Using Explicit Positive Assessment in the Language Classroom: IRF, Feedback, and Learning Opportunities

HANSUN ZHANG WARING Teachers College Columbia University Box 66 525 W. 120th Street New York, NY 10027 Email: hz30@columbia.edu Within the framework of sociocultural theory, learning is conceptualized as participation rather than acquisition (Donato, 2000). Given the governing metaphor of changing participation as learning (Young & Miller, 2004), an important contribution conversation analysis can make to the study of second language acquisition is to detail the instructional practices that either create or inhibit the opportunities for participation (Lerner, 1995), and by extension, the opportunities for learning. This study focuses on one such practice in English as a second language classroomsthe use of explicit positive assessmentand its relevance to learning opportunities. I argue that within certain contexts these assessments tend to suppress the opportunities 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 sequentially and affectively preferred may be pedagogically and developmentally dispreferred.

WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF SOCIOCULtural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), learning is conceptualized as participation rather than acquisition (Donato, 2000; Sfard, 1998; Young & Miller, 2004). Given this governing metaphor of participation as learning, an important contribution that conversation analysis (CA) can make to the study of second language acquisition (SLA) is to detail the instructional practices that either create or inhibit the opportunities for participation (Lerner, 1995) and, by extension, the opportunities for learning. As Kasper (2006) pointed out, CA has the capacity to examine in detail how opportunities for L2 learning arise in interactional activities (p. 83). One such instructional practice concerns ways of attending to learners contributions in situ. In the language classroom, teachers routinely
The Modern Language Journal, 92, iv, (2008) 0026-7902/08/577594 $1.50/0 C 2008 The Modern Language Journal

nd themselves in the position of responding to learners displays of knowledge. These responses may be broadly referred to as feedback . This study focuses on one specic type of feedback in English as a second language (ESL) classroomsexplicit positive assessment (EPA)and its relevance to learning opportunities. The following list shows the sorts of objects (taken from the data set) that I will examine in detail (see Appendix for transcription conventions): Very good. = Very good. Tha:nk you. In the world. Very goo:d. Tha:nk you. = The saxophone.Very good. very good. Ve:ry good. = Its an adjective. =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 training for the Olympics.< = Excellent. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

578 8. =$Very good=how long have you been married.$ = Very good. In this article, the term explicit positive assessment refers specically to teacher utterances that contain positive assessment terms such as good , very good , excellent , perfect , and the like. This use of the term excludes both matter-of-fact receipts, such as okay , right , or correct, and implicit positive feedback, which is either embodied in carefully intoned repetitions (Hellermann, 2003) or assumed by virtue of the teachers moving on to the next item (Seedhouse, 2004). I rst review the relevant literature on IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback), feedback, and learning opportunities by way of positioning my investigation within the larger context of scholarly inquiries. I then offer a description of the data set on which the subsequent analysis is based as well as the analytical framework within which the data were examined. After an extended microanalysis to establish a relationship between the use of EPA and learning opportunities, I conclude with a discussion of both theoretical and empirical implications of the ndings as well as a catalogue of yet-to-be-examined issues. IRF, FEEDBACK, AND LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES My object of inquiry is located at the center of three interlocking areas of scholarly research: the IRF sequence in classroom discourse (e.g., Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975), feedback in SLA (e.g., Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Mackey, 2006), and an issue of more general concernlearning opportunities (e.g., Mori, 2004). Initiation-Response-Feedback A central concept in classroom discourse is the IRF sequence (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). It has also been referred to as IRE, where E stands for evaluation (Mehan, 1979), as Q-A-C adjacency triads , where C stands for comment (McHoul, 1978), and triadic dialogue or recitation script (Lemke, 1985).1 IRF is a sequential feature, distinct in its prosodic packaging (Hellermann, 2003, 2005a, 2005b), of classroom discourse widely known among applied linguists and education scholars (Walsh, 2006; Wells, 1993). As Wells claimed, If there is one nding on which learners of classroom discourse agreed, it must be the ubiquity of the three-part exchange structure (p. 1). Seedhouse (1997), by contrast, noted that IRE in no way accurately describes the interactional

The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) sequence (pp. 553554) in second language (L2) classrooms, where overt negative evaluation is often avoided. Although, overall, various terms have been used interchangeably to refer to this sequential phenomenon, Hall and Walsh (2002) distinguished between IRE and IRF, arguing that whereas researchers who use the term IRE see teaching as a process of transmission, users of the term IRF have a more inquiry-based understanding of learning, which values the activities of exploration, hypothesis testing, and problem solving (pp. 196197). This distinction is emblematic of the varying views on the utility of this three-part exchange structure. Whereas Seedhouse (1997) argued that IRF is not unnatural because it appears in adult child interaction and that it suits the core goal of education, Nystrand (1997) characterized its use as negatively correlated with learning. van Lier (2000b) also pointed out that learner opportunities to exercise initiatives are extremely limited in the IRF format (p. 95). For Wells (1993), triadic dialogue is neither good nor bad; rather, its meritsor demeritsdepend upon the purposes it is used to serve on particular occasions, and upon the larger goals by which those purposes are informed (p. 3). In a similar spirit of neutrality, van Lier proposed an IRF continuum on which its varying functions are situated to signify increasing depth of processing: recitation displaycognitionprecision (p. 94). Much of the discussion has centered around what transpires at the feedback (F) position in IRF (e.g., Hall, 1998; Jarvis & Robinson, 1997; Nassaji & Wells, 2000). Some researchers have focused on the interactional signicance of its absence in the three-part exchange structure. For Seedhouse (2004), such absence implies positive evaluation. For Lerner (1995), it provides for expanded learner participation: By withholding a sequence-completing conrmation, the opportunity for learner participation continues under the aegis of the teachers question (p. 116). Note, however, that withholding the third turn, especially in the format of resumed teacher questioning (e.g., Socratic dialogue), would not automatically generate the symmetrical conversations that feature contingency , which is talk that is unpredictable yet responsive to others talk on a turnby-turn basis (van Lier, 1996). Other researchers have considered the various functions of the F in IRF when it is produced. Nassaji and Wells maintained that the follow-up move can be used in different ways to achieve different functions. Nystrand and Gamoran (1991), for example, distinguished between low- and high-level evaluations.

