Waring (2008)

Using Explicit Positive Assessmentin the Language Classroom:IRF, Feedback, andLearning OpportunitiesHANSUN ZHANG WARINGTeachers CollegeColumbia UniversityBox 66525 W. 120th StreetNew York, NY 10027Email: [email protected]

Within the framework of sociocultural theory, learning is conceptualized as participation ratherthan acquisition (Donato, 2000). Given the governing metaphor of changing participation aslearning (Young & Miller, 2004), an important contribution conversation analysis can maketo the study of second language acquisition is to detail the instructional practices that eithercreate or inhibit the opportunities for participation (Lerner, 1995), and by extension, theopportunities for learning. This study focuses on one such practice in English as a secondlanguage classrooms—the use of explicit positive assessment—and its relevance to learningopportunities. I argue that within certain contexts these assessments tend to suppress theopportunities for voicing understanding problems or exploring alternative correct answers,both of which are the stuff that learning is made of. The analysis suggests that what is sequentiallyand affectively preferred may be pedagogically and developmentally dispreferred.

WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF SOCIOCUL-tural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), learning is con-ceptualized as participation rather than acquisi-tion (Donato, 2000; Sfard, 1998; Young & Miller,2004). Given this governing metaphor of partici-pation as learning, an important contribution thatconversation analysis (CA) can make to the studyof second language acquisition (SLA) is to detailthe instructional practices that either create or in-hibit the opportunities for participation (Lerner,1995) and, by extension, the opportunities forlearning. As Kasper (2006) pointed out, “CA hasthe capacity to examine in detail how opportuni-ties for L2 learning arise in interactional activities”(p. 83). One such instructional practice concernsways of attending to learners’ contributions insitu. In the language classroom, teachers routinely

The Modern Language Journal, 92, iv, (2008)0026-7902/08/577–594 $1.50/0C©2008 The Modern Language Journal

find themselves in the position of responding tolearners’ displays of knowledge. These responsesmay be broadly referred to as feedback. This studyfocuses on one specific type of feedback in Englishas a second language (ESL) classrooms—explicitpositive assessment (EPA)—and its relevance tolearning opportunities. The following list showsthe sorts of objects (taken from the data set) thatI will examine in detail (see Appendix for tran-scription conventions):

1. ↓Very g↑ood.2. = ↓Very good. ◦Tha:nk you.◦

3. “In the world.” ◦Very goo:d. Tha:nk you.◦

4. = “The ↓saxophone.”↓Very good. ◦very good.◦

5. Ve:ry good. = It’s an adjective.6. =Good ((nods)) >“In fact the team has<

won >ninety eight percent of the games<the:::y (1.0) ha:::ve (0.5) pla:yed so:::::: far.”

7. >◦Good.◦ “How long have you been trainingfor the Olympics.”< = Excellent.

578 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)

8. =$Very good=“how long have you been mar-ried.”$ = Very good.

In this article, the term explicit positive assessmentrefers specifically to teacher utterances that con-tain positive assessment terms such as good , verygood , excellent , perfect , and the like. This use of theterm excludes both matter-of-fact receipts, suchas okay, right , or correct, and implicit positive feed-back, which is either embodied in carefully in-toned repetitions (Hellermann, 2003) or assumedby virtue of the teacher’s moving on to the nextitem (Seedhouse, 2004).

I first review the relevant literature on IRF(Initiation-Response-Feedback), feedback, andlearning opportunities by way of positioning myinvestigation within the larger context of scholarlyinquiries. I then offer a description of the data seton which the subsequent analysis is based as wellas the analytical framework within which the datawere examined. After an extended microanaly-sis to establish a relationship between the use ofEPA and learning opportunities, I conclude witha discussion of both theoretical and empirical im-plications of the findings as well as a catalogue ofyet-to-be-examined issues.

IRF, FEEDBACK, AND LEARNINGOPPORTUNITIES

My object of inquiry is located at the center ofthree interlocking areas of scholarly research: theIRF sequence in classroom discourse (e.g., Sin-clair & Coulthard, 1975), feedback in SLA (e.g.,Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Mackey, 2006), and anissue of more general concern—learning oppor-tunities (e.g., Mori, 2004).

Initiation-Response-Feedback

A central concept in classroom discourse is theIRF sequence (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). It hasalso been referred to as IRE, where E stands forevaluation (Mehan, 1979), as Q-A-C adjacency tri-ads, where C stands for comment (McHoul, 1978),and triadic dialogue or recitation script (Lemke,1985).1 IRF is a sequential feature, distinct in itsprosodic packaging (Hellermann, 2003, 2005a,2005b), of classroom discourse widely knownamong applied linguists and education scholars(Walsh, 2006; Wells, 1993). As Wells claimed,“If there is one finding on which learners ofclassroom discourse agreed, it must be the ubiq-uity of the three-part exchange structure” (p. 1).Seedhouse (1997), by contrast, noted that IRE“in no way accurately describes the interactional

sequence” (pp. 553–554) in second language (L2)classrooms, where overt negative evaluation is of-ten avoided. Although, overall, various terms havebeen used interchangeably to refer to this se-quential phenomenon, Hall and Walsh (2002)distinguished between IRE and IRF, arguing thatwhereas researchers who use the term IRE seeteaching as a process of transmission, users of theterm IRF “have a more inquiry-based understand-ing of learning, which values the activities of ex-ploration, hypothesis testing, and problem solv-ing” (pp. 196–197).

This distinction is emblematic of the varyingviews on the utility of this three-part exchangestructure. Whereas Seedhouse (1997) argued thatIRF is not unnatural because it appears in adult–child interaction and that it suits the core goal ofeducation, Nystrand (1997) characterized its useas negatively correlated with learning. van Lier(2000b) also pointed out that learner opportu-nities to exercise initiatives are extremely limitedin the IRF format (p. 95). For Wells (1993), “tri-adic dialogue is neither good nor bad; rather,its merits—or demerits—depend upon the pur-poses it is used to serve on particular occasions,and upon the larger goals by which those pur-poses are informed” (p. 3). In a similar spirit ofneutrality, van Lier proposed an “IRF continuum”on which its varying functions are situated to sig-nify increasing depth of processing: recitation—display—cognition—precision (p. 94).

Much of the discussion has centered aroundwhat transpires at the feedback (F) position in IRF(e.g., Hall, 1998; Jarvis & Robinson, 1997; Nas-saji & Wells, 2000). Some researchers have fo-cused on the interactional significance of its ab-sence in the three-part exchange structure. ForSeedhouse (2004), such absence implies positiveevaluation. For Lerner (1995), it provides for ex-panded learner participation: “By withholding asequence-completing confirmation, the opportu-nity for learner participation continues under theaegis of the teacher’s question” (p. 116). Note,however, that withholding the third turn, espe-cially in the format of resumed teacher question-ing (e.g., Socratic dialogue), would not automati-cally generate the symmetrical conversations thatfeature contingency, which is talk that is unpre-dictable yet responsive to others’ talk on a turn-by-turn basis (van Lier, 1996). Other researchershave considered the various functions of the F inIRF when it is produced. Nassaji and Wells main-tained that the follow-up move can be used indifferent ways to achieve different functions. Nys-trand and Gamoran (1991), for example, distin-guished between low- and high-level evaluations.

Hansun Zhang Waring 579

Hall (1998) also asserted that subtly differentialtreatment of learner talk in IRF sequences createsdifferent abilities to participate, different learningopportunities, and different outcomes. In addi-tion, Lee (2007) detailed a range of interactionalwork contingently displayed by the teacher in thethird turn, such as parsing, steering the sequence,or intimating the answer.

In CA terms, at least some of what occupies theF position may be referred to as the sequence-closingthird (SCT; Schegloff, 2007). These SCTs (e.g., oh,okay, or assessments such as great) minimally ex-pand on the forgoing adjacency pairs (e.g., “Whenis the party?” “At four.”), and they are specificallydesigned not to project further talk within thesequence (Schegloff, p. 118), as shown in the fol-lowing:

01 Ava: ◦(Any way). .hh˚ How’v you bee:n.02 Bee: hh Oh:: survi:ving I guess, hh

[h!03 Ava: → [That’s good, how’s (Bob),04 Bee: He’s fine,05 Ava: → Tha::t’s goo:d, (Schegloff, p. 124)

Schegloff then wrote that “sequence-organizational third position appears to bea recurrent locus of variation across a range ofwork settings” (p. 222).

By producing a CA account of EPA in the ESLclassroom, this study further explores the institu-tionality of SCTs and contributes to the ongoingdiscussion on the various facets of IRF.

