A hypothetical situation as interpretation

Another regularly occurring approach to the development of the interpretation stage is for the trainer to request an account that presents the events that have been described in the previous stage of the ELC as hypothetical examples. The following extract provides an example of this phenomenon. It is taken from the first day of practice teaching, and post-teaching feedback; Liz is the trainer and Cathy is the Tw. Previous to the extract below, the

participants have been developing a description of an event, during which the some of the students in class were using Thai, rather than the target language, English.

Extract 27 – “So how would we prevent that…” D4FB 192

1 C: I didn’t think they they were definitely not explaining the

2 ga:me huh co(h)z it’s pretty simple but they were !just just

3 talking (.) li:ke y’know some kids in class (say hey this

4 person that person giggling) maybe you know (0.4) you you

5 know what I mean right?

6 L: right,=

7 C: =yeah

8 (0.6)

9 L: so (.) how would we (.) prevent that from happening, (0.4)

10 how could we stop students fro::m (.) resorting to thai or

11 (.) starting to jabber amongst each other in thai

12 (1.8) ((Tr attempts to engage in mutual gaze with Tes))

13 L: any suggesti[ons]

15 would you £li(h)ke to sha(h)re that with the rest of the

16 group in english?£ °°I’m just kidding°° that would be really

17 £p(h)utting [them on the spo(h)t£]

18 L: [ha ha ha ha ]

19 D: maybe it’s switch them

20 (0.8)

21 L: better cla:ssroom manageme:nt

The extract opens with Cathy describing her understanding of what the students were doing when they were using Thai. Her descriptive account opens with a mitigated stance, “I didn’t think they”, then shifts into a stance of certainty, “they were definitely not”, before producing a description of the event, “explaining the ga:me huh co(h)z it’s pretty simple but they were !just just talking (.) li:ke y’know some kids in class”. Her turn is closed with a tag question requesting confirmation from the trainer, “you know what I mean right?”, which she receives in next turn position, and then confirms acceptance of in the following turn. The trainer then marks a shift in the activity, “so”, before requesting a interpretive account from the trainees, “how would we (.) prevent that from happening” (line 9). This request therefore shifts the expectations of this feedback topic from accounts that describe the event in question, to one which re-frames the shared experience in hypothetical terms: ‘if this happened again in another class, what would we do’. During the short pause following the trainer’s request, there is no uptake from the trainees; the trainer then reformulates the request in more specific terms (“how could we stop students fro::m (.) resorting to thai or (.) starting to jabber

amongst each other in thai”). This provides the trainer with another resource to instigate interpretive accounts from the trainees, by reconceptualising the events from the previous lesson as hypothetical examples, the trainer is able to use these hypothetical examples as springboards for the interpretation and theorising that characterise the talk-in- interaction of this stage of the ELC.

In this extract, following her request for an interpretive account, the trainer does not receive an interpretation from the trainees in the group, rather a lengthy silence follows (line 12), during which she attempts to engage in mutual gaze with the members of the group, unsuccessfully. The Tr then self selects and formulates a prompt, which can perform the action of a reformulated question, “any suggesti[ons]”. Annie, beginning in overlap,

offers a candidate account to the Tr’s request, “[wou]ld you like to share the rest of that with- would you li(h)ke to sha(h)re that with the rest of the group in English? °°Im just kidding°° that would be really p(h)utting [them on the spo(h)t]” (lines 14-17). The Te’s delivery of this account is marked with ‘smile voice’ and embedded laughter, and explicitly though very quietly, marked as “°°just kidding°°”, with a ‘retraction’ that follows. The trainer orients to the ‘humour’ in the Te’s account with laughter. A second candidate account is then offered by Dave, “maybe it’s switch them”, however, the trainer does not respond to this candidate account in next turn position with a confirmation or agreement token. Rather she produces a third account, “better cla:ssroom manageme:nt” (line 21); this is formulated as a directive, in the sense that it formulates her idea about how to solve this problem. Its formulation also implies that “better cla:ssroom manageme:nt” is something that the Tw should be aware of, and implement in their

subsequent lessons, in that it relates to actions in a possible future. This account and plan for further action is further developed and specified in the following turns (not included in the extract).

The above extract illustrates one of the multiple ways in which trainers can request

‘interpretive’ accounts or developments of accounts from the trainees, in order to instantiate the interpretation stage of the ELC. The final trainer move in the extract, providing a plan for future action (“better classroom management”) is an example of the interactional moves that can engender the final stage in the ELC, plans for future action (“Now what?). The following section will analyse this stage of the ELC.