Hansun Zhang Waring Hall (1998) also asserted that subtly differential treatment of learner talk in IRF sequences creates different abilities to participate, different learning opportunities, and different outcomes. In addition, Lee (2007) detailed a range of interactional work contingently displayed by the teacher in the third turn, such as parsing, steering the sequence, or intimating the answer. In CA terms, at least some of what occupies the F position may be referred to as the sequence-closing third (SCT; Schegloff, 2007). These SCTs (e.g., oh , okay , or assessments such as great ) minimally expand on the forgoing adjacency pairs (e.g., When is the party? At four.), and they are specically designed not to project further talk within the sequence (Schegloff, p. 118), as shown in the following: 01 Ava: 02 Bee: 03 Ava: 04 Bee: 05 Ava: (Any way). .hh Howv you bee:n. hh Oh:: survi:ving I guess, hh [h! [Thats good, hows (Bob), Hes ne, Tha::ts goo:d, (Schegloff, p. 124)

579 dicate something is wrong to the explicit give correction (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, p. 471). One reason for the lack of empirical work on positive feedback as it is related to learning may be our intuitive belief in the no pain, no gain aphorismthat is, our belief that learning occurs only when problems arise. In other words, when a correct response (especially one in the microdomains of syntax and phonology) is given, very few learning potentials are left to be explored. The current study sets out to investigate whether this is indeed the case by taking a closer look at EPA and its relevance, if any, to learning opportunities. Learning Opportunity Within the general area of L2 learning, the notion of learning opportunity has been conceived differently by scholars working within three related 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 dominated the eld of SLA to date, subscribes to the input output model of language acquisition (Gass & Selinker, 2001), which, in its simplest form, proposes that a learner receives input from the environment, processes the input inside his or her brain, and produces output. The most fruitful site for learning opportunities, as discovered by scholars within this approach, is what has been referred to as negotiation of meaning the kind of talk aimed at addressing problems of understanding. These repair-driven negotiations (van Lier & Matsuo, 2000, p. 267) provide learners with opportunities to notice the gap between the target language and their own, to receive input of higher comprehensibility, and to produce modied output (Gass & Mackey, 2006). From this perspective then, tasks that require a great deal of negotiationin the sense of interactional work aimed at resolving communication problems provide more learning opportunities than general conversation (van Lier, 2000a, p. 249). Whereas the cognitive approach views learning as a process of decoding and encoding, the sociocultural approach views learning as a process of increasing participation in the target language discourse (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). Note that sociocultural researchers have expanded the view of interaction beyond repair-driven negotiation (e.g., Brooks, Donato & McGlone, 1997; Swain, 2000). Learning opportunities from this perspective take on the form of opportunities for

Schegloff then wrote that sequenceorganizational third position appears to be a recurrent locus of variation across a range of work settings (p. 222). By producing a CA account of EPA in the ESL classroom, this study further explores the institutionality of SCTs and contributes to the ongoing discussion on the various facets of IRF. Feedback Feedback has been a topic of interest in both cognitively and socioculturally oriented SLA (e.g., Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Morris, 2002; Panova & Lyster, 2002), where feedback refers almost exclusively to negative feedback or corrective feedback . As Gass and Mackey (2006) wrote in their state-ofthe-art review, feedback is generally considered to be a form of negative evidence (p. 7), and as such, it both modies the input the learner receives and pushes the learner to modify the output he or she produces. For cognitively minded scholars, on the one hand, feedback promotes L2 learning because it prompts learners to notice L2 forms (Mackey, 2006, p. 405). For socioculturally oriented scholars, on the other hand, feedback is benecial as long as it is sensitive to the learners zone of proximal development (ZPD; Vygotsky, 1978), and such sensitivity may be captured by the regulatory scale, which provides feedback options that move gradually from the implicit in-

580 participation (e.g., exercise initiative, participate actively and spontaneously; see van Lier, 1984). According to van Lier (2000a), what affords learning is not the amount of comprehensible input but the opportunities for meaningful action that the situation affords (p. 252). Ohta (1995) also showed that learning occurs through the opportunity to use both matured and maturing language (p. 116). With this reconceptualized notion of learning opportunity in place, pedagogical tasks that provide access and encourage engagement are considered benecial to learning (van Lier), and unstructured conversation has been shown to provide a larger range of learning opportunities than controlled interactions (Nakahama, Tyler, & van Lier, 2001). While sharing the sociocultural view of cognition as socially constituted and distributed, CA does not provide a ready-made framework to examine learning (Kasper, 2006, p. 91). Although CA for SLA is a relatively recent movement, over the past three decades, CA has been widely used as a powerful tool to discover the orderliness of social interaction within a wide variety of social contexts (Hutchby & Wooftt, 1998). In CA, only naturally occurring interactions are admissible as data, and every minute detail (e.g., pause, pitch, or pace) is considered relevant in uncovering participant orientations toward the interaction. It is not surprising, therefore, that when it comes to understanding learning opportunities, CA takes an emic approach (Mori, 2004). Its focus, in other words, is on detailing what the participants themselves come to treat as learning opportunities rather than on pursuing learning opportunity as a researcherimposed category (e.g., He, 2004; Kasper, 2004; Mori). Kasper (2004), for example, showed that in German conversation-for-learning, the expert novice categories are predominantly invoked by the novice. In other words, despite the fact that learning is an explicitly stated goal of the conversation, only particular moments within that conversation are treated by the learner as opportunities for language learning. The current study contributes to this ongoing conversation on learning opportunities by offering a microscopic look into the instructional practice of EPA. As Markee (2004) aptly wrote:
We language teaching and learning specialists should be aware that what we say and how we say it, no matter how seemingly unimportant, may turn out to have profound consequences in terms of the access our students have to good opportunities for language learning. (p. 594)

The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) In keeping with the sociocultural understanding of learning opportunities, I consider EPA with particular reference to the opportunities of participation, and I use CA as a tool to uncover the necessary details for deducing what may constitute optimal or conducive learning environments (He, 2004, p. 578). DATA SET The data for this article were taken from a larger corpus of 15 two-hour adult ESL classes that were videotaped at a community English program in the United States in the fall of 2005 and the spring of 2006. These 15 classes were taught by 15 different teachers and ranged in level from beginning through intermediate to advanced. One research assistant and I collaborated in the data collection. The seven sessions in which I was behind the camera were considered in detail for this article, and from them, a subset of 58 EPA instances was assembled. The data were transcribed using a modied version of the system developed by Jefferson (see the Appendix). The analysis was conducted within a CA framework (see ten Have, 1999, for a thorough introduction). Among the various analytical principles of CA, two are central to grasping the CA mentality. First is that the goal of analysis is to uncover the participants own orientation toward the interaction. This orientation is uncovered not by asking the participants but by examining the details of interaction. Within the CA framework, asking someone why he or she said X does not answer the question of what X is produced as and treated as in real time. Second is that analysis begins with the meticulous inspection of single instances, in which the orderliness of sociality resides. What warrants the validity of the analysis, then, is not the frequency of instances, but whether adequate descriptions have been provided to explicate how X works in particular instances. Each instance is evidence that the machinery for its production is culturally available, involves members competencies, and is therefore possibly (and probably) reproducible (Psathas, 1995, p. 50). Additional instances provide another example of the method in the action, rather than securing the warrantability of the description of the machinery itself (Benson & Hughes, 1991, p. 131). In the context of the current study, for example, the single instance can mean the rst few lines of a class, a segment of a class, or an entire class. I began the analysis with the very rst class