Feedback

Feedback has been a topic of interest in bothcognitively and socioculturally oriented SLA (e.g.,Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Morris, 2002; Panova &Lyster, 2002), where feedback refers almost exclu-sively to negative feedback or corrective feedback. AsGass and Mackey (2006) wrote in their state-of-the-art review, feedback “is generally consideredto be a form of negative evidence” (p. 7), and assuch, it both modifies the input the learner re-ceives and pushes the learner to modify the out-put he or she produces. For cognitively mindedscholars, on the one hand, feedback promotes L2learning because “it prompts learners to notice L2forms” (Mackey, 2006, p. 405). For socioculturallyoriented scholars, on the other hand, feedback isbeneficial as long as it is sensitive to the learner’szone of proximal development (ZPD; Vygotsky,1978), and such sensitivity may be captured bythe “regulatory scale,” which provides feedbackoptions that move gradually from the implicit “in-

dicate something is wrong” to the explicit “givecorrection” (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, p. 471).

One reason for the lack of empirical work onpositive feedback as it is related to learning maybe our intuitive belief in the “no pain, no gain”aphorism—that is, our belief that learning oc-curs only when problems arise. In other words,when a correct response (especially one in themicrodomains of syntax and phonology) is given,very few learning potentials are left to be ex-plored. The current study sets out to investigatewhether this is indeed the case by taking a closerlook at EPA and its relevance, if any, to learningopportunities.

Learning Opportunity

Within the general area of L2 learning, the no-tion of learning opportunity has been conceiveddifferently by scholars working within three re-lated paradigms: the cognitive approach (e.g.,Long, 1983), the sociocultural approach (e.g.,Lantolf, 2000), and the CA approach (e.g., Mori,2004).

The cognitive approach, which has dominatedthe field of SLA to date, subscribes to the input–output model of language acquisition (Gass &Selinker, 2001), which, in its simplest form, pro-poses that a learner receives input from the envi-ronment, processes the input inside his or herbrain, and produces output. The most fruitfulsite for learning opportunities, as discovered byscholars within this approach, is what has beenreferred to as negotiation of meaning—the kindof talk aimed at addressing problems of under-standing. These “repair-driven” negotiations (vanLier & Matsuo, 2000, p. 267) provide learners withopportunities to notice the gap between the tar-get language and their own, to receive input ofhigher comprehensibility, and to produce modi-fied output (Gass & Mackey, 2006). From this per-spective then, “tasks that require a great deal ofnegotiation—in the sense of interactional workaimed at resolving communication problems—provide more learning opportunities than generalconversation” (van Lier, 2000a, p. 249).

Whereas the cognitive approach views learn-ing as a process of decoding and encoding, thesociocultural approach views learning as a pro-cess of increasing participation in the target lan-guage discourse (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). Notethat sociocultural researchers have expanded theview of interaction beyond repair-driven negoti-ation (e.g., Brooks, Donato & McGlone, 1997;Swain, 2000). Learning opportunities from thisperspective take on the form of opportunities for


participation (e.g., exercise initiative, participateactively and spontaneously; see van Lier, 1984).According to van Lier (2000a), what affords learn-ing is not the amount of comprehensible inputbut “the opportunities for meaningful action thatthe situation affords” (p. 252). Ohta (1995) alsoshowed that learning occurs “through the oppor-tunity to use both matured and maturing lan-guage” (p. 116). With this reconceptualized no-tion of learning opportunity in place, pedagogicaltasks that provide access and encourage engage-ment are considered beneficial to learning (vanLier), and unstructured conversation has beenshown to provide a larger range of learning oppor-tunities than controlled interactions (Nakahama,Tyler, & van Lier, 2001).

While sharing the sociocultural view of cogni-tion as socially constituted and distributed, CA“does not provide a ready-made framework to ex-amine learning” (Kasper, 2006, p. 91). AlthoughCA for SLA is a relatively recent movement,over the past three decades, CA has been widelyused as a powerful tool to discover the order-liness of social interaction within a wide varietyof social contexts (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998). InCA, only naturally occurring interactions are ad-missible as data, and every minute detail (e.g.,pause, pitch, or pace) is considered relevant inuncovering participant orientations toward theinteraction. It is not surprising, therefore, thatwhen it comes to understanding learning op-portunities, CA takes an emic approach (Mori,2004). Its focus, in other words, is on detail-ing what the participants themselves come totreat as learning opportunities rather than onpursuing learning opportunity as a researcher-imposed category (e.g., He, 2004; Kasper, 2004;Mori). Kasper (2004), for example, showed that inGerman “conversation-for-learning,” the expert–novice categories are predominantly invoked bythe novice. In other words, despite the fact thatlearning is an explicitly stated goal of the conversa-tion, only particular moments within that conver-sation are treated by the learner as opportunitiesfor language learning.

The current study contributes to this ongoingconversation on learning opportunities by offer-ing a microscopic look into the instructional prac-tice of EPA. As Markee (2004) aptly wrote:

We language teaching and learning specialists shouldbe aware that what we say and how we say it, no mat-ter how seemingly unimportant, may turn out to haveprofound consequences in terms of the access our stu-dents have to good opportunities for language learn-ing. (p. 594)

In keeping with the sociocultural understandingof learning opportunities, I consider EPA with par-ticular reference to the opportunities of partici-pation, and I use CA as a tool to uncover thenecessary details for deducing “what may con-stitute optimal or conducive learning environ-ments” (He, 2004, p. 578).

DATA SET

The data for this article were taken from a largercorpus of 15 two-hour adult ESL classes that werevideotaped at a community English program inthe United States in the fall of 2005 and the springof 2006. These 15 classes were taught by 15 differ-ent teachers and ranged in level from beginningthrough intermediate to advanced. One researchassistant and I collaborated in the data collection.The seven sessions in which I was behind the cam-era were considered in detail for this article, andfrom them, a subset of 58 EPA instances was assem-bled. The data were transcribed using a modifiedversion of the system developed by Jefferson (seethe Appendix).

The analysis was conducted within a CA frame-work (see ten Have, 1999, for a thorough intro-duction). Among the various analytical principlesof CA, two are central to grasping the “CA men-tality.” First is that the goal of analysis is to un-cover the participants’ own orientation towardthe interaction. This orientation is uncovered notby asking the participants but by examining thedetails of interaction. Within the CA framework,asking someone why he or she said X does notanswer the question of what X is produced asand treated as in real time. Second is that anal-ysis begins with the meticulous inspection of sin-gle instances, in which the orderliness of socialityresides. What warrants the validity of the analy-sis, then, is not the frequency of instances, butwhether adequate descriptions have been pro-vided to explicate how X works in particular in-stances. Each instance is evidence that “the ma-chinery for its production is culturally available,involves members’ competencies, and is thereforepossibly (and probably) reproducible” (Psathas,1995, p. 50). Additional instances provide “an-other example of the method in the action, ratherthan securing the warrantability of the descriptionof the machinery itself” (Benson & Hughes, 1991,p. 131).

In the context of the current study, for exam-ple, the single instance can mean the first fewlines of a class, a segment of a class, or an entireclass. I began the analysis with the very first class


that I videotaped and transcribed. I conducteda line-by-line analysis of those data, from whicha host of candidate phenomena emerged. I de-cided to pursue EPA because it is interconnectedwith a number of key concerns in the literature(see previous discussion). A collection of EPA in-stances was then assembled from the other classsessions, and a line-by-line analysis was conductedfor each EPA instance within its local sequentialcontext, from which the characterizations of “EPAas sequence-closing” and “EPA as insinuating caseclosed” (see later sections) eventually emerged.Finally, the excerpts that best exemplified thephenomenon were selected for inclusion in thisarticle.

For the current project, the focus was primar-ily placed on the checking homework segmentsof the lessons. At the beginning of the class, theteacher went over the exercises that the learnershad been asked to complete as homework. This ac-tivity provided an opportunity (a) for the teacherto gauge the learners’ level of understandingvis-a-vis certain materials and (b) for the learnersto display their mastery of or problems with thesematerials. It was, in other words, one resourcefor locating the learners’ ZPD. Of the many waysin which IRF can be used, this is what van Lier(2000b) would call its “display” (p. 94) function.The teacher asked the learners to display whatthey knew and was in the position to assess thatdisplay.

Among the various pedagogical tasks found inthe classroom then, checking homework seems tobe a natural habitat where evaluation is integralto the purpose of the task. As discussed earlier,much applied linguistic research has focused onthe treatment of problematic display. My analy-sis turns to what gets done when the display issuccessful, and I focus in particular on those in-stances where the successful display immediatelyfollows the teacher’s initiating turn, excluding, inother words, those cases in which the successfuldisplay occurs eventually as a result of error treat-ment. I also excluded from the analysis EPAs usedat the end of an entire exercise or task to signala wrap-up or transition to the next stage of thelesson. I chose EPA as my initial inquiry also be-cause it is a discursive object typically associatedwith classroom discourse, and items such as verygood are often invoked to caricaturize teaching.My project is therefore in part to unlock “the‘black box’ of classroom pedagogy” (Macbeth,2003, p. 240). The ultimate argument I hope toconstruct is this: Within certain pedagogical con-texts, EPA inhibits rather than promotes learningopportunities.

