Why SETT in the Current Study

As reviewed in Section 3.3, one outstanding feature is that SETT includes four

representative modes that refer to the micro-context varieties of L2 classroom. As to the varieties of the dynamic local contexts in which the L2 classroom interaction takes

55

place, Seedhouse (2004) also proposes the classification of L2 classroom contexts (see

Section 2.2.2). Both classifications of L2 classroom contexts (ibid) and modes (Walsh,

2006; 2011; 2013) acknowledge the reflexive nature between the pedagogical focus and a particular speech exchange system. As Seedhouse (2004) puts it: “as the

pedagogical focus varies, so the organisation of turn and sequence varies” (p. 101). In addition, there are some overlapping concepts in a certain local context between Walsh’s (2006; 2011) modes and Seedhouse’s (2004) L2 classroom contexts. For example, both the classroom context mode in the former classification and meaning- and-fluency context in the later categorisation focus on the fluent communication. This may also give rise to a question: why not using Seedhouse’s (2004) classification, but favouring modes under SETT?

This issue has also raised the previous researchers’ comparison and discussion (e.g., Cancino, 2015a; 2015b). For example, Cancino (2015a) prefers to Seedhouse’s L2 classroom contexts, due to the difficulty in distinguishing the skills and systems mode from materials mode for some instances of interaction. However, this is actually not the case, in that the four main modes have been clarified to be representative rather than comprehensive (Walsh, 2006), allowing for discovering the new mode(s). As reviewed and discussed in Section 3.3.3, the difficulty encountered by Cancino (2015a) actually indicates a new mode which has been identified by the current study. That is materials- based skills & systems mode which refers to a mode in which the main focus of

interaction, arising from the materials though, is on the accuracy of language practice and skills. In other words, it is materials-based, but the pedagogical focus is to practice the learners’ language skills and systems.

Another example is Cancino’s (2015b) study. This only adopts Walsh’s (2006; 2011; 2013) classroom context mode to explore the interactional features which can promote and hinder learners’ participation and learning opportunities (Walsh, 2002) under the construct of CIC (Walsh, 2006; 2011; 2013). This study indicates that even though modes and interactional features are the features of SETT, and CIC is the overarching construct related to SETT, these concepts can be independently applied (e.g., to locate a study only in one mode like Cancino (2015b) or combined with much flexibility (e.g., linking modes and interactional features, CIC etc.). Secondly, this study also indicates the different focus between the two representative classifications of the sub-varieties of L2 classroom interaction. In accounting for classroom interaction, “Seedhouse (2004)

56

highlights the ‘reflexive’ relationship between the pedagogical focus and the organisation of turn-taking, sequence and repair at various stages in a lesson”

(Cancino, 2015b, p. 35). On the other hand, mode is the characterising component of SETT. The construct of mode is concerned with how such a reflexive relationship is related to learning and learning opportunities. It achieves this by presenting the different interactional features which represent another typical component of SETT (Walsh, 2006; 2011; 2013). The current study fits in this purpose, and therefore, modes and SETT was carefully considered in the following aspects.

Firstly, SETT framework is designed to help “enhance our understanding of the complex relationship between teacher talk, classroom interaction and learning opportunity”

(Walsh, 2006, p. 1). Walsh’s (2006) primary arguments of SETT framework are: it provides “an appropriate and meaningful means of accessing classroom discourse …to promote understanding, especially of the role of language in education” (p. 111); it also provides appropriate metalanguage to describe teacher-learner interactional process, which presents a different means from “quantitative judgments about classroom

discourse” (e.g., too much teacher talk, see Walsh, 2006, p. 112); moreover, it allows us to understand “the complex relationship between classroom mode and learning

opportunity” (ibid). All in all, it is a framework of assessing “the quality…. of the

language being used and the extent to which it is suited to intended learning outcomes” (ibid).

Secondly, SETT centres on the teacher-fronted interaction, and provides a metalanguage that the teachers and researchers alike can use to discuss micro-

contexts and interactional features. Therefore, it is more comprehensive to understand the teacher talk in L2 classroom interaction. For example, based on Seedhouse’s (2004) L2 classroom context classification, Waer’s (2012) research categorises the text- based context and content-based context. The former concerns with the linguistic and semantic aspects in the text, whereas the latterfocuses on the understanding of the content. In these two contexts, tackling the meaning of a word/sentence, such as asking the word equivalent or doing translation/explanation, is classified into text-based

context. The CS instances of explaining the reading and going back to reading the text are categorised as the sub-focus of the content-based context. Actually, from her findings, she also acknowledges that the functions of the L1, e.g., “commenting on a reading text”, “resuming reading” and “highlighting important/coming information” are

57

used in a similar way in these two contexts. These instances of CS use were also found in my study, but both contexts abovementioned can be classified as materials mode, which, arguably, can reduce the categorisation of more sub-varieties for a similar L2 classroom context. In other words, it is argued that Walsh’s framework provides broader varieties of L2 classroom context specifically designed for understanding teacher talk.

Thirdly, in essence, this study not only concerns with which classification of sub- varieties of L2 classroom context to be used, but also explores interactional features and the interrelatedness of language use and pedagogy. These concepts are

encompassed in the SETT framework. Therefore, it is the overall SETT framework rather than the term mode only is adopted in this study. In this regard, it is not

necessarily to compare a classification of L2 classroom context to an overall theoretical framework, but intensively present the CS occurrence within different local micro-

contexts of L2 classrooms. In addition, as stated by Walsh (2011):

SETT promotes an understanding of the relationship between pedagogical purpose and language use, enabling teachers to identify ‘recurrent segmental patterns or structures’ (Drew 1994: 142) which can contribute to an

understanding of what constitutes appropriate teacher talk in a particular mode. This dynamic perspective is view of L2 classroom interaction. By getting teachers to relate their use of language to pedagogic goals and by examining interactional features in each of the fours modes, it is anticipated that a greater depth of understanding can be gained in a relatively short space of time (p.89).

SETT was also deployed as an analytical framework in the current study, andhow SETT was used as a methodological tool is discussed in Section 4.3 and Section 5.4. Since this study sets out to identify the recurrent CS sequential patterns and link the CS use to pedagogic goals by probing into interactional features of CS within different modes,SETT can fit the research purpose by providing a framework to relate the language use to modes, interactional features and CIC.