Hansun Zhang Waring that I videotaped and transcribed. I conducted a line-by-line analysis of those data, from which a host of candidate phenomena emerged. I decided to pursue EPA because it is interconnected with a number of key concerns in the literature (see previous discussion). A collection of EPA instances was then assembled from the other class sessions, and a line-by-line analysis was conducted for each EPA instance within its local sequential context, from which the characterizations of EPA as sequence-closing and EPA as insinuating case closed (see later sections) eventually emerged. Finally, the excerpts that best exemplied the phenomenon were selected for inclusion in this article. For the current project, the focus was primarily placed on the checking homework segments of the lessons. At the beginning of the class, the teacher went over the exercises that the learners had been asked to complete as homework. This activity provided an opportunity (a) for the teacher to gauge the learners level of understanding vis-` a-vis certain materials and (b) for the learners to display their mastery of or problems with these materials. It was, in other words, one resource for locating the learners ZPD. Of the many ways in 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 what they knew and was in the position to assess that display. Among the various pedagogical tasks found in the classroom then, checking homework seems to be a natural habitat where evaluation is integral to the purpose of the task. As discussed earlier, much applied linguistic research has focused on the treatment of problematic display. My analysis turns to what gets done when the display is successful, and I focus in particular on those instances where the successful display immediately follows the teachers initiating turn, excluding, in other words, those cases in which the successful display occurs eventually as a result of error treatment. I also excluded from the analysis EPAs used at the end of an entire exercise or task to signal a wrap-up or transition to the next stage of the lesson. I chose EPA as my initial inquiry also because it is a discursive object typically associated with classroom discourse, and items such as very good 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 to construct is this: Within certain pedagogical contexts, EPA inhibits rather than promotes learning opportunities. AN ANALYSIS OF EPA AND LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

581

I approach the analysis in three stages, beginning with what may be regarded as the more obvious feature of EPA: that it does sequence-closing. I then devote the bulk of my analysis to demonstrate the interactional gist of EPA, which further species the hearing of EPA as not just sequenceclosing but case closed (i.e., negotiation beyond this point is neither necessary nor warranted). Finally, I make a specic connection between these features and the notion of learning opportunity by showing that the terminations brought about by EPAs may be potentially problematic. EPA as Sequence-Closing The sequence-closing feature of EPA refers specically to the result that the production of EPA does not project any further within-sequence talk; it marks the completion of the project launched by the sequence. In the checking homework context, the project is to provide for the display of student work, assess the accuracy of that work, and, if necessary, ensure the achievement of that accuracy. (It should be noted that this last component would not be relevant in a different pedagogical context such as a quiz game.) The role of assessment in marking closure has been noticed by various scholars (e.g., Antaki, 2002; Antaki, Houtkoop-Steenstra, & Rapley, 2000; Mehan, 1979; Schegloff, 2007). It is important to register, as will be shown shortly, that in classroom discourse, assessment in and of itself does not automatically engender sequence-closing. Rather, it is a particular kind of assessment that achieves sequence-closing. Within the institutional context of a classroom, the third-turn assessment is clearly not an optional minimal expansion but an integral member of the sequence, or in Schegloffs (2007) words, an organic part (p. 224) of the sequence. Hellermann (2005b) also remarked on the conditionally relevant (p. 921) nature of the third-turn evaluations in classroom discourse. This conditional relevance is further supported by the recurrent observation in my data set that learners, on completing their responses, would select the teacher as the next speaker via their gaze. One can note that the kinds of alternatives made conditionally relevant in the F position are not treated as equals some are preferred (i.e., positive assessment) and some are dispreferred (i.e., negative assessment) (Pomerantz, 1984; Sacks, 1987). For example, student errors tend to be followed by a teacher repair

582 initiation that prompts self-correction rather than by the correction itself (McHoul, 1985, 1990), and this tendency is especially noticeable in form-focused segments in the language classroom (Kasper, 1986). Macbeth (2004) also maintained that delays in the teachers third turn are routinely heard as harbingers of negative evaluation (p. 716). In other words, negative assessment is routinely delayed and thus produced as the dispreferred action. Positive evaluation, however, tends to be produced in the preferred format (e.g., no-gap onset, perturbation-free delivery, as well as the absence of any account), as shown in Excerpts 1, 2, and 3. EXCERPT 1 ((looks up at Class)) Nu::mber three:::: {((points to Kevin)) Kevin.} 2 (1.0) 3 Kevin: Wow. I didnt know (.) you were married. 4 (0.8) 5 Ho:::w lo:ng 6 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: 2 3 Yuka: Good. Number six, Yuka? (0.8) ((reading)) >oh< come o::::n. You really 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 ((reads instructions for the next exercise)) 2 Nu:mber one.=>Veronica.< 3 Veronica: ((reading)) Oh really? I didnt 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 training 7 for the Olympics.<=Excellent. 1 T:

The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) 8 9 10 (0.2) Nu:mber two. >Marian, we skipped you=Im sorry. Go ahead.<

1 T:

In other words, the teachers EPA, just like acceptance after invitation, is oriented to as the preferred second pair part: an unmarked, expected, default action. It neither promises nor invites any elaboration. As Schegloff (2007) pointed out, sequences with preferred second pair parts are closure-relevant, whereas sequences with dispreferred second pair parts are expansion-relevant (p. 117). To be more precise, in classroom discourse, it is not assessment, but positive assessment that closes the sequence. It is not surprising, therefore, that the EPA turns are typically followed by silence (cf. a somewhat related phenomenon: silent stress in Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975, p. 43a pause after markers such as now to highlight the boundary exchange) or by the initiation of a new sequence, or both.2 In fact, any other business that the teacher comes to address in his or her feedback turn, such as a minor error unrelated to the pedagogical focus at the time, tends to precede the delivery of EPA. This precise placement of EPA as the turn-nal item provides an additional clue to the teachers orientation toward its sequence-closing potential. Excerpt 4 is taken from an exercise in which the learners were asked to provide the correct verb form, as in the following. For convenience, I refer to the rst sentence as the context sentence, and the second as the test sentence: Wow, I didnt know you were married. ? How long The excerpt begins with Miyuki reading the context sentence, which she completes in a rising intonation: EXCERPT 4 1 Miyuki: ((reading)) Oh really? I didnt know you 2 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 good. The teacher offers a continuer in line 3 (Schegloff, 1982) despite Miyukis misplacement of stress in the word Madrid and her potentially

Hansun Zhang Waring help-soliciting stance signaled in the rising intonation. After a brief gap, Miyuki goes on to read the test sentence with its correct verb form. Note that what comes immediately thereafter is not the teachers positive evaluation, but her otherinitiated other-correction (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977; also called a recast in the SLA literature) on the pronunciation of Madrid . The teachers positive evaluation comes only after the absence of uptake from Miyuki (7).3 What the teacher seems to be orienting to is the possibility that the EPA would be heard as doing sequenceclosing, thereby making it difcult for the learners to attend to any other relevant issue after its articulation. One nal piece of evidence for the sequenceclosing status of EPA is its absence after a correct learner response in the midst of a larger error treatment sequence. As Schegloff (1996) wrote, One often compelling sort of evidence for the claimed practice, orientation, or organization in talk in interaction is the eventfulness of its absence, or an orientation to avoiding it as well as achieving it (p. 192). Excerpt 5 is taken from an extended discussion in which the teacher attempts to help the learners recognize the missing copula be in the question How long have you married? The excerpt begins with the teacher giving a comparable example that lacks the form of to be and eliciting the learners grammaticality judgment on the problematic example, to which the learners respond correctly (45). EXCERPT 5 {Okay? ((nods))} <For example, ((starts writing)) I: happy. ((nishes writing)) 3 Is that correct? 4 Ss: [No. 5 Ss: [I am. 6 T: ((inserts am)) ((writing)) She:: (.) i::s 7 Ss: happy. 8 T: ((writes m a r r i e d.)) 1 T: 2 Note that instead of offering an EPA in line 6, the teacher simply provides nonverbal acceptance of the judgment and proceeds to tie the insertion of the correct form of to be back to the original problematic sentence. The withholding of EPA here appears to be specically linked to the notyet-closed status of the interaction. After all, the happy sentence is only a stepping stone to solving the problem in the married sentence, which is yet to be solved.