AN ANALYSIS OF EPA AND LEARNINGOPPORTUNITIES

I approach the analysis in three stages, begin-ning with what may be regarded as the more obvi-ous feature of EPA: that it does sequence-closing.I then devote the bulk of my analysis to demon-strate the interactional gist of EPA, which furtherspecifies the hearing of EPA as not just sequence-closing but “case closed” (i.e., negotiation beyondthis point is neither necessary nor warranted). Fi-nally, I make a specific connection between thesefeatures and the notion of learning opportunityby showing that the terminations brought aboutby EPAs may be potentially problematic.

EPA as Sequence-Closing

The sequence-closing feature of EPA refersspecifically to the result that the production ofEPA does not project any further within-sequencetalk; it marks the completion of the projectlaunched by the sequence. In the checking home-work context, the project is to provide for the dis-play of student work, assess the accuracy of thatwork, and, if necessary, ensure the achievementof that accuracy. (It should be noted that this lastcomponent would not be relevant in a differentpedagogical context such as a quiz game.) Therole of assessment in marking closure has beennoticed by various scholars (e.g., Antaki, 2002; An-taki, Houtkoop-Steenstra, & Rapley, 2000; Mehan,1979; Schegloff, 2007). It is important to register,as will be shown shortly, that in classroom dis-course, assessment in and of itself does not au-tomatically engender sequence-closing. Rather, itis a particular kind of assessment that achievessequence-closing.

Within the institutional context of a classroom,the third-turn assessment is clearly not an optionalminimal expansion but an integral member of thesequence, or in Schegloff’s (2007) words, “an or-ganic part” (p. 224) of the sequence. Hellermann(2005b) also remarked on the “conditionally rel-evant” (p. 921) nature of the third-turn evalua-tions in classroom discourse. This conditional rel-evance is further supported by the recurrent ob-servation in my data set that learners, on complet-ing their responses, would select the teacher asthe next speaker via their gaze. One can note thatthe kinds of alternatives made conditionally rele-vant in the F position are not treated as equals—some are preferred (i.e., positive assessment) andsome are dispreferred (i.e., negative assessment)(Pomerantz, 1984; Sacks, 1987). For example, stu-dent errors tend to be followed by a teacher repair


initiation that prompts self-correction rather thanby the correction itself (McHoul, 1985, 1990),and this tendency is especially noticeable inform-focused segments in the language classroom(Kasper, 1986). Macbeth (2004) also maintainedthat delays in the teacher’s third turn are rou-tinely heard as “harbingers” of negative evaluation(p. 716). In other words, negative assessmentis routinely delayed and thus produced as thedispreferred action. Positive evaluation, however,tends to be produced in the preferred format(e.g., no-gap onset, perturbation-free delivery, aswell as the absence of any account), as shown inExcerpts 1, 2, and 3.

EXCERPT 1

1 T: ((looks up at Class)) Nu::mber three::::{((points to Kevin)) Kevin.}

2 (1.0)3 Kevin: “Wow. I didn’t know (.) you were

married.”4 (0.8)5 “Ho:::w lo:ng6 have you:::[:::::: (.) b : e e n

m a r r i e d .” ]=7 T: [((slight nod turns into large

encouraging nods))]8 → =$Very good=how long have you been

married.$9 = Very good. Nu:mber four. Mai,

EXCERPT 2

1 T: ◦Good.◦ Number six, Yuka?2 (0.8)3 Yuka: ((reading)) >oh< come o::::n. You re-

ally play the saxophone.4 (0.5)5 How lo:ng (.) have you been playing the

sa- the saxophone.=6 T: → =The ↓saxophone.↓Very good. ◦very

good.◦ Number seven? Miyuki?

EXCERPT 3

1 T: ((reads instructions for the next exer-cise))

2 Nu:mber one.=>Veronica.<3 Veronica: ((reading)) Oh really? I didn’t know

you were ‘tryning’ for the Olympics.4 How long (.) have you been ‘tryning’

(.) for the Olympics?5 [((looks up at T)) ]6 T: → [>◦G o o d.◦ Ho ]w long have you

been training7 for the Olympics.<=Excellent.

8 (0.2)9 Nu:mber two. >M↑arian, we skipped

you=I’m sorry.10 Go ahead.<

In other words, the teacher’s EPA, just like accep-tance after invitation, is oriented to as the pre-ferred second pair part: an unmarked, expected,default action. It neither promises nor invitesany elaboration. As Schegloff (2007) pointed out,sequences with preferred second pair parts are“closure-relevant,” whereas sequences with dispre-ferred second pair parts are “expansion-relevant”(p. 117). To be more precise, in classroom dis-course, it is not assessment, but positive assess-ment that closes the sequence. It is not surprising,therefore, that the EPA turns are typically followedby silence (cf. a somewhat related phenomenon:“silent stress” in Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975, p.43—a pause after markers such as now to high-light the boundary exchange) or by the initiationof a new sequence, or both.2

In fact, any other business that the teachercomes to address in his or her feedback turn,such as a minor error unrelated to the pedagog-ical focus at the time, tends to precede the deliv-ery of EPA. This precise placement of EPA as theturn-final item provides an additional clue to theteacher’s orientation toward its sequence-closingpotential. Excerpt 4 is taken from an exercise inwhich the learners were asked to provide the cor-rect verb form, as in the following. For conve-nience, I refer to the first sentence as the contextsentence, and the second as the test sentence:

Wow, I didn’t know you were married.How long ?

The excerpt begins with Miyuki reading the con-text sentence, which she completes in a rising in-tonation:

EXCERPT 4

1 Miyuki: ((reading)) Oh really? I didn’t know you2 were (0.5) diving in (.) Madrid now?3 T: mhm?4 (0.2)5 Miyuki: How long have you been ( )- diving in

Madrid.6 T: Madrid.7 (.)8 → ↓Very g↑ood.

The teacher offers a continuer in line 3 (Sche-gloff, 1982) despite Miyuki’s misplacement ofstress in the word Madrid and her potentially


help-soliciting stance signaled in the rising into-nation. After a brief gap, Miyuki goes on to readthe test sentence with its correct verb form. Notethat what comes immediately thereafter is notthe teacher’s positive evaluation, but her other-initiated other-correction (Schegloff, Jefferson, &Sacks, 1977; also called a recast in the SLA lit-erature) on the pronunciation of Madrid . Theteacher’s positive evaluation comes only after theabsence of uptake from Miyuki (7).3 What theteacher seems to be orienting to is the possibilitythat the EPA would be heard as doing sequence-closing, thereby making it difficult for the learn-ers to attend to any other relevant issue after itsarticulation.

One final piece of evidence for the sequence-closing status of EPA is its absence after a correctlearner response in the midst of a larger errortreatment sequence. As Schegloff (1996) wrote,“One often compelling sort of evidence for theclaimed practice, orientation, or organization intalk in interaction is the eventfulness of its ab-sence, or an orientation to avoiding it as well asachieving it” (p. 192). Excerpt 5 is taken froman extended discussion in which the teacher at-tempts to help the learners recognize the missingcopula be in the question “How long have you mar-ried?” The excerpt begins with the teacher givinga comparable example that lacks the form of tobe and eliciting the learners’ grammaticality judg-ment on the problematic example, to which thelearners respond correctly (4–5).

EXCERPT 5

1 T: {Okay? ((nods))} <For example,2 ((starts writing)) I: happy. ((finishes

writing))3 Is that correct?4 Ss: [No.5 Ss: [I am.6 T: → ((inserts “am”)) ((writing)) She:: (.) i::s7 Ss: happy.8 T: ((writes “m a r r i e d.”))

Note that instead of offering an EPA in line 6, theteacher simply provides nonverbal acceptance ofthe judgment and proceeds to tie the insertionof the correct form of to be back to the originalproblematic sentence. The withholding of EPAhere appears to be specifically linked to the not-yet-closed status of the interaction. After all, the“happy” sentence is only a stepping stone to solv-ing the problem in the “married” sentence, whichis yet to be solved.

The next excerpt, however, appears to be adeviant case that contradicts the just-proposedanalysis. Here, in Excerpt 6, the students havebeen asked to match vocabulary items with theirmeanings based on a reading passage. The rele-vant word here is aerobic. The teacher’s “Goo:::d”(6) is produced exactly at a time when the se-quence is clearly not closed:

EXCERPT 6

1 T: u::m >so that brings us back to number2 seven.< Mindy, can you read the sen-

tence for “aerobic”?3 Mindy: ((reading)) Laughing is aerobic; laugh-4 ing with gusto lets our bodies perform

an internal massage.5 (0.3)6 T: → Goo:::d.7 (1.8)8 Does that help?9 (6.0)10 You say the answer is B: “increasing oxy-11 gen levels of the body.”12 (5.0)13 Angie: If we look at zuh::: zuh sentence before?14 (0.3)15 ((continues)).

