEY:

[then ((inaudible))

is more, (1.1) like

>enjoyable?< (0.5)

uhmmm (0.5) but↓ (0.6)

[street (with the:) (0.5)

so (0.3) °they exchange the idea↓°< (0.2)

↑that should be on the instructions too [yes

[to change (.) (↓who) exchange the ideas (0.4)

so they don't go any (0.2) tourist attraction↓ (0.7) ye::s

its- they just looking for gift shops >↑uhm
the gift shops↑gift shops< $ah hah$

and they will find the gift shops,

so we should also strict them to not search (0.4) but walking around the street. ohkay↓ (0.6)

but they have (0.7) twenty minutes [yeah

[so: we need to strict (0.5) the (0.2) erm (0.3) area. yeah the area also yeah (0.3)

we should tsh- ↑know where them to go

5  Design, Feedback, and Reflection for L2 VMI  26 27

28

DEN:

CEY:

29

↑ye:s

to strict them but we can say that (0.5) ouh maybe we can say it, (0.9) find (0.4) errr

tourist attraction (0.4) and walk around it (0.2)

30

DEN:

ye:s↓ (0.3) so: (0.2)

32

DEN:

it (0.7) has one yeah↓ (0.5)

31

33

193

CEY:

to found somewhere to buy >↑gifts
for example< if they are in (.) Paris, they should >finddh> (0.7)

41

DEN:

[eiffel?

43

DEN:

ye:s

42 44 45

CEY: CEY:

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

they should decide on one (0.4)

eiffel or (0.3) louvre museum or they should (1.0)

errr >↑communicate< to

DEN:

ye:s↓

DEN:

[yes

CEY:

yeah they should (0.5) >okay< so they is- (.) they (0.2) they

CEY:

YEL:

err choose one and they should walk around it (0.2) to find gift shops↓ (0.3)

[yes so they can find (0.7) (1.0)

there are $hah hah$ a relationship between the real life (0.5)

56 57

[where is eiffel or=

there is uhmm

58

DEN:

communica[tion

60

DEN:

[

62

DEN:

=yes

64

YEL:

59 61 63 65

CEY: CEY: CEY: CEY:

[communciation

(.)

[and there is also intercultural= [exchange

[web research=

=yeah there is also (0.3) web search yeah↓

194 

U. Balaman

The task design meeting continues with proposing task steps and collaboratively evaluating it by enacting the potential scenarios that the task participants can encounter. From line 1 onward, CEY delivers a task step and formulates a candidate task instruction (you should find three gift shops) in line 3. After 0.4s of pause, she signals continuation but does not do so. Here it becomes observable that CEY is engaged in a real-time brainstorming process produced in the form of a word (or the next step/detail in the task instruction) search marked with the cut-off, 1.1s of silence, and yeah in line 6. DEN takes the turn to help resolve the potential trouble with an incipient proposal (maybe:), which, however, overlaps with CEY’s continuation. CEY repeats her earlier candidate instruction in line 7, and DEN latches her turn to deliver a counterargument oriented to CEY’s candidate. Before DEN can elaborate on her enactment of the potential trouble scenario during the task implementation between lines 8 and 13, CEY takes the turn in line 14 and problematizes her own proposal with a laughter, and DEN aligns with a minimal laughter in line 16. The problematization is self-resolved by CEY with an alternative proposal (so we should also strict them to not search) and a candidate instruction (walking around the street) in line 19. So far in the extract, the proposed task step and the enactment appear to be related to one of the task design criteria, social interaction during task engagement, although such a relationship has not been mutually established yet. What is striking in the task design conversation so far is that the proposed task instructions/steps are constantly negotiated, and alternative trouble scenarios are co-produced by enacting the implementation of the learners. In any case, the pre-service teachers reflect for the feasibility of their designs in and through talk-in-interaction. In what follows, DEN initially acknowledges the receipt of CEY’s contribution in line 20 and then problematizes it due to the time limit (twenty minutes) in line 21. Although the time limit was not listed by LEC among the task design criteria as shown in the earlier section, it is a requirement that the pre-service teachers are expected to attend to, and here we see an example. CEY complies with DEN’s problematization in line 22, and DEN proposes a potential solution similar (we need to strict the erm area) to what CEY did earlier. CEY treats this as

5  Design, Feedback, and Reflection for L2 VMI 

195

an additional point to the evolving task step (yeah the area also) and specifies the area subsequently (tourist attraction and walk around it) in line 29. In line 30, DEN agrees with their collaborative production of the task step and upgrades her agreement between lines 32 and 34 in a jocular turn with reference to the feasibility of this step. CEY orients to this with laughter and the repetition of the task step in line 35 and reformulates it in lines 37 and 38. In line 38, CEY initiates an exemplification turn related to Paris. Her incomplete turn is completed by DEN (eiffel?) in line 41 in overlap with CEY’s completion in a question format (where is eiffel) in line 42, which marks the collaborative nature of the design process. After DEN’s acknowledging yes in line 43, CEY elaborates on the task step that has been topicalized with the exemplification and formulates a part of the relevant task instruction (they should decide on one) in line 44 and adds another example (louvre museum) in line 45. Subsequently, in the same turn, CEY initiates an alternative course of action as the task step (they should communicate to choose one) and delivers the instruction in a somewhat disrupted turn structure with 1s of pause, two hesitation markers, and DEN’s compliance token in line 48. This turn marks a milestone in the task design conversation as it is the first direct link to the task design criteria established earlier in the teacher education classroom. In overlap with DEN’s second compliance in line 51, YEL starts actively participating (yes so they can find) in line 52 and shows that she has been monitoring the design talk despite her passive participation so far. The link with the design criteria lays the ground for making more direct references to the criteria, and CEY explicitly refers to them after her multiple same turn self-repairs in line 54. From line 56 onward, CEY initiates listing the design criteria to show the alignment of the task steps and the relevant instructions and starts with the real-life relationship. In line 58, DEN syntactically completes CEY’s turn with another design criterion, communication (i.e., social interaction during task engagement), and overlaps with CEY’s completion of her own turn. In what follows, DEN marks the relevance to the selected theme of the task sequence (travel) in line 60 while CEY continues listing another criterion in overlap—that is, intercultural exchange, across line 61, which is latched with DEN’s compliance, and 63, which overlaps with YEL’s