583 The next excerpt, however, appears to be a deviant case that contradicts the just-proposed analysis. Here, in Excerpt 6, the students have been asked to match vocabulary items with their meanings based on a reading passage. The relevant word here is aerobic . The teachers Goo:::d (6) is produced exactly at a time when the sequence is clearly not closed: EXCERPT 6 u::m >so that brings us back to number seven.< Mindy, can you read the sentence for aerobic? 3 Mindy: ((reading)) Laughing is aerobic; laugh4 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 oxy11 gen levels of the body. 12 (5.0) 13 Angie: If we look at zuh::: zuh sentence before? 14 (0.3) 15 ((continues)). 1 T: 2 One can see from the teachers rst line that the class is now returning to a previously unresolved item. Because the task is to gure out the words meaning from its context, the teacher asks Mindy to read the sentence that provides its context, which she does (34). The (0.3) gap may be a space where Mindy could have gone on to give the meaning of the word but did not. In fact, she had already given the correct answer, increasing oxygen levels of the body, much earlier (i.e., before the discussion became sidetracked at a point when another student offered a competing answer). Because the textbook gives specic directions as to which sentence in the reading passage relates to which vocabulary item, it is unlikely that the teacher would positively evaluate the students ability to locate the right sentence for a certain word. It is also unlikely that the teacher would positively evaluate the students read-aloud ability given that this was an advanced-level ESL class. It is perhaps safe to say then that the lengthened Goo::::d (6) is not offering evaluation, at least not primarily so, but it is doing what this slot is designed foracknowledgment. It acknowledges Mindys reading of the sentence related to the word aerobic , which lays the groundwork for developing an understanding of the word. As can

584 be seen, further discussion of the item continues. In other words, what appears to be an EPA in form may not be doing any EPA work (cf. the use of Good in Item 6 in the list at the beginning of this article). In sum, the sequence-closing quality of EPA is primarily indexed in its preferred status after the learner response. It also becomes visible in the teachers practice of ordering the components in her feedback turn so that any other interactional business precedes the delivery of EPA. Finally, the absence of EPA after a correct learner response in a larger, yet-to-be-completed sequence presents a particularly strong sort of evidence for its perception as sequence-closing by the participants. EPA as Insinuating Case Closed So far, I have attempted to establish sequenceclosing as a rst-order characterization of EPA, showing that the EPA turns are designed specifically not to invite expansion. We may now register that not inviting is not the same as inhibiting and that sequence-closing does not necessarily block further talk on the topic. For example, once an invitation is accepted, a new sequence that constitutes the next stage of the course of action may be initiated (e.g., request and give directions), and this new sequence is still situated within the general activity of invitation (cf. sequences of sequences; Schegloff, 2007, pp. 195 216). The function of EPA, however, is not limited to sequence-closing. It also accomplishes what can be characterized as insinuating case closed; that is, it performs the interactional duty of treating further talk on the subject as unnecessary and unwarranted, and it does so inexplicitly, hence insinuating. First to be noticed is the prosodic packaging of some EPA turns: decreased volume, lowered pitch, and slower speed as in items 2, 3, and 4 shown at the beginning of the article and reproduced here. Decreased volume (Goldberg, 2004) and lowered pitch (Hellermann, 2005a) are typically associated with the closing of an activity; their dissolving effect is not unlike that of the trail-off silences 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. very good. (p. 195) The case closed quality of EPA is further insinuated in the kinds of objects with which it co-occurs. Thank you is often found in the closing

The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) slot of transactions (Goldberg, 2004). Note also the repeating of the learners prior answer (e.g., In the world) and the recycling of a turn component (e.g., Very good. very good. ). This distinct absence of any further substantive contribution to the talk displays the participants understanding that the topic is possibly exhausted and that the current interactional state is closingrelevant (Button, 1991; Schegloff & Sacks, 1974). In addition to the prosodic packaging and cooccurring objects, the hearing of EPA as case closed is also insinuated in two of its related interactional undertakings. First, in the EPA turns, a good amount of interactional work (e.g., nonverbal display, prosodic marking, repetition) is devoted to putting the learner response on a pedestal, so to speak. This seems to be the interactional import of EPA directly drawn from its literal meaning. Observe the nodding, the smiley voice, as well as the emphatic delivery and marked 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 training for the Olympics.<= Excellent. 8. =$Very good=how long have you been married.$=Very good. There is also something to be said about the act of repeating the correct response. Repetition implicates a complex set of interactional functions (Tannen, 1989). Pomerantz (1984) demonstrated its use as repair initiation. In my data set, there are also many instances when the teacher repeats an incorrect response, preparing it for subsequent pedagogical treatment. However, the repetition of a correct response is done differently. It precedes, follows, or is book-ended by positive assessments (see Hellermann, 2003, for prosodic renderings of such repetition). In other words, its appearance is deeply intertwined with accolades. What is repeated is specically tagged as desirable, and that desirability is sometimes further bolstered by the marked delivery of that repetition. In short, a host of discursive resources are deployed to legitimize or set in stone the learners response as the perfect answer and, as such, denitive and beyond negotiation. What this does is implicitly construct any other answer as deviant and less than competent, and as I would begin to argue, exclude other possibly correct answers or discourage the voicing of alternative answers. Note that the single correct answer assumption is very much in line with the benet of single-outcome tasks advocated

Hansun Zhang Waring in the SLA literature (Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993). As a matter of fact, textbook exercises on grammar and vocabulary are almost exclusively designed as convergent (single correct answer) items. A second aspect of the case closed characteristic of EPA is that it does more than uphold the linguistic accuracy of the learner response. It also embodies an encouraging, congratulating, and rewarding gesture at the nish line of a journey. It is a bouquet for the podium moment, so to speak. It attends to the affect needs of the learner, in addition to providing a positive gloss of the (linguistic) accuracy of his or her contribution, and it is this nish line quality that further cements the hearing of EPA as case closed. Excerpt 7 is a clear example of EPA carrying a function separate from conrming the correctness of a response. It is taken from a pedagogical context in which a vocabulary review game is under way: A chosen student sits in the hot seat facing the class, the teacher writes a word on the board behind the student, the class explains the meaning of the word to the student, and the student guesses the word based on the explanations. EXCERPT 7 1 Heather: ((walks up and sits down in the hot seat.)) 2 T: ((writes achieve on the board)) 3 ((Ss laughternot clear what triggers 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? Y[es.] ((nods)) 14 T: 15 Betty: [ Y]es. ((nods))= 16 T: =VE:ry goo:d. 17 (0.8) 18 All right. Last one. Note that in this particular case, the teacher is not uniquely privileged to assess the linguistic accuracy of Heathers guess because the information is publicly available to everyone in the room except Heather herself. Indeed, the conrmation of Heathers successful guess is provided almost

585 simultaneously by the teacher and Betty (1415), who both use the afrmative token yes . Note also the pitch reset (16) when the teacher launches his EPA in latch. Because high onset pitch is typically exploited in interaction to introduce a new topic (Couper-Kuhlen, 2001), we may safely say that although we are not observing a topic change, some demarcation of activity is being proposed here between the just completed conrmation and the upcoming EPA; that is, what very good is doing now is not what yes did earlier. Rather, the EPA appears to transcend the specic response of achieve and offer a positive gloss of this round of the game as a whole, congratulating both the guesser and the clue-givers for bringing the activity to its successful completion. Excerpt 8 is an example in which the roles of EPA in evaluating linguistic accuracy and doing congratulating are not clearly separate. The homework item related to this excerpt is this llin-the-blanks exercise:
The Harlem Globetrotters are a world famous comic basketball team. They (1. play) basketball since 1926, and they (2. travel) to different countries of the world for more than forty years.