One can see from the teacher’s first line thatthe class is now returning to a previously unre-solved item. Because the task is to figure out theword’s meaning from its context, the teacher asksMindy to read the sentence that provides its con-text, which she does (3–4). The (0.3) gap maybe a space where Mindy could have gone on togive the meaning of the word but did not. Infact, she had already given the correct answer, “in-creasing oxygen levels of the body,” much earlier(i.e., before the discussion became sidetracked ata point when another student offered a compet-ing answer). Because the textbook gives specificdirections as to which sentence in the reading pas-sage relates to which vocabulary item, it is unlikelythat the teacher would positively evaluate the stu-dent’s ability to locate the right sentence for acertain word. It is also unlikely that the teacherwould positively evaluate the student’s read-aloudability given that this was an advanced-level ESLclass. It is perhaps safe to say then that the length-ened “Goo::::d” (6) is not offering evaluation, atleast not primarily so, but it is doing what thisslot is designed for—acknowledgment. It acknow-ledges Mindy’s reading of the sentence related tothe word aerobic, which lays the groundwork fordeveloping an understanding of the word. As can


be seen, further discussion of the item continues.In other words, what appears to be an EPA inform may not be doing any EPA work (cf. the useof “Good” in Item 6 in the list at the beginning ofthis article).

In sum, the sequence-closing quality of EPA isprimarily indexed in its preferred status after thelearner response. It also becomes visible in theteacher’s practice of ordering the components inher feedback turn so that any other interactionalbusiness precedes the delivery of EPA. Finally, theabsence of EPA after a correct learner response ina larger, yet-to-be-completed sequence presents aparticularly strong sort of evidence for its percep-tion as sequence-closing by the participants.

EPA as Insinuating Case Closed

So far, I have attempted to establish sequence-closing as a first-order characterization of EPA,showing that the EPA turns are designed specif-ically not to invite expansion. We may now reg-ister that not inviting is not the same as inhibit-ing and that sequence-closing does not necessar-ily block further talk on the topic. For example,once an invitation is accepted, a new sequencethat constitutes the next stage of the course ofaction may be initiated (e.g., request and give di-rections), and this new sequence is still situatedwithin the general activity of invitation (cf. “se-quences of sequences”; Schegloff, 2007, pp. 195–216). The function of EPA, however, is not limitedto sequence-closing. It also accomplishes what canbe characterized as “insinuating case closed”; thatis, it performs the interactional duty of treatingfurther talk on the subject as unnecessary andunwarranted, and it does so inexplicitly, henceinsinuating.

First to be noticed is the prosodic packagingof some EPA turns: decreased volume, loweredpitch, and slower speed as in items 2, 3, and 4shown at the beginning of the article and repro-duced here. Decreased volume (Goldberg, 2004)and lowered pitch (Hellermann, 2005a) are typi-cally associated with the closing of an activity; theirdissolving effect is not unlike that of the “trail-offsilences” discussed by Local and Kelly (1986):

2. =↓Very good. ◦Tha:nk you.◦

3. “In the world.” ◦Very goo:d. Tha:nk you.◦

4. =“The ↓saxophone.”↓Very good. ◦verygood.◦ (p. 195)

The “case closed” quality of EPA is further in-sinuated in the kinds of objects with which itco-occurs. Thank you is often found in the closing

slot of transactions (Goldberg, 2004). Note alsothe repeating of the learner’s prior answer (e.g.,“In the world”) and the recycling of a turn com-ponent (e.g., “↓Very good. ◦very good.◦”). Thisdistinct absence of any further substantive con-tribution to the talk displays the participant’s un-derstanding that the topic is possibly exhaustedand that the current interactional state is closing-relevant (Button, 1991; Schegloff & Sacks, 1974).

In addition to the prosodic packaging and co-occurring objects, the hearing of EPA as “caseclosed” is also insinuated in two of its related in-teractional undertakings. First, in the EPA turns,a good amount of interactional work (e.g., non-verbal display, prosodic marking, repetition) isdevoted to putting the learner response on apedestal, so to speak. This seems to be the in-teractional import of EPA directly drawn from itsliteral meaning. Observe the nodding, the “smi-ley” voice, as well as the emphatic delivery andmarked pitch shown in 6, 7, and 8:

6. =Good ((nodding)) >“In fact the team has<won >ninety eight percent of the games<the:::y (1.0) ha:::ve (0.5) pla:yed so:::::: far.”

7. >◦Good.◦ “How long have you been trainingfor the Olympics.”<= Excellent.

8. =$Very good=“how long have you beenmarried.”$=Very good.

There is also something to be said about the actof repeating the correct response. Repetition im-plicates a complex set of interactional functions(Tannen, 1989). Pomerantz (1984) demonstratedits use as repair initiation. In my data set, there arealso many instances when the teacher repeats anincorrect response, preparing it for subsequentpedagogical treatment. However, the repetition ofa correct response is done differently. It precedes,follows, or is book-ended by positive assessments(see Hellermann, 2003, for prosodic renderingsof such repetition). In other words, its appearanceis deeply intertwined with accolades. What is re-peated is specifically tagged as desirable, and thatdesirability is sometimes further bolstered by themarked delivery of that repetition. In short, a hostof discursive resources are deployed to legitimizeor set in stone the learner’s response as the “per-fect answer” and, as such, definitive and beyondnegotiation. What this does is implicitly constructany other answer as deviant and less than compe-tent, and as I would begin to argue, exclude otherpossibly correct answers or discourage the voic-ing of alternative answers. Note that the “singlecorrect answer” assumption is very much in linewith the benefit of single-outcome tasks advocated


in the SLA literature (Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun,1993). As a matter of fact, textbook exercises ongrammar and vocabulary are almost exclusivelydesigned as convergent (single correct answer)items.

A second aspect of the “case closed” character-istic of EPA is that it does more than uphold thelinguistic accuracy of the learner response. It alsoembodies an encouraging, congratulating, and re-warding gesture at the finish line of a “journey.”It is a “bouquet” for the “podium moment,” so tospeak. It attends to the affect needs of the learner,in addition to providing a positive gloss of the (lin-guistic) accuracy of his or her contribution, andit is this “finish line” quality that further cementsthe hearing of EPA as “case closed.”

Excerpt 7 is a clear example of EPA carryinga function separate from confirming the correct-ness of a response. It is taken from a pedagogicalcontext in which a vocabulary review game is un-der way: A chosen student sits in the “hot seat”facing the class, the teacher writes a word on theboard behind the student, the class explains themeaning of the word to the student, and the stu-dent guesses the word based on the explanations.

EXCERPT 7

1 Heather: ((walks up and sits down in the hotseat.))

2 T: ((writes “achieve” on the board))3 ((Ss laughter—not clear what trig-

gers it.))4 Rita: to rea:ch?5 (1.8)6 Betty: to reach.7 (0.2)8 Mark: to (.) success?9 (1.8)10 Betty: t’ gai::n (0.2) ◦something.◦ ((slight

juggling gesture))11 (stuff) like a success.12 (1.0)13 Heather: mm:: (.) achieve?14 T: ◦Y[es.]◦ ((nods))15 Betty: [◦Y]es.◦ ((nods))=16 T: → =V↑E:ry g↑oo:d.17 (0.8)18 All right. Last one.

Note that in this particular case, the teacher is notuniquely privileged to assess the linguistic accu-racy of Heather’s guess because the informationis publicly available to everyone in the room ex-cept Heather herself. Indeed, the confirmationof Heather’s successful guess is provided almost

simultaneously by the teacher and Betty (14–15),who both use the affirmative token yes. Note alsothe pitch reset (16) when the teacher launcheshis EPA in latch. Because high onset pitch is typ-ically exploited in interaction to introduce a newtopic (Couper-Kuhlen, 2001), we may safely saythat although we are not observing a topic change,some demarcation of activity is being proposedhere between the just completed confirmationand the upcoming EPA; that is, what very good isdoing now is not what yes did earlier. Rather, theEPA appears to transcend the specific response of“achieve” and offer a positive gloss of this roundof the “game” as a whole, congratulating both theguesser and the clue-givers for bringing the activ-ity to its successful completion.

Excerpt 8 is an example in which the rolesof EPA in evaluating linguistic accuracy and do-ing congratulating are not clearly separate. Thehomework item related to this excerpt is this fill-in-the-blanks exercise:

The Harlem Globetrotters are a world fa-mous comic basketball team. They (1. play)

basketball since 1926, and they (2.travel) to different countries of theworld for more than forty years.