196 

U. Balaman

delivery of the final task design criteria, compatibility with online settings (web research). CEY confirms YEL’s contribution, and all design criteria are listed by line 65. What is striking with this truly collaborative listing is that all participants display their knowledge of the design criteria by either listing or completing, and showing an understanding of each other’s contributions. Overall, they mutually decide on the task steps by reflecting for the implementation of actual learners through enactments, critically assessing the feasibility of the task steps and building on each other’s contributions, and explicitly referring to potential alignment with the task design criteria. Therefore, the task design conversations of the group bring convincing evidence for the teacher learning opportunities afforded by the whole-class meeting and constitute a case for the transferability of the CALTE knowledge base into the praxis base, more specifically to the preparation phase. More on the preparation is another whole-class meeting to reflect on the initial task design ideas of the small designer groups, which I now turn to.

Whole Group Reflection on Design Ideas After the first task design meeting, each small group attends a whole-class meeting to engage in reflective talk primarily guided by LEC but observably open for peer reflection on the design ideas. LEC kicks off the meeting with a general question (any updates?) and creates an open floor for the small groups. Right at the beginning, DEN from the focal group (CEY, DEN, YEL) takes the turn and summarizes their design idea. Some peers question the online compatibility of the design idea, and LEC agrees with this critique. After this instance, another peer recommends a puzzle-like, guessing game as the task and in response, LEC problematizes the interculturality component of this recommendation. Despite the problematization, the telling/guessing game, as in a one-way information gap task, is not ruled out and surprisingly, approximately 30 minutes later and after the reflective talk on some other groups’ design ideas, LEC returns to the focal group by building on the one-way information gap task idea proposed by a non-group-member peer. Extract 5 starts at the exact moment of LEC’s return.

5  Design, Feedback, and Reflection for L2 VMI 

197

Extract 5: Reflective Talk on Design Ideas in the Teacher Education Classroom—0:34:42.2–0:36:55.0 1

2

LEC:

3

whatever you want to use

so that they would just do a description task

4

they describe and (0.6) the co-participant tries to know

5

what this is,

6

(1.0)

7

annnd (0.5) in the end (0.8) ↑they have to decide

8 9

err you could design like a guessing (0.7) game using prezi or

(1.0)

buying one present (0.3) to each other.

10

CEY:

(okay)

12

SOM:

the internet↑ (0.4)

14

SOM:

what about the internet?

16

LEC:

description of findings↓

11 13

CEY:

(5.3)

evet↑ (0.3) yes

15 17 18 19

ELI: SOM: LEC: MER:

onlinehhh ((enacting)) huhm↓ (0.3)

its requires (0.2) web search↓ °interaction nerde burda?°

where is interaction in this? 20

TAN:

°beb- beraber yapıcaklar° they will do it together

21 22 23

LEC:

24

so which part you like, which part you don't like (0.7)

26

because if we can resolve that, we'll just finalize your task↓

28

DEN:

30

CEY:

29

because it looks like something now (1.3)

25

27

(3.3)

okay↑ (0.4) let's talk about that idea,

(1.9) okay↓ (1.1)

yeah i like the idea of description (0.6) guessing game

198 

U. Balaman

31

LEC:

33

CEY:

32 34 35 36

LEC:

38

LEC:

37

39

CEY:

40 41

hm hm

(1.3)

like, (.) yeah↓ (0.9) guessing the::: (0.9) theory or idea behind the:: (1.5) gift (3.3)

like eliciting the name of the gift, like the ↑evil eye (0.5)

hmm

they just somehow try to describe it

without saying it's an evil eye (0.3)

and when the co-participant says is it evil eye↑ (0.4) then they move on to another thing (0.9)

42

ELI:

hmmm (0.9) this is good

44

TAN:

taboo gibi

43

MER:

yes

like taboo 45

SOM:

aynen (0.3)

46

DEN:

and still we are the first group right?

48

DEN:

okay

exactly 47 49 50

LEC: LEC:

51

54 55 56

MER: LEC:

(1.2)

[in cairo (0.5) o:r somehow you just

like (0.7) the time (0.6) kind-

59

(2.2)

60

hm maybe

61

(3.4)

62

well, when they just (1.0) complete all the things that

63

you tell them to do, (0.6) >for example
communicate< $ah hah hah$ $about culture$ ↑about culture which will (0.5) i think (0.2) should be (0.3) souvenirs. ye:s (.) because this is our topic (0.4) [at first [yeah (1.7) er we will desi- (0.2) design a (.) ↑task er for (0.6) souvenir ↑shops (0.4) and (0.9) er: they should guesshh (0.6) something↓ (0.7) maybe we can do something like (0.5) ↑since it's a game. (0.8) uhmmm (0.9) since okay↓ (0.3) err↑they can (0.2) ↑describe [the

5  Design, Feedback, and Reflection for L2 VMI  46 47 48 49 50 51 52

CEY: DEN: CEY:

203

[yeah= =gifts ↑each other (.) so they will communicate hmmhh (1.7) like a game↑ >you knowyou should