EXCERPT 8 [O k a: ]y? u::::::h ((looks around the room)) 2 Miyuki. 3 (1.5) ((Miyuki looks up and then down at textbook)) 4 Miyuki: ((reading)) The Harlem Glo- (1.0)((looks closer at 5 the textbook)) tera- 6 [((looks up)) trotter.] ] te:rs, 7 T: [t r o t 8 Miyuki: ((looks down)) Globe [trotters,] 9 T: [trotters,] mhm? 10 11 Miyuki: ((continues reading)) Globetrotters are a world12 famous comic basketball team. They have been 13 playing basketball since 1926. and they ((looks 14 up)) 15 T: mh:m? 16 Miyuki: ((looks down and continues reading)) and they have 17 been traveling to different countries of the world for 18 more than 40 years.= 19 T: = Very good. Tha:nk you. 1 T:

586 20 21 (.) Kevin. We skipped you. >Go ahead.<

The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) the entire journey that Miyuki has traveled, with the assistance of the teacher, to bring the task, not without difculty, to its completion. Like Holt and Drews (2005) gurative pivots , it refers to the matter as a whole (p. 45). It is this applauding quality with its routine association with the nish line that contributes to the understanding of EPA as signaling that no further negotiation is warranted. The congratulatory quality of EPA may remind one of the high-grade assessments, such as brilliant , used by clinical psychologists in interviews with people with learning disabilities to mark successful completion, in the face of odds, of some interactional units (Antaki et al., 2000). In sum, by treating the learner response as authoritative and beyond challenge and by applauding the series of efforts devoted to achieving that response, EPA bestows upon the interaction a nale-like quality. It delivers a metamessage that renders any other course of action (e.g., questioning the answer, presenting an alternative answer) noticeable and accountable. In bolder interactional terms, we may say that it discourages (further) negotiation. In the data set, there are two interesting excerpts in which a correct student response is receipted with something other than an EPA. Both excerpts are taken from the vocabulary explanation matching task. Note that in Excerpt 9, Nancys correct response in line 2 is receipted with an okay from the teacher. EXCERPT 9 1 T: =So wh- >what was your answer< for immune. uh ghting against disease or 2 Nancy: infection. 3 T: O>kay.< 4 (.) 5 u:h >dy guys agree with that.< 6 ?Ss: (mhm [ ) ((nods)) 7 T: [>immune is ghting against disease or infection?< Okay is one of those interactionally rich items that may take on very different meanings depending on its prosodic packaging and sequential context (e.g., acknowledgment, continuer, incipient disagreement). This particular O>kay.< (3), given its no-gap onset, slight stress, quick pace, and turnnal intonation, is clearly hearable as acceptance of Nancys answer. At the same time, however, the teacher does not appear to be orienting to his acceptance as either sequence-closing or case closed. This is evident in the ensuing micropause

Soon after beginning to answer the teachers nomination (4), Miyuki initiates repair as shown in the cut-off at the very rst syllable of Globetrotters . A full second passes before she resumes her attempt and produces the non-target-like tera , which is followed by yet another cutoff. Looking up immediately thereafter, Miyuki completes her repair by enunciating the remaining syllables, trotters . She has by now displayed her difculty with but success in pronouncing Globetrotters . Her self-repair comes in overlap with the teachers other-repair (7), which outlasts Miyukis by one syllable as a result of the teachers slower and emphatic delivery. Next (8), Miyuki receipts the teachers repair by repeating the word Globetrotters in its entirety, the nal two syllables of which are again collaboratively completed by the teacher (9). Meanwhile, Miyuki also signals that she is exiting the repair sequence and returning to the task by disengaging her gaze from the teacher and looking down at her textbook. The teachers continuer mhm ? (10) displays her alignment with Miyukis agenda. In line 12, Miyuki completes the rst clause with the correct verb form have been playing . Soon after beginning the second clause, she looks up at the teacher as if to conrm that she still has the oor, to which the teacher offers a conrming mhm ? (15). Miyuki then proceeds to provide the second correctly conjugated verb (1617). Throughout the sequence, we have observed Miyukis struggle with a pronunciation problem as well as her nonverbal quest for the teachers assurance not only on the linguistic form but also on her oor rights. We have also observed the teachers close monitoring of and sensitivity toward the interactional contingencies in Miyukis emerging response. She has successfully oriented toward the progressivity of Miyukis unfolding turns via her display of timely assistance and reassurance. What transpires is not a unilateral delivery of a correct answer on Miyukis part but a highly coordinated joint production in which her displayed difculty and uncertainty are carefully handled. Given the eventful nature of this joint production, it would be difcult to hear the teachers EPA in line 19 as merely a comment on the syntactic accuracy of Miyukis performance. It is, instead, what may be referred to as the grand very good, which can be heard not only as a positive evaluation on the immediately prior linguistic performance but also as a congratulatory applause for

Hansun Zhang Waring and further elicitation (lines 5 and 78). In fact, he goes on to explicate the various meanings of immune in different contexts. In other words, whereas O>kay.< accepts the answer as correct, it also indicates that there is more to the understanding of immune (cf. pivotal okay in Beach, 1993). Whereas Excerpt 9 shows that a non-EPA receipt such as Okay? may be produced to indicate that more is to come, Excerpt 10 presents a case in which a non-EPA is treated by its recipient as indicating that more is allowed to come. The relevant vocabulary item here is shrivel , and immediately prior to the excerpt, Angie, at the teachers request, nished reading the relevant sentence: but adults rates of laughter shrivel to fourteen times dailyor less. EXCERPT 10 Okay. No:w >to really understand shrivel we nee2 we need to: (.) understand the sentence before that 3 ( ) right? because theyre comparing adults 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 hundred 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) its the opposite of 19 increase, you say- decrease? 1 T: In directing the students toward the correct answer, the teacher engages in what Lee (2007) referred to as parsing (p. 1211) in the three-part exchanges: moving from comparing the number of times adults and children laugh in a day to the word that describes the change in quantity. When Angie reaches the nal correct