EXCERPT 8

1 T: [O k a: ]y? u::::::h ((looks around theroom))

2 Miyuki.3 (1.5) ((Miyuki looks up and then

down at textbook))4 Miyuki: ((reading)) The Harlem Glo- (1.0)-

((looks closer at5 the textbook)) ◦tera-◦

6 [((looks up)) trotter.]7 T: [t r o t ] te:rs,8 Miyuki: ((looks down)) Globe [trotters,]9 T: [trotters,]10 ◦mhm?◦

11 Miyuki: ((continues reading)) Globetrottersare a world-

12 famous comic basketball team. Theyhave been

13 playing basketball since 1926. andthey ((looks

14 up))15 T: mh:m?16 Miyuki: ((looks down and continues reading))

and they have17 been traveling to different countries

of the world for18 more than 40 years.=19 T: → =◦↓Very good. Tha:nk you.◦


20 (.)21 K↑evin. We skipped ↑you. >Go

ahead.<

Soon after beginning to answer the teacher’s nom-ination (4), Miyuki initiates repair as shown in thecut-off at the very first syllable of Globetrotters. Afull second passes before she resumes her attemptand produces the non-target-like tera, which is fol-lowed by yet another cutoff. Looking up immedi-ately thereafter, Miyuki completes her repair byenunciating the remaining syllables, trotters. Shehas by now displayed her difficulty with but suc-cess in pronouncing Globetrotters. Her self-repaircomes in overlap with the teacher’s other-repair(7), which outlasts Miyuki’s by one syllable as a re-sult of the teacher’s slower and emphatic delivery.

Next (8), Miyuki receipts the teacher’s repairby repeating the word Globetrotters in its entirety,the final two syllables of which are again collabo-ratively completed by the teacher (9). Meanwhile,Miyuki also signals that she is exiting the repair se-quence and returning to the task by disengagingher gaze from the teacher and looking down ather textbook. The teacher’s continuer mhm? (10)displays her alignment with Miyuki’s agenda.

In line 12, Miyuki completes the first clause withthe correct verb form have been playing . Soon afterbeginning the second clause, she looks up at theteacher as if to confirm that she still has the floor,to which the teacher offers a confirming mhm?(15). Miyuki then proceeds to provide the secondcorrectly conjugated verb (16–17).

Throughout the sequence, we have observedMiyuki’s struggle with a pronunciation problemas well as her nonverbal quest for the teacher’sassurance not only on the linguistic form but alsoon her floor rights. We have also observed theteacher’s close monitoring of and sensitivity to-ward the interactional contingencies in Miyuki’semerging response. She has successfully orientedtoward the progressivity of Miyuki’s unfoldingturns via her display of timely assistance and re-assurance. What transpires is not a unilateral de-livery of a correct answer on Miyuki’s part but ahighly coordinated joint production in which herdisplayed difficulty and uncertainty are carefullyhandled.

Given the eventful nature of this joint produc-tion, it would be difficult to hear the teacher’s EPAin line 19 as merely a comment on the syntacticaccuracy of Miyuki’s performance. It is, instead,what may be referred to as the grand “very good,”which can be heard not only as a positive evalu-ation on the immediately prior linguistic perfor-mance but also as a congratulatory applause for

the entire journey that Miyuki has traveled, withthe assistance of the teacher, to bring the task,not without difficulty, to its completion. Like Holtand Drew’s (2005) figurative pivots, it “refers tothe matter as a whole” (p. 45). It is this applaud-ing quality with its routine association with thefinish line that contributes to the understandingof EPA as signaling that no further negotiationis warranted. The congratulatory quality of EPAmay remind one of the high-grade assessments,such as brilliant , used by clinical psychologists ininterviews with people with learning disabilities tomark successful completion, in the face of odds,of some interactional units (Antaki et al., 2000).

In sum, by treating the learner response asauthoritative and beyond challenge and by ap-plauding the series of efforts devoted to achievingthat response, EPA bestows upon the interactiona finale-like quality. It delivers a metamessage thatrenders any other course of action (e.g., ques-tioning the answer, presenting an alternative an-swer) noticeable and accountable. In bolder in-teractional terms, we may say that it discourages(further) negotiation.

In the data set, there are two interesting ex-cerpts in which a correct student response is re-ceipted with something other than an EPA. Bothexcerpts are taken from the vocabulary expla-nation matching task. Note that in Excerpt 9,Nancy’s correct response in line 2 is receiptedwith an okay from the teacher.

EXCERPT 91 T: =So wh- >what was your answer< for

“immune.”2 Nancy: ◦uh fighting against disease or

infection.◦

3 T: → O>kay.<4 (.)5 u:h >d’y guys agree with ↑that.<6 ?Ss: (mhm [ ) ((nods))7 T: [>“immune” is fighting against

disease or infection?<

Okay is one of those interactionally rich items thatmay take on very different meanings dependingon its prosodic packaging and sequential context(e.g., acknowledgment, continuer, incipient dis-agreement). This particular “O>kay.<” (3), givenits no-gap onset, slight stress, quick pace, and turn-final intonation, is clearly hearable as acceptanceof Nancy’s answer. At the same time, however,the teacher does not appear to be orienting tohis acceptance as either sequence-closing or “caseclosed.” This is evident in the ensuing micropause


and further elicitation (lines 5 and 7–8). In fact,he goes on to explicate the various meaningsof immune in different contexts. In other words,whereas “O>kay.<” accepts the answer as correct,it also indicates that there is more to the under-standing of immune (cf. “pivotal ‘okay’” in Beach,1993).

Whereas Excerpt 9 shows that a non-EPA re-ceipt such as Okay? may be produced to indicatethat more is to come, Excerpt 10 presents a casein which a non-EPA is treated by its recipient asindicating that more is allowed to come. The rele-vant vocabulary item here is shrivel , and immedi-ately prior to the excerpt, Angie, at the teacher’srequest, finished reading the relevant sentence:“but adults’ rates of laughter shrivel to fourteentimes daily—or less.”

EXCERPT 10

1 T: Okay. No:w >to really understand“shrivel” we nee-

2 we need to: (.) understand the sen-tence before that

3 ( ) right? because they’re comparingadults to::

4 (0.5)5 Mindy: ◦to kids.◦

6 T: >to kids< an’ how often do kids laugh?7 (1.0)8 Mindy: ◦more than four

[hundred times a day.◦]9 T: [◦>more than

((nods))]10 400 times. okay.< so from four hun-

dred to:11 fourtee:n=12 Angie: =get smaller.=13 T: → ={“shrivel” ((slight nod))} {means

‘get smaller.’14 yes. ((gaze moves away from Angie

down to text))}15 (0.8) ((eyes on text))16 u::m >okay.<17 (1.0) ((raises head up from text and

re-adjusts))18 Steena: >Can I say-< (0.5) it’s the opposite of19 “increase,” ◦you say- “decrease”?◦

In directing the students toward the correct an-swer, the teacher engages in what Lee (2007) re-ferred to as “parsing” (p. 1211) in the three-partexchanges: moving from comparing the num-ber of times adults and children laugh in aday to the word that describes the change inquantity. When Angie reaches the final correct

answer (12), the teacher accepts her answer (13)with, notably, not an EPA, but a fuller formulationof Angie’s response plus the confirmation tokenyes. Along with this acceptance, the teacher alsodisengages his gaze from Angie and looks backdown at the textbook. Given that shrivel is thefinal item of this vocabulary exercise, sequence-closing is achieved here both verbally and nonver-bally. Lines 15 through 17 appear to be a bound-ary space where the teacher gears up to the nextstage of the lesson. This sequence closing, how-ever, is not treated as “case closed.” As can be seen,Steena proceeds to propose a candidate synonymfor shrivel (18). It is almost as though the teacher’sokay is treated as one of those “in-conversationobjects” that displays a participant’s “availabilityfor conversation continuation” (Button, 1987, pp.116–118).

In other words, when a correct student responseis accepted with practices other than an EPA (e.g.,okay, repetition + confirmation), the participantsappear to orient to the general relevancy of “casestill open,” and these contrasting cases may beconsidered at least as partial evidence for the pos-sibly unique functions that EPA performs.

EPA as Potentially Problematic Termination

The analysis so far has focused on showing thevarious clues that may be gathered to substantiatethe hearing of EPA as not only sequence-closing,but more specifically, as “case closed.” I now take astep further to demonstrate that EPA is doing notjust termination, but at least in some cases, poten-tially problematic termination. For convenience,one of the earlier extracts is reproduced below.The relevant exercise item is:

Wow, I didn’t know you were married.How long ?

