In the presentation, I only showed the audience a single example (Excerpt 4) with a short video clip and transcribed extract where the student gave an extended explanation. One participant said that she was interested in how the
talk progressed before the transition to the student’s question. In order to
address this point, I provide an overview of how the talk unfolded through three brief excerpts from the talk before the student elaborated (in Excerpt 4).
Teacher-interviewer (T), Student-interviewee (S). Excerpt 1: The opening question and answer
1 T: And ah: (.) how- how has it been going this semester. Ha- has 2 anything changed from the past when you teach (.) in the second 3 semester (2.1) reading or translation?
4 S: Uhm:: (1.7) I think well that uh in in the same freshman class uhm 5 students were more interested in:: reading literature than other years.
There are always several minutes when the participants first sit down when they have greetings and simple exchanges about how they have been. They have not seen each other for five months. Then the topic changes to her teaching with the question in line 1. There had been some mention earlier about teaching a literature class where reading and translation are studied. T incorporates this information into how he shapes the opening question to the ‘interview’ proper. S picks up on this lead with a statement of comparison, a favorable one at that. The bulk of the talk is about what she has done differently such as giving more individual attention and making more effort to find out what their thinking process is in doing classroom tasks.
Excerpt 2: Transition from the teacher’s questions to the student’s questions
1 T: So let’s switch a little bit and ah last few minutes um do you have 2 any do you have some questions?
3 S: Ah:: for my research
After 20 minutes of discussion (out of a scheduled 30 minutes of talk) about what she has been doing in class and especially how students seem more engaged than in previous years, T opens the talk to her questions. Along with the opening question, he always asks the same transitional question at about the same time. Interestingly, she nominates a different topic that is not about her teaching, but about her research. Not included in the excerpt, S goes on to explain the situation where she is considering changing supervisors in order to fit her particular class and interest, literature class (a content based class as opposed to a language skill class). The next example articulates her research concern: Giving students a class questionnaire on what they think of her class.
Excerpt 3: The student’s first question
1 S: Oh- (0.2) Can I uh (wo wo) do you usually (0.6) let students 2 write their names down?
3 T: Um: (0.9) nowadays um (0.2) it seems questionnaires (.) um 4 one type of questionnaire they do write their names down.
T does not give a simple and straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’. In one type of questionnaire, it is done. There is the implication that it depends on the purpose of the questionnaire whether respondents are asked for their names and possibly other personal information. This question appears to set the stage for S to explain why knowing the name on the questionnaire is important to her.
One characteristic shared by the first three examples is the use of a yes/no interrogative to open the inquiry and the ‘non-conforming’ (Raymond, 2003) response which is not ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The forms of the question and answer do not align grammatically. The recipients appear to take the question as an elicitation of an explanation rather than seeking confirmation.
Excerpt 4: Her explanation of why she asked
1 S: If I know the names so some students study very hard 2 T: Right right
3 S: I want to know what they tho[ught 4 T: [Yeah] 5 S: because they (0.4)
6 T: Yeah
7 S: made efforts in this cla[ss 8 T: [Yeah]
Once S gets confirmation from T that it is possible to have students write their names, she explains her thinking. Here we see the teacher-interviewer is the listener. He gives minimal responses, continuer receipts (‘Yeah’), in order to give S the floor to explain. Despite the very limited linguistic contribution by T, his responses seem precisely timed (in lines 2, 4, 6, and 8) to maximize S’s opportunities to voice her idea. This fourth example shows the interviewer (T) minimizing his response to ‘continuers’ or token receipts to acknowledge and invite S to continue talking. Richards (2010) discusses ‘continuers’ as part of what interviewers do to display such things as acknowledgment and affiliation. Earlier, Gardner (1998) described these tokens as important connections between speaking and listening by serving as ‘vocalized’ displays of understanding of what is occurring.
My questions led the discussion in a certain direction about classroom teaching. What S’s question demonstrates is her wanting the chance to elaborate on what she wants to do in her research. However, there is more involved than simply wanting to do a share and tell. The conversational work that she does in asking a question to nominate her topic and then explain her reason allows her to ultimately seek approval from T of her idea. This process is arguably a more meaningful and helpful dialogue than being limited to talk about only what she is asked. The topic of the questionnaire and how to present it to students might not have occurred if there was no transition from T’s questions to S’s.
In other types of institutional talk, the interviewee (e.g., student, patient, candidate, or client) is given the chance to ask questions. In fact, the questions asked by the student (and others in novice roles) can draw on the professional’s expertise in ways that might not have been addressed by prior questions and answers. Clinical talk is one area where patients’ questions and doctors’ responses may lessen uncertainty and anxiety. In this way, the inherent asymmetric relationship benefits from some space for exchange, experiential and expertise. For example, Robinson (2001) looked for differences (grammatical form) in eliciting patients’ questions at the end of consultations when the doctor says, ‘Do you have some concerns?’ instead
of ‘do you have anyconcerns?’ Preliminary findings suggest the former form
prompted more patient-initiated response. As for oral proficiency test interviews, Seedhouse (2013) discusses the ‘variety’ of interactional features and issues occurring in the question-answer sequence beyond interviewer protocol. In SLA studies on ‘uptake’, Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2001) compared response in focus on form episodes (FFE) when initiated by the learner and by the teacher compared with ‘notably higher and more successful’ language production in student-initiated cases. Finally, in Grañena’s (2003) study of appeals for assistance, she notes, ‘the interviewers’ response moves are understood as being triggered by learner self-initiation as opposed to interviewer-initiation’ (p. 92). With relevance to my interest in how student-interviewee initiated questions introduce new topics, she goes on to say that it is the learner who first points out a problem which needs to be discussed.
Besides using CA to study embodied actions and talk, a third form of ‘representation’ of the interview experience was considered, reflection. Students had previously taken a course on reflective practice through journaling, so they had developed a habit to write their thoughts soon after the event.