587 answer (12), the teacher accepts her answer (13) with, notably, not an EPA, but a fuller formulation of Angies response plus the conrmation token yes . Along with this acceptance, the teacher also disengages his gaze from Angie and looks back down at the textbook. Given that shrivel is the nal item of this vocabulary exercise, sequenceclosing is achieved here both verbally and nonverbally. Lines 15 through 17 appear to be a boundary space where the teacher gears up to the next stage of the lesson. This sequence closing, however, is not treated as case closed. As can be seen, Steena proceeds to propose a candidate synonym for shrivel (18). It is almost as though the teachers okay is treated as one of those in-conversation objects that displays a participants availability for conversation continuation (Button, 1987, pp. 116118). In other words, when a correct student response is accepted with practices other than an EPA (e.g., okay , repetition + conrmation), the participants appear to orient to the general relevancy of case still open, and these contrasting cases may be considered at least as partial evidence for the possibly unique functions that EPA performs. EPA as Potentially Problematic Termination The analysis so far has focused on showing the various clues that may be gathered to substantiate the hearing of EPA as not only sequence-closing, but more specically, as case closed. I now take a step further to demonstrate that EPA is doing not just termination, but at least in some cases, potentially problematic termination. For convenience, one of the earlier extracts is reproduced below. The relevant exercise item is: Wow, I didnt know you were married. ? How long EXCERPT 11 ((looks up at Class)) Nu::mber three:::: {((points))-Kevin.} 2 (1.0) 3 Kevin: ((reading) Wow. I didnt know (.) you were married. 4 (0.8) 5 Ho:::w lo:ng 6 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, 1 T:

588 In this excerpt, Kevin successfully provides the correct verb form, which leads to a no-gap onset of the teachers EPA turn. Note the multiple latches as well as her immediate move to the next nomination. The case is clearly closed, and no possibility is provided for any continuation. Sixty-six lines later, however, the following surfaces: 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) youve been marrie [d? 5 Miyuki: { [Have you married. 6 ((head moving up from textbook)) } 7 { have you married. ((looks at T))} Oka::y? ((walks to BB)) >Lets write 8 T: this 9 down.< ((starts writing)) This sequence goes on to span 75 lines of the transcript and lasts 2.5 minutes. It turns out to be the most complicated error correction sequence in the entire 2-hour class. Briey, Miyuki treats marry as a transitive verb, in which case its correct present perfect form would be have married , except that the punctual aspect of marry is ill-tted to the duration query of how long . Given that the form married may be either a verb or an adjective, Miyukis confusion is not surprising, but the earlier EPA closing may have made it difcult for her and the other learners to attend to potential understanding problems such as this one. Additionally, note that instead of questioning the already accepted correct answer; Miyuki is simply exploring the possibility of another correct answer (if without be: is not good? ). In other words, what the EPA turns potentially block is not only unvoiced understanding problems but also proposals for alternative correct answers. In fact, the learner-initiated questions in the data manifest a general orientation toward a range of correct answers, which is not very well dealt with by the EPA closing placed after the rst correct answer. In Excerpt 13, the teacher does not immediately move on to a new sequence after the EPA turn, but still, no learner initiation emerges within that space. The relevant exercise item is the following:

The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) EXCERPT 13 Oka::y? Whos next? {(0.8) ((tilts head))} I think (0.5) Jae? is that you? (0.2) >Are you next?=alright .< ((reading)) In fact, the team has won (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: = Goo:d ((The last nod accompanies 11 the uttering of Good.)). >In fact the team has< won > ninety 12 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)) Is everybody okay? 18 T: 19 (1.0) ((Ss writing)) Yes? Okay ((reads instructions for the 20 21 next exercise)) 1 T: 2 3 4 5 Jae: 6 When Jae responds to the teachers nomination (56), she stops after completing the main clause in which the rst verb form was supplied, as if to seek assessment on the accuracy of that form. At the same time, the teacher appears to be orienting to the completion of the entire item, hence the (0.2) silence. Her ensuing nods are placed in progressional overlap (Jefferson, 1983) with Jaes delivery of the relative clause. These nods serve the double duty of conrming the accuracy of the rst verb form and propelling the completion of the rest of the item. In addition, the teachers EPA, which accompanies her last nod, is latched onto Jaes completion of the relative clause. Thus, the teachers acceptance of Jaes answer is clearly done in a preferred formatswiftly and unequivocally. Sequence-closing is under way. Note also that the teachers EPA is immediately followed by her repetition of Jaes answer. The delivery of the repetition is notable. For the main clause, it accentuates the correct verb form via stress and normal speed of delivery while compressing its surrounding text. For the relative clause, the teacher uses what Koshik (2002) called a designedly incomplete utterance (DIU) to enlist class participation in completing the verb form, which she succeeds in doing, as seen in the chorus response in lines 14 and 16 (cf. coproduction; Lerner, 2002, p. 226). The staccato

In fact the team (5. win) games they (6. play)

98% of the so far.

Hansun Zhang Waring delivery of the:::y (1.0) ha:::ve (0.5) pla:yed so:::::: far. exhibits a fairly typical teacherly tone in imparting information that is important, salient, and worthy of remembering. What the teacher accomplishes with the class in these repetitions is highlighting what is acceptable and what needs to be learned. Thus, EPA is used along with the invigorating advertising of the singular, irrefutable correctness of Jaes response, and thereby implicitly proposes that the case is now closed. Despite this nale-like interactional state, there ensues some space in which the teacher appears to be gauging the readiness of the class to move on. The 3-second gap (17) provides an opportunity for the learners to initiate repair on the two just-completed verb formswin and play . The teachers subsequent sotto voce Is everybody okay? extends to the learners yet another opportunity space for repair initiationverbally this time. The learners subsequent engagement in writing may indicate that they have perhaps put down the wrong answers and are now making the corrections. In any case, no questions are raised; all seems well, that is, until 418 lines later, in Excerpt 14. EXCERPT 14 1 Marie: number ve. u::::h (0.5) The team has 2 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 dont 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 the correct verb form for win , which the teacher understands as a problem of whether team should be treated as singular or plural. In the end, Maries concern may not have been adequately addressed after all. However, the point is that Marie has not fully grasped what the correct answer is or why it is correct as opposed to any alternatives, and she withheld disclosing her problem earlier when the relevant item was the focus of discussion. In retrospect, the fact that the teacher did not immediately move on may be her displayed awareness of some possibly unresolved issues. (After all, the learners were preoccupied with making cor-

589 rections in their workbooks.) It may be argued, however, that the denitive closure established by the EPA turn is so overpowering in this case that any subsequent attempt to loosen up the interactional space (e.g., Is everybody okay?) becomes futile. CONCLUSION In the preceding analyses, I have attempted to detail the use of EPA primarily within the pedagogical context of checking homework tasks. I have shown that while performing its structural role of doing sequence-closing, EPA specifically delivers the news of case closedno further discussion warranted. I have presented evidence for the potentially problematic nature of such EPA terminations; that is, learner initiations much later in the interaction exhibit a yet-to-beachieved understanding of the earlier language point, which failed to invoke any substantive engagement at the time the EPA was given. In short, by serving as the preferred response to a learner answer, by treating one learners correct response as conclusive, exemplary, and beyond challenge, and by lavishing approval for the entire process that the learner has gone through to reach that response, EPA serves not only to cement the ending of a sequence but, more irrefutably, to preempt any further talk on the issue by implicating the latter as unnecessary and unwarranted. Neither the sequential nor the interactional aspect of EPA is particularly generous in providing the learners any space for questioning, exploring, or simply lingering on any specic pedagogical point at the time. In fact, its use can amount to suppressing the opportunities for voicing understanding problems or exploring alternative correct answers, both of which are the stuff that learning is made of. These ndings contribute to previous research on IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. First, they provide further evidence for the complexities inhabiting the F position in the IRF exchange (Hall, 1998; Nassaji & Wells, 2000; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991; van Lier, 2000b). In particular, critical considerations are given to a practice that is often treated as default, unremarkable, and taken for grantedusing EPA as a response to a correct answer. Indeed, although the terminal aspect of positive assessment has been remarked upon before (Mehan, 1979), such termination has largely been treated as a given, normative aspect of classroom discourse. This study has attempted to show not only how EPA comes to be heard as terminal by the participants but also