EXCERPT 11

1 T: ((looks up at Class)) Nu::mber three::::{((points))-Kevin.}

2 (1.0)3 Kevin: ((reading) Wow. I didn’t know (.) you

were married.4 (0.8)5 “Ho:::w lo:ng6 have you:::[:::::: (.) b : e e n

m a r r i e d .” ]=7 T: [((slight nod turns into large

encouraging nods))]8 → =$ Very good=how long have you been

married.$9 =Very good. Nu:mber four. Mai,


In this excerpt, Kevin successfully provides the cor-rect verb form, which leads to a no-gap onset ofthe teacher’s EPA turn. Note the multiple latchesas well as her immediate move to the next nomina-tion. The case is clearly closed, and no possibilityis provided for any continuation.

Sixty-six lines later, however, the following sur-faces:

EXCERPT 12

1 Miyuki: I have one [ques]tion,4

2 T: [Yes.]3 Miyuki: Number three is if without “be:” ◦is not

good?◦

4 T: How lo:ng (1.0) you’ve been marrie[d?

5 Miyuki: { [Have you married.6 ((head moving up from textbook)) }7 {◦have you married.◦((looks at T))}8 T: ◦Oka::y?◦ ((walks to BB)) >Let’s write

this9 d↑own.< ((starts writing))

This sequence goes on to span 75 lines of thetranscript and lasts 2.5 minutes. It turns out to bethe most complicated error correction sequencein the entire 2-hour class. Briefly, Miyuki treatsmarry as a transitive verb, in which case its correctpresent perfect form would be have married , ex-cept that the punctual aspect of marry is ill-fittedto the duration query of how long . Given that theform married may be either a verb or an adjec-tive, Miyuki’s confusion is not surprising, but theearlier EPA closing may have made it difficult forher and the other learners to attend to potentialunderstanding problems such as this one. Addi-tionally, note that instead of questioning the al-ready accepted correct answer; Miyuki is simplyexploring the possibility of another correct answer(“if without ‘be:’ ◦is not good?◦”). In other words,what the EPA turns potentially block is not onlyunvoiced understanding problems but also pro-posals for alternative correct answers. In fact, thelearner-initiated questions in the data manifest ageneral orientation toward a range of correct an-swers, which is not very well dealt with by the EPAclosing placed after the first correct answer.

In Excerpt 13, the teacher does not immediatelymove on to a new sequence after the EPA turn,but still, no learner initiation emerges within thatspace. The relevant exercise item is the following:

In fact the team (5. win) 98% of thegames they (6. play) so far.

EXCERPT 13

1 T: Oka::y? Who’s next? {(0.8) ((tilts head))}2 ◦I think (0.5) Jae? is that you?◦

3 (0.2)4 ◦>Are you next?=alright .<◦

5 Jae: ((reading)) In fact, the team has won6 (0.8) u::h ninety eight (.) percent (.) of

the games.7 (0.2)8 T: ((th[ree consecutive nods)) ]=9 Jae: [the:y have played so far.]10 T: → = G↑oo:d ((The last nod accompanies11 the uttering of “Good.”)). >In fact the

team has< won > ninety12 eight percent of the games< the:::y (1.0)

ha:::ve (0.5)13 pl[a:yed ] [so::::::]14 Ss: [played ]15 ?S [so far.]16 Ss: far.17 (3.0) ((T walks around))18 T: ◦Is everybody okay?◦

19 (1.0) ((Ss writing))20 ◦Yes?◦ Okay ((reads instructions for the21 next exercise))

When Jae responds to the teacher’s nomination(5–6), she stops after completing the main clausein which the first verb form was supplied, as if toseek assessment on the accuracy of that form. Atthe same time, the teacher appears to be orient-ing to the completion of the entire item, hencethe (0.2) silence. Her ensuing nods are placedin “progressional overlap” (Jefferson, 1983) withJae’s delivery of the relative clause. These nodsserve the double duty of confirming the accuracyof the first verb form and propelling the com-pletion of the rest of the item. In addition, theteacher’s EPA, which accompanies her last nod,is latched onto Jae’s completion of the relativeclause. Thus, the teacher’s acceptance of Jae’s an-swer is clearly done in a preferred format—swiftlyand unequivocally. Sequence-closing is under way.

Note also that the teacher’s EPA is immedi-ately followed by her repetition of Jae’s answer.The delivery of the repetition is notable. Forthe main clause, it accentuates the correct verbform via stress and normal speed of delivery whilecompressing its surrounding text. For the rela-tive clause, the teacher uses what Koshik (2002)called a “designedly incomplete utterance” (DIU)to enlist class participation in completing the verbform, which she succeeds in doing, as seen inthe chorus response in lines 14 and 16 (cf. “co-production”; Lerner, 2002, p. 226). The staccato


delivery of “the:::y (1.0) ha:::ve (0.5) pla:yed so::::::far.” exhibits a fairly typical teacherly tone in im-parting information that is important, salient, andworthy of remembering. What the teacher accom-plishes with the class in these repetitions is high-lighting what is acceptable and what needs to belearned. Thus, EPA is used along with the invig-orating “advertising” of the singular, irrefutablecorrectness of Jae’s response, and thereby implic-itly proposes that the case is now closed.

Despite this finale-like interactional state, thereensues some space in which the teacher appearsto be gauging the readiness of the class to moveon. The 3-second gap (17) provides an oppor-tunity for the learners to initiate repair on thetwo just-completed verb forms—win and play.The teacher’s subsequent sotto voce “Is every-body okay?” extends to the learners yet anotheropportunity space for repair initiation—verballythis time. The learners’ subsequent engagementin writing may indicate that they have perhaps putdown the wrong answers and are now making thecorrections. In any case, no questions are raised;all seems well, that is, until 418 lines later, inExcerpt 14.

EXCERPT 14

1 Marie: number five. u::::h (0.5) ‘The team has2 very good players.’ In fact, the team (.)3 is- winning or ( )4 T: has won.5 Marie: ◦has.◦ h[as.6 T: [ha:s. Team is a singular noun.7Marie: O:[:h.8 T: [I don’t say the team (0.8) were here.9 <◦I would say the team was here.◦

10 Marie: ◦Okay. has.◦

11 T: >Team is singular<=team is like family.12 >Remember we talked about< family?13 My family is here?14 Marie: ((nods))

Clearly, Marie has been having trouble with thecorrect verb form for win, which the teacher un-derstands as a problem of whether team should betreated as singular or plural. In the end, Marie’sconcern may not have been adequately addressedafter all. However, the point is that Marie has notfully grasped what the correct answer is or why itis correct as opposed to any alternatives, and shewithheld disclosing her problem earlier when therelevant item was the focus of discussion.

In retrospect, the fact that the teacher did notimmediately move on may be her displayed aware-ness of some possibly unresolved issues. (After all,the learners were preoccupied with making cor-

rections in their workbooks.) It may be argued,however, that the definitive closure established bythe EPA turn is so overpowering in this case thatany subsequent attempt to loosen up the interac-tional space (e.g., “Is everybody okay?”) becomesfutile.

CONCLUSION

In the preceding analyses, I have attempted todetail the use of EPA primarily within the ped-agogical context of checking homework tasks.I have shown that while performing its struc-tural role of doing sequence-closing, EPA specif-ically delivers the news of “case closed”—no fur-ther discussion warranted. I have presented evi-dence for the potentially problematic nature ofsuch EPA terminations; that is, learner initiationsmuch later in the interaction exhibit a yet-to-be-achieved understanding of the earlier languagepoint, which failed to invoke any substantive en-gagement at the time the EPA was given. In short,by serving as the preferred response to a learneranswer, by treating one learner’s correct responseas conclusive, exemplary, and beyond challenge,and by lavishing approval for the entire processthat the learner has gone through to reach thatresponse, EPA serves not only to cement the end-ing of a sequence but, more irrefutably, to pre-empt any further talk on the issue by implicat-ing the latter as unnecessary and unwarranted.Neither the sequential nor the interactional as-pect of EPA is particularly generous in providingthe learners any space for questioning, exploring,or simply lingering on any specific pedagogicalpoint at the time. In fact, its use can amount tosuppressing the opportunities for voicing under-standing problems or exploring alternative cor-rect answers, both of which are the “stuff” thatlearning is made of.

These findings contribute to previous researchon IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities.First, they provide further evidence for the com-plexities inhabiting the F position in the IRFexchange (Hall, 1998; Nassaji & Wells, 2000; Nys-trand & Gamoran, 1991; van Lier, 2000b). Inparticular, critical considerations are given to apractice that is often treated as default, unremark-able, and taken for granted—using EPA as a re-sponse to a correct answer. Indeed, although theterminal aspect of positive assessment has beenremarked upon before (Mehan, 1979), such ter-mination has largely been treated as a given, nor-mative aspect of classroom discourse. This studyhas attempted to show not only how EPA comes tobe heard as terminal by the participants but also


how interactionally it does the specific job of in-hibiting the questioning of the already “crowned”answer or the proposing of any equally feasiblealternatives. In CA terms, this study has offereda fine-grained understanding of a particular typeof sequence-closing thirds within the institutionalcontext of language teaching.

Second, with regard to the feedback research inSLA, without denying the value of either negativeevidence in language learning or the large body ofresearch devoted to the types and efficacies of cor-rective feedback, I hope to have alerted the readerto the importance of feedback beyond being cor-rective. I hope to have shown that even when acorrect response is given, the issue of learning isstill very much alive and relevant, and that dif-ferential treatment of that correct response mayengender differential extents to which learnersparticipate in exploring and resolving their un-derstandings of the linguistic and discursive fea-tures of an L2. In other words, how to proceedafter a nonproblematic learner response warrantsas much scholarly inquiry as corrective feedback.A gold mine of research possibilities is yet to betapped by SLA scholars, and the payoff may bejust as illuminating as that of studying correctivefeedback.

Finally, the notion of participation in the so-ciocultural framework has been typically associ-ated with communicative activities that involvelearners in active meaning-making. What comesto mind is perhaps not, at least not in the firstinstance, “check homework,” let alone homeworkof discrete-point grammar exercises. One reasonmay be that the IRF structure permeating mostchecking homework segments is often automati-cally perceived as yielding impoverished learnerparticipation. A fine-grained CA analysis of natu-rally occurring classroom interaction has demon-strated, however, that impoverishment is not aninvariable quality of form-focused exercises buta designed consequence of specific interactionalpractices. In answering van Lier’s (2000a) callto show “the location of learning opportunities”and “the effectiveness of pedagogical strategies”(p. 250), I have identified a largely atypical andpreviously undocumented location where the op-portunities for participation (and thereby learn-ing) may be blocked or created. On that note,let me emphasize that this is not a theory-drivenstudy and that its contribution to the sociocul-tural theory of language learning lies not in ad-vancing or aggrandizing the theory itself, but infleshing out one of its central learning concepts—participation as learning. I believe that here stands

the nexus of collaboration between CA and socio-cultural researchers. Whereas sociocultural the-ory offers compelling concepts such as ZPD, scaf-folding , prolepsis, and assisted performance (see vanLier, 2004) that have attracted generations of ed-ucational linguists and now SLA researchers, CAprovides a powerful tool to deliver empiricallygrounded understandings of these concepts as sit-uated in the minute details of interaction.

In pedagogical terms, I hope that the analysishas offered a glimpse into two sets of tensionsinhabiting the language classroom: (a) the com-peting demands of between nurturing affect andpromoting development and (b) the tug-of-warbetween attending to the individual and meetingthe needs of the group. In other words, what isaffectively desirable may be developmentally un-desirable, and what is unproblematic for one indi-vidual may be problematic for others in the group.After all, the reward of EPA may be exactly whatone learner needs to fuel his or her intrinsic moti-vation, which is an important predictor of success-ful language learning (Dornyei & Skehan, 2003).An obvious implication is that it may be advan-tageous for instructors to withhold EPAs by wayof affording learners more interactional space inwhich their understandings on a given point canbe fully developed. The root of the problem, how-ever, appears to lie in the nonsymmetrical treat-ment of correct and incorrect answers in pedagog-ical discourse. The reality is that incorrect answerstend to be more conducive to generating accesspoints for learner participation than correct an-swers that automatically trigger the positive assess-ments that seal the case.

One approach to reconciling the previouslymentioned tensions may be to strive for symme-try in dealing with learner responses (i.e., to treatcorrect answers as just as potentially problematicand accountable as incorrect answers). Asking aquestion such as “Why do you think that?” forexample, would push the learner to make his orher thinking transparent and thus publicly avail-able. Furthermore, this disclosure of rationalewould provide other learners a substantive basisupon which their own understandings may begauged and engaged. In other words, treating acorrect answer with the same vigilance and inter-est that we lavish on an incorrect answer may go along way toward creating “learner space” (Rardin& Tranel, 1988, p. 44) and unleashing learningopportunities.

In closing, this article has by no means solvedall the puzzles that the seemingly mundane itemEPA presents. What remains to be understood, for


example, is (a) whether EPA functions differentlyfrom implicit positive assessments such as repeti-tion (Hellermann, 2003) or the mere absence offeedback (Seedhouse, 2004), (b) whether thereexists a continuum of EPAs that index different de-grees of “case closed,” or (c) whether other inter-actional practices, if not EPA, may promote learn-ing opportunities in response to successful learnercontribution. It is crucial that we understand thetask-specific use of EPA and consider possibilitieswhere EPA promotes, rather than inhibits, learn-ing. It appears that whether EPA signals “caseclosed” depends on whether the pedagogical tasktargets the “actual” or the “potential” develop-mental level of the learner5 (Vygotsky, 1978, pp.84–91). The checking homework task, for ex-ample, is by nature aimed at gauging what thelearners have actually mastered, not what they arepotentially capable of mastering, and it may bethis focus on the actual developmental level thatprovides for the “case closed” import of EPA.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An earlier version of this article was presented at theInternational Pragmatics Conference at Goteborg, Swe-den in 2007. I gratefully acknowledge the generosityof the ESL teachers and students who allowed me intotheir classrooms and the efficient assistance of Caroline(Kisook) Kim in data collection and file transferring.Thanks also to Barbara Hawkins and Gabi Kahn forilluminating discussions throughout the project. Oth-ers who have provided helpful comments on succes-sive drafts include Naomi Geyer, Santoi Wagner, LeslieBeebe, and Jean Wong. Last but not least, I would like tothank the three anonymous reviewers and Leo van Lierfor their kind words and useful suggestions. All remain-ing errors are mine.

NOTES

1Whereas F for the term feedback is somewhat neutral,E for evaluation has a clearly judgmental connotation.Note also that the term triadic may be misleading be-cause it invokes the contrast with dyadic, where triadicinteraction refers to interaction in which child and adultjointly attend to an object in their surroundings (e.g.,Tomasello, 1995). I thank Leo van Lier for pointing outthis potential for misunderstanding.

2Of course, EPA is not the only practice used to dosequence-closing. A final-intoned okay, for example, canclose a sequence just as well. For a preliminary look intosome contrasting cases, see the discussions on Excerpts9 and 10.

3Miyuki’s lack of uptake may have three possiblecauses: (a) She may not hear the difference, (b) shesees the teacher’s rendition as simply another way ofpronouncing Madrid , or (3) she is orienting exclusivelyto the teacher’s feedback on the pedagogical focus of theexercise (e.g., verb form in present perfect vs. presentperfect progressive).

4The issue of how Miyuki and Marie in Excerpt 11come to get these initiating turns in the first place is thetopic of another article. For the purpose of the currentproject, my interest is in showing that some understand-ings that seem to have been resolved earlier actuallywere not.

5I thank Gabi Kahn for this insight.

REFERENCES

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedbackas regulation and second language learning in thezone of proximal development. Modern LanguageJournal , 78, 465–483.

Antaki, C. (2002). “Lovely”: Turn-initial high-grade as-sessments in telephone closings. Discourse Studies,4, 5–24.

Antaki, C., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H., & Rapley, M. (2000).“Brilliant. Next question. . .”: High-grade assess-ment sequences in the completion of interactionalunits. Research on Language and Social Interaction,33, 235–262.

Beach, W. (1993). Transitional regularities for “casual”“okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19 , 325–352.

Benson, D., & Hughes, J. (1991). Method, evidenceand inference—Evidence and inference for eth-nomethodology. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethod-ology and the human sciences (pp. 109–136). Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brooks, F. B., Donato, R., & McGlone, J. V. (1997). Whenare they going to say “it” right? Understandinglearner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Lan-guage Annals, 30(4), 524–541.

Button, G. (1987). Moving out of closings. In G. But-ton & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organi-zation (pp. 101–151). Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters.

Button, G. (1991). Conversation-in-a-series. In D. Bo-den & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and socialstructure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversa-tion analysis (pp. 251–277). Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2001). Intonation and discourse:Current view from within. In D. Schiffrin, D.Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbookof discourse analysis (pp. 13–34). Malden, MA:Blackwell.

Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to un-derstanding the foreign and second languageclassroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural the-ory and second language learning (pp. 27–50). NewYork: Oxford University Press.


Dornyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differencesin second language learning. In C. Doughty & M.Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acqui-sition (pp. 589–621). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction andoutput: An overview. AILA Review, 19 , 3–17.

Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisi-tion: An introductory course (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Goldberg, J. A. (2004). The amplitude shift mechanismin conversational closing sequences. In G. Lerner(Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the firstgeneration (pp. 257–298). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Hall, J. K. (1998). Differential teacher attention tolearner utterances: The construction of differentopportunities for learning in the IRF. Linguisticsand Education, 9 , 287–311.

Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher–student inter-action and language learning. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics, 22, 186–203.

He, A. W. (2004). CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chi-nese language classroom. Modern Language Jour-nal , 88, 568–582.

Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosodyin the IRF exchange: Teacher repetition in feed-back moves. Language in Society, 32, 79–104.

Hellermann, J. (2005a). Syntactic and prosodic practicesfor cohesion in series of three-part sequences inclassroom talk. Research on Language and Social In-teraction, 38, 105–130.

Hellermann, J. (2005b). The sequential and prosodic co-construction of a “quiz game” activity in classroomtalk. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 , 919–944.

Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use offigurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions.Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38, 35–62.

Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis:Principles, practices and applications. Malden, MA:Blackwell.

Jarvis, J., & Robinson, M. (1997). Analyzing educa-tional discourse: An exploratory study of teacherresponse and support to pupils learning. AppliedLinguistics, 18, 212–228.

Jefferson, G. (1983). Notes on some orderliness of over-lap onset. Tilburg Papers in Language and Litera-ture, No. 28. Tilburg, The Netherlands: TilburgUniversity.

Kasper, G. (1986). Repair in foreign language teaching.In G. Kasper (Ed.), Learning, teaching and commu-nication in the foreign language classroom (pp. 23–41). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.

Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in Germanconversation-for-learning. Modern Language Jour-nal , 88, 551–567.

Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analysisas an approach to SLA. AILA Review, 19 , 83–99.

Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances:A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge

displays in error correction sequences. Researchon Language and Social Interaction, 35, 277–310.

Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a me-diated process. Language Teaching , 33, 79–96.

Lee, Y.–A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk:Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal ofPragmatics, 39 , 1204–1230.

Lemke, J. L. (1985). Using language in the classroom. Vic-toria, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Lerner, G. H. (1995). Turn design and the organizationof participation in instructional activities. DiscourseProcesses, 19 , 111–131.

Lerner, G. H. (2002). Turn-sharing: The choral co-production of talk-in-interaction. In C. Ford, B.Fox, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turnand sequence (pp. 225–256). Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Local, J., & Kelly, J. (1986). Projection and “silences”:Notes on phonetic and conversational structure.Human Studies, 9 , 185–204.

Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjust-ments to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition, 5, 177–193.

Macbeth, D. (2003). Hugh Mehan’s Learning Lessons re-considered: On the differences between the natu-ralistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse.American Educational Research Journal , 40 , 239–280.

Macbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for class-room correction. Language in Society, 33, 703–736.

Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and instructedsecond language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27 ,405–430.

Markee, N. (2004). Zones of interactional transition inESL classes. Modern Language Journal , 88, 583–596.

McHoul, A. W. (1978). The organization of turns at for-mal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7 ,183–213.

McHoul, A. W. (1985). Two aspects of classroom interac-tion: Turn-taking and correction. Australian Jour-nal of Human Communication Disorders, 13, 53–64.

McHoul, A. W. (1990). The organization of repair inclassroom talk. Language in Society, 19 , 349–377.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization inthe classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries andlearning opportunities: A case from a Japaneselanguage classroom. Modern Language Journal , 88,536–550.

Morris, F. (2002). Negotiation and recasts in relation toerror types and learner repair. Foreign LanguageAnnals, 35, 395–404.

Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L. (2001). Nego-tiation of meaning in conversational and infor-mation gap activities. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 377–405.


Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of“triadic dialogue”? An investigation of teacher-learner interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21, 376–406.

Nystrand, M. (1997). Dialogic instruction: When recita-tion becomes conversation. In M. Nystrand, A.Gamoran, R. Kachur, & C. Prendergast (Eds.),Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of lan-guage and learning in the English classroom (pp. 1–29). New York: Teachers College Press.

Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Learner engage-ment: When recitation becomes conversation. InH. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Contempo-rary research on teaching (pp. 257–276). Berkeley,CA: McCutchan.

Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory toan analysis of learner discourse: Learner–learnercollaborative interaction in the zone of proximaldevelopment. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6 , 93–121.

Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of correctivefeedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom.TESOL Quarterly, 36 , 573–595.

Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second languagelearning as participation and the (re)constructionof selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theoryand second language learning (pp. 155–177). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing andusing communicative tasks for second languageinstruction and research. In S. Gass & G. Crookes(Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating the-ory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multi-lingual Matters.

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagree-ing with assessments: Some features of pre-ferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In M. Atkinson& J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp.57–101). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study oftalk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rardin, J. P., & Tranel, D. D. (1988). Education ina new dimension: The counseling-learning approachto community language learning . Fort Lee, NJ:Counseling-Learning Publications.

Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreementand contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G.Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social orga-nization (pp. 54–69). Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters.

Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactionalachievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and otherthings that come between sentences. In D. Tan-nen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp.71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown UniversityPress.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Towardan empirical account of action. American Journalof Sociology, 102, 161–216.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interac-tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). Thepreference for self-correction in the organizationof repair in conversation. Language , 53, 361–382.

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1974). Opening up clos-ings. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology (pp.233–264). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing “no”: Therelationship between pedagogy and interaction.Language Learning , 47 , 547–583.

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of thelanguage classroom: A conversation analysis perspec-tive . Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning andthe dangers of choosing just one. Educational Re-searcher , 27 , 4–13.

Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towardsan analysis of discourse: The English used byteachers and pupils. London: Oxford UniversityPress.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond:Mediating acquisition through collaborative dia-logue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theoryand second language learning (pp. 97–114). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogueand imagery in conversational discourse . Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition.In C. Moore & P. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention:Its origins and role in development . Mahwah, NJ: Erl-baum.

van Lier, L. (1984). Analyzing interaction in sec-ond language classrooms. ELT Journal , 38, 160–169.

van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum.London: Longman.

van Lier, L. (2000a). From input to affordance. Socio-interactive learning from an ecological perspec-tive. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory andsecond language learning (pp. 245–260). New York:Oxford University Press.

van Lier, L. (2000b). Constraints and resources in class-room talk: Issues in equality and symmetry. InC. N. Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.), English languageteaching in its social context: A reader (pp. 90–107).New York: Routledge.

van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of languagelearning: A sociocultural perspective . Norwell, MA:Kluwer Academic.

van Lier, L., & Matsuo, N. (2000). Variety of con-versational experience: Looking for learning op-portunities. Applied Language Learning , 11, 265–287.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development ofhigher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press.

Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse . NewYork: Routledge.


Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A pro-posal for the articulation of theories of activity anddiscourse for the analysis of teaching and learningin the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1–37.

Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as chang-ing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writingconferences. Modern Language Journal , 88, 519–535.

APPENDIXConversation Analysis Transcription Conventions (adapted from Jefferson, 1983)

(.) untimed perceptible pause within a turnunderline stressCAPS very emphatic stress↑ high pitch on word. sentence-final falling intonation? yes/no question rising intonation, phrase-final intonation (more to come)- a glottal stop, or abrupt cutting off of sound: lengthened vowel sound (extra colons indicate greater lengthening)= latch (direct onset or no space between two unites)→ highlights point of analysis[] overlapped talk; in order to reflect the simultaneous beginning and ending of the overlapped

talk, sometimes extra spacing is used to spread out the utterance◦soft◦ spoken softly/decreased volume> < increased speed( ) (empty parentheses) transcription impossible(words) uncertain transcription.hhh inbreath$words$ spoken in a smiley voice(( )) comments on background, skipped talk or nonverbal behavior{(( )) words.} { } marks the beginning and ending of the simultaneous occurrence of the verbal/silence and

nonverbal; absence of { } means that the simultaneous occurrence applies to the entire turn.?S(s): Unidentifiable speaker(s)“words” words quoted, from a textbook, for example

Forthcoming in Perspectives, MLJ 93.2 (2009)

“The Challenge of Ensuring High-Quality Language Teachers in K–12 Classrooms” is the theme for the Summer2009 issue of Perspectives, MLJ 93.2. This topic has taken on added significance in the post-9/11 United States,where the demand for teaching languages that were previously considered “less commonly taught” and thereforehad only a small number of teachers has increased dramatically. At the same time, teacher quality is directly tiedto the increasingly multicultural environment in which language teaching takes place in many countries, to risingdemands that students acquire language and cultural and subject matter content simultaneously, and to shifts inthe profession’s thinking about what constitutes the nature of language, the nature of language learning, and, byextension, the nature of quality language teaching.

Readers can look forward to contributions from several experts in the field who will address, among other topics,changing dynamics in pre-service teacher education, teacher credentialing and the impact of standards, teachercognition, recruiting of teachers from various contexts, support of beginning teachers, teacher development, andaccommodating native speaker language teachers.

Please contact Heidi Byrnes, Associate Editor, Perspectives, at [email protected] for comments and questions.

Documents

Waring (2008)