590 how interactionally it does the specic job of inhibiting the questioning of the already crowned answer or the proposing of any equally feasible alternatives. In CA terms, this study has offered a ne-grained understanding of a particular type of sequence-closing thirds within the institutional context of language teaching. Second, with regard to the feedback research in SLA, without denying the value of either negative evidence in language learning or the large body of research devoted to the types and efcacies of corrective feedback, I hope to have alerted the reader to the importance of feedback beyond being corrective. I hope to have shown that even when a correct response is given, the issue of learning is still very much alive and relevant, and that differential treatment of that correct response may engender differential extents to which learners participate in exploring and resolving their understandings of the linguistic and discursive features of an L2. In other words, how to proceed after a nonproblematic learner response warrants as much scholarly inquiry as corrective feedback. A gold mine of research possibilities is yet to be tapped by SLA scholars, and the payoff may be just as illuminating as that of studying corrective feedback. Finally, the notion of participation in the sociocultural framework has been typically associated with communicative activities that involve learners in active meaning-making. What comes to mind is perhaps not, at least not in the rst instance, check homework, let alone homework of discrete-point grammar exercises. One reason may be that the IRF structure permeating most checking homework segments is often automatically perceived as yielding impoverished learner participation. A ne-grained CA analysis of naturally occurring classroom interaction has demonstrated, however, that impoverishment is not an invariable quality of form-focused exercises but a designed consequence of specic interactional practices. In answering van Liers (2000a) call to show the location of learning opportunities and the effectiveness of pedagogical strategies (p. 250), I have identied a largely atypical and previously undocumented location where the opportunities for participation (and thereby learning) may be blocked or created. On that note, let me emphasize that this is not a theory-driven study and that its contribution to the sociocultural theory of language learning lies not in advancing or aggrandizing the theory itself, but in eshing out one of its central learning concepts participation as learning. I believe that here stands

The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) the nexus of collaboration between CA and sociocultural researchers. Whereas sociocultural theory offers compelling concepts such as ZPD , scaffolding , prolepsis , and assisted performance (see van Lier, 2004) that have attracted generations of educational linguists and now SLA researchers, CA provides a powerful tool to deliver empirically grounded understandings of these concepts as situated in the minute details of interaction. In pedagogical terms, I hope that the analysis has offered a glimpse into two sets of tensions inhabiting the language classroom: (a) the competing demands of between nurturing affect and promoting development and (b) the tug-of-war between attending to the individual and meeting the needs of the group. In other words, what is affectively desirable may be developmentally undesirable, and what is unproblematic for one individual may be problematic for others in the group. After all, the reward of EPA may be exactly what one learner needs to fuel his or her intrinsic motivation, which is an important predictor of successful language learning (D ornyei & Skehan, 2003). An obvious implication is that it may be advantageous for instructors to withhold EPAs by way of affording learners more interactional space in which their understandings on a given point can be fully developed. The root of the problem, however, appears to lie in the nonsymmetrical treatment of correct and incorrect answers in pedagogical discourse. The reality is that incorrect answers tend to be more conducive to generating access points for learner participation than correct answers that automatically trigger the positive assessments that seal the case. One approach to reconciling the previously mentioned tensions may be to strive for symmetry in dealing with learner responses (i.e., to treat correct answers as just as potentially problematic and accountable as incorrect answers). Asking a question such as Why do you think that? for example, would push the learner to make his or her thinking transparent and thus publicly available. Furthermore, this disclosure of rationale would provide other learners a substantive basis upon which their own understandings may be gauged and engaged. In other words, treating a correct answer with the same vigilance and interest that we lavish on an incorrect answer may go a long way toward creating learner space (Rardin & Tranel, 1988, p. 44) and unleashing learning opportunities. In closing, this article has by no means solved all the puzzles that the seemingly mundane item EPA presents. What remains to be understood, for

Hansun Zhang Waring example, is (a) whether EPA functions differently from implicit positive assessments such as repetition (Hellermann, 2003) or the mere absence of feedback (Seedhouse, 2004), (b) whether there exists a continuum of EPAs that index different degrees of case closed, or (c) whether other interactional practices, if not EPA, may promote learning opportunities in response to successful learner contribution. It is crucial that we understand the task-specic use of EPA and consider possibilities where EPA promotes, rather than inhibits, learning. It appears that whether EPA signals case closed depends on whether the pedagogical task targets the actual or the potential developmental level of the learner5 (Vygotsky, 1978, pp. 8491). The checking homework task, for example, is by nature aimed at gauging what the learners have actually mastered, not what they are potentially capable of mastering, and it may be this focus on the actual developmental level that provides for the case closed import of EPA.
3 Miyukis

591
lack of uptake may have three possible causes: (a) She may not hear the difference, (b) she sees the teachers rendition as simply another way of pronouncing Madrid , or (3) she is orienting exclusively to the teachers feedback on the pedagogical focus of the exercise (e.g., verb form in present perfect vs. present perfect progressive). 4 The issue of how Miyuki and Marie in Excerpt 11 come to get these initiating turns in the rst place is the topic of another article. For the purpose of the current project, my interest is in showing that some understandings that seem to have been resolved earlier actually were not. 5 I thank Gabi Kahn for this insight.

REFERENCES Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal , 78 , 465483. Antaki, C. (2002). Lovely: Turn-initial high-grade assessments in telephone closings. Discourse Studies , 4 , 524. Antaki, C., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H., & Rapley, M. (2000). Brilliant. Next question. . .: High-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units. Research on Language and Social Interaction , 33 , 235262. Beach, W. (1993). Transitional regularities for casual okay usages. Journal of Pragmatics , 19 , 325352. Benson, D., & Hughes, J. (1991). Method, evidence and inferenceEvidence and inference for ethnomethodology. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 109136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brooks, F. B., Donato, R., & McGlone, J. V. (1997). When are they going to say it right? Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annals , 30 (4), 524541. Button, G. (1987). Moving out of closings. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 101151). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Button, G. (1991). Conversation-in-a-series. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 251277). Berkeley: University of California Press. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2001). Intonation and discourse: Current view from within. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 1334). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 2750). New York: Oxford University Press.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS An earlier version of this article was presented at the International Pragmatics Conference at Goteborg, Sweden in 2007. I gratefully acknowledge the generosity of the ESL teachers and students who allowed me into their classrooms and the efcient assistance of Caroline (Kisook) Kim in data collection and le transferring. Thanks also to Barbara Hawkins and Gabi Kahn for illuminating discussions throughout the project. Others who have provided helpful comments on successive drafts include Naomi Geyer, Santoi Wagner, Leslie Beebe, and Jean Wong. Last but not least, I would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and Leo van Lier for their kind words and useful suggestions. All remaining errors are mine.

NOTES
1 Whereas 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 because it invokes the contrast with dyadic , where triadic interaction refers to interaction in which child and adult jointly attend to an object in their surroundings (e.g., Tomasello, 1995). I thank Leo van Lier for pointing out this potential for misunderstanding. 2 Of course, EPA is not the only practice used to do sequence-closing. A nal-intoned okay, for example, can close a sequence just as well. For a preliminary look into some contrasting cases, see the discussions on Excerpts 9 and 10.

592
D ornyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589621). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review , 19 , 317. Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Goldberg, J. A. (2004). The amplitude shift mechanism in conversational closing sequences. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the rst generation (pp. 257298). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hall, J. K. (1998). Differential teacher attention to learner utterances: The construction of different opportunities for learning in the IRF. Linguistics and Education , 9 , 287311. Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacherstudent interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 22 , 186203. He, A. W. (2004). CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom. Modern Language Journal , 88 , 568582. Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society, 32 , 79104. Hellermann, J. (2005a). Syntactic and prosodic practices for cohesion in series of three-part sequences in classroom talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38 , 105130. Hellermann, J. (2005b). The sequential and prosodic coconstruction of a quiz game activity in classroom talk. Journal of Pragmatics , 37 , 919944. Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of gurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. Research on Language and Social Interaction , 38 , 35 62. Hutchby, I., & Wooftt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications . Malden, MA: Blackwell. Jarvis, J., & Robinson, M. (1997). Analyzing educational discourse: An exploratory study of teacher response and support to pupils learning. Applied Linguistics , 18 , 212228. Jefferson, G. (1983). Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, No. 28 . Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University. Kasper, G. (1986). Repair in foreign language teaching. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Learning, teaching and communication in the foreign language classroom (pp. 23 41). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press. Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. Modern Language Journal , 88 , 551567. Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review , 19 , 8399. Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge

The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)

displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction , 35 , 277 310. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching , 33 , 7996. Lee, Y.A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics , 39 , 12041230. Lemke, J. L. (1985). Using language in the classroom . Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Lerner, G. H. (1995). Turn design and the organization of participation in instructional activities. Discourse Processes , 19 , 111131. Lerner, G. H. (2002). Turn-sharing: The choral coproduction of talk-in-interaction. In C. Ford, B. Fox, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 225256). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Local, J., & Kelly, J. (1986). Projection and silences: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies , 9 , 185204. Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 5 , 177193. Macbeth, D. (2003). Hugh Mehans Learning Lessons reconsidered: On the differences between the naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. American Educational Research Journal , 40 , 239 280. Macbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society, 33 , 703 736. Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27 , 405430. Markee, N. (2004). Zones of interactional transition in ESL classes. Modern Language Journal , 88 , 583 596. McHoul, A. W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7 , 183213. McHoul, A. W. (1985). Two aspects of classroom interaction: Turn-taking and correction. Australian Journal of Human Communication Disorders , 13 , 5364. McHoul, A. W. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society, 19 , 349377. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese language classroom. Modern Language Journal , 88 , 536550. Morris, F. (2002). Negotiation and recasts in relation to error types and learner repair. Foreign Language Annals , 35 , 395404. Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities. TESOL Quarterly, 35 , 377 405.

Hansun Zhang Waring

Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). Whats the use of triadic dialogue? An investigation of teacherlearner interaction. Applied Linguistics , 21, 376 406. Nystrand, M. (1997). Dialogic instruction: When recitation becomes conversation. In M. Nystrand, A. Gamoran, R. Kachur, & C. Prendergast (Eds.), Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom (pp. 1 29). New York: Teachers College Press. Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Learner engagement: When recitation becomes conversation. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Contemporary research on teaching (pp. 257276). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learnerlearner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics , 6 , 93 121. Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36 , 573595. Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155177). New York: Oxford University Press. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language instruction and research. In S. Gass & G. Crookes (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 934). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57101). New York: Cambridge University Press. Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rardin, J. P., & Tranel, D. D. (1988). Education in a new dimension: The counseling-learning approach to community language learning . Fort Lee, NJ: Counseling-Learning Publications. Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 5469). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of uh huh and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 7193). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Conrming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology , 102 , 161216. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

593
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language , 53 , 361 382. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1974). Opening up closings. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology (pp. 233264). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing no: The relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning , 47 , 547583. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective . Malden, MA: Blackwell. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher , 27 , 413. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils . London: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97114). New York: Oxford University Press. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue and imagery in conversational discourse . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis . Thousand 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: Erlbaum. van Lier, L. (1984). Analyzing interaction in second 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. Sociointeractive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245260). New York: Oxford University Press. van Lier, L. (2000b). Constraints and resources in classroom talk: Issues in equality and symmetry. In C. N. Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context: A reader (pp. 90107). New York: Routledge. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective . Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. van Lier, L., & Matsuo, N. (2000). Variety of conversational experience: Looking for learning opportunities. Applied Language Learning , 11, 265 287. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse . New York: Routledge.

594
Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education , 5 , 1 37.

The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)

Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. Modern Language Journal , 88 , 519 535.

APPENDIX Conversation Analysis Transcription Conventions (adapted from Jefferson, 1983)

(.) underline CAPS . ? , : = []
soft

>< () (words) .hhh $words$ (( )) {(( )) words.} ?S(s): words

untimed perceptible pause within a turn stress very emphatic stress high pitch on word sentence-nal falling intonation yes/no question rising intonation phrase-nal 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 reect the simultaneous beginning and ending of the overlapped talk, sometimes extra spacing is used to spread out the utterance spoken softly/decreased volume increased speed (empty parentheses) transcription impossible uncertain transcription inbreath spoken in a smiley voice comments on background, skipped talk or nonverbal behavior { } 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. Unidentiable speaker(s) words quoted, from a textbook, for example

Forthcoming in Perspectives, MLJ 93.2 (2009)

The Challenge of Ensuring High-Quality Language Teachers in K12 Classrooms is the theme for the Summer 2009 issue of Perspectives, MLJ 93.2. This topic has taken on added signicance in the post-9/11 United States, where the demand for teaching languages that were previously considered less commonly taught and therefore had only a small number of teachers has increased dramatically. At the same time, teacher quality is directly tied to the increasingly multicultural environment in which language teaching takes place in many countries, to rising demands that students acquire language and cultural and subject matter content simultaneously, and to shifts in the professions thinking about what constitutes the nature of language, the nature of language learning, and, by extension, the nature of quality language teaching. Readers can look forward to contributions from several experts in the eld who will address, among other topics, changing dynamics in pre-service teacher education, teacher credentialing and the impact of standards, teacher cognition, recruiting of teachers from various contexts, support of beginning teachers, teacher development, and accommodating native speaker language teachers. Please contact Heidi Byrnes, Associate Editor, Perspectives, at byrnesh@georgetown.edu for comments and questions.