‘What is it that’s going on here? And what’s in it for me? How two L2 graduate students experienced spoken interaction

O que está acontecendo aqui? E o que isso traz para mim? Como dois alunos de pós-graduação L2 experimentaram interação falada

ABSTRACT

This paper views classroom interaction as integral to the production of academic writing. It presents a situated account of how two L2 master’s students’ experienced spoken interaction on two different courses, extracted from a small-scale 13-month ethnographic study which drew on Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic capital (1991), and Goffman’s participation framework (1981). Triangulation of classroom observation data with student interviews reveals how interaction is framed by the two research participants’ courses and to what extent interactive events are tied to specific goals related to written assignments. Findings echo existing research that language proficiency, familiarity with norms, and power relations intersect in rendering interaction problematic. I discuss recommendations for enhancing interaction in course design and pedagogy; rather than trans-contextual solutions, constructivist evaluation studies of specific courses are needed which reflect voices of all participants.

Keywords:
Interaction; literacy events; academic writing; learning; identity; agency; cultural capital

RESUMO

Este artigo vê a interação em sala de aula como parte integrante da produção da escrita acadêmica. Apresenta um relato situado de como dois alunos de mestrado de L2 experimentaram interação falada em dois cursos diferentes, extraído de um estudo etnográfico de pequena escala de 13 meses que se baseou no conceito de capital simbólico de Bourdieu (1991) e na estrutura de participação de Goffman (1981). A triangulação de dados de observação de sala de aula com entrevistas de alunos revela como a interação é enquadrada pelos cursos dos dois participantes da pesquisa e em que medida os eventos interativos estão vinculados a objetivos específicos relacionados a tarefas escritas. As descobertas ecoam pesquisas existentes de que a proficiência linguística, a familiaridade com as normas e as relações de poder se cruzam para tornar a interação problemática. Discuto recomendações para melhorar a interação no design e na pedagogia do curso; ao invés de soluções trans-contextuais, estudos de avaliação construtivista de cursos específicos são necessários que reflitam as vozes de todos os participantes.

Palavras-chave:
interação; eventos de alfabetização; escrita acadêmica; aprendendo; identidade; agência; capital cultural

1. Introduction

Hello! This week three of us went to the house of lady came from Finland, and discussed for nearly 7 hours......that was a tough day!!!! Because they really care about every single detail, I felt that we wasted lots of time to just one problem of the whole assignment....

Yet they were so kind to me, and I can 80% understood their talking, also I showed my opinion during discussion and they said my opinions were useful!

Totally speaking, it was a remarkable experience to work in a group.

(Autumn, journal entry 7, month 4)

This excerpt from an L2 student’s journal suggests a generally positive experience on the part of the author, although there are tensions between her final statement that it was ‘a remarkable experience’ and the underlined words.² Autumn was a Chinese student studying on a master’s degree in media at a UK university, and one of two case studies who I tracked over the 13 months of their degree to investigate the nature of their experiences on their two different courses (Salter-Dvorak, 2014; 2017).

In the informal seminar described above, the students were tasked to prepare a formative group presentation which would lead onto an assessed individual written assignment; from an academic literacies perspective (cf. Lea & Street, 2006), this constitutes a ‘literacy event’. Defined by Heath as ‘any occasion in which a piece of writing is integral to the nature of participants’ interaction’ (1983, p. 83) such events aim to prepare and support students (directly or indirectly) in the production of assessed texts (henceforth referred to as written assignments). In the course leader’s brief to Autumn and her colleagues, they were organised into groups and instructed to work together. The assumption here is that ‘interaction is good for learning’.

This assumption forms the basis for a key discourse (in the Foucauldian sense, 1977) in Anglophone academia (cf. Biggs & Tang, 2007; Ellwood & Natake, 2009; Kwok-Wing Lai, 2015; Leki, 2001; Mercer, 1995; Mochizuki & Starfield, 2021; Ryan & Viete, 2009; Tan, 2003). Drawing on sociocultural theory, the interaction discourse incorporates Vygotsky’s notion that higher cognitive functions have their origin in social relationships. In addition to enabling knowledge construction, interaction has social, affective and cultural benefits. It can foster learning with peers, leading to a sense of belonging to a ‘discourse community’ (cf. Swales, 1990). It can enhance communication skills, develop intercultural awareness, and develop argumentation and critical thinking through articulating different perspectives.

However, Vygotsky set clear parameters for the conditions under which interaction is good for learning: first, the target knowledge needs to be within the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD), defined as

the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. (1978, p. 86).

Second, those who know more will share their understanding with their less capable peers. The implications here for course designers are clear; Biggs and Tang (2007) suggest that careful thought and planning are required in order to integrate interactive activities appropriately into the course and link them to learning outcomes and assessment.

From the perspective of those L2 students who, like Autumn, have been socialised into educational cultures which may differ considerably from their new learning contexts, each literacy event may include a number of interactive activities, such as group work or class discussion, which present unexpected frames. In the words of Goffman

When individuals attend to a current situation, they face the question: “What is it that’s going on here?” Whether asked explicitly, as in times of confusion or doubt, or tacitly, during occasions of usual certitude, the question is put and answer to it is presumed by the way individuals then proceed to get on with the affairs at hand. (1974, p. 8)

Getting on with the affairs at hand’, as Goffman puts it above, will require adaptation to dominant practices. In time, however, students may begin to question how these practices address their own goals by asking themselves ‘what’s in it for me?’ and ‘what can I do about it?’

While university course specifications typically identify different modes of delivery (lectures, seminars and workshops), they provide no indication of the exact purpose of interactive activities within these, e.g. whether and how they are linked to credit-bearing assignments. Since such precision is not common practice in course documents, the outcome is that we know very little about how the interaction discourse is enacted in the context of courses and to what extent it provides opportunities for learning.

This paper examines the conditions under which interaction is good for learning by presenting a situated account of how two L2 master’s students experienced face-to-face spoken interaction on two different courses. Drawing on the theoretical framework which follows, I explore how the experiences impacted on the students’ identity construction, and how they employed agency to optimise their learning through their interactions.

2. Theoretical framework

Hall’s seminal work on oral practices in the classroom (1993) presents these as rich, multidimensional, semiotic phenomena. Drawing on a Hymesian view of language as primarily a social phenomenon, she argues that oral practices are ‘secular rituals’, (1993, p. 153) in which information is shared, identities are created/modified and ‘political order’ is sustained/challenged (1993, p. 146). It was also during this decade that Swales’ ethnographic work, deploying Hymes’ notion of ‘speech communities’ (1974) illuminated the role played by university ‘discourse communities’ in knowledge construction of students (Swales, 1990).

This paper adopts a socio-constructivist perspective of university courses as ‘discourse communities’ which hold ideologies based on ‘accumulated experience and socialisation’ (Blommaert, 2005, p. 162), and whose goals embody discourses or ‘regimes of truth’ (Foucault, 1977, p. 30). While not viewing communities as static, I see that literacy events on specific courses have the potential to enable participants to construct knowledge. Within these events, however, power is exercised by human agency rather than possessed; as Foucault argues, while individuals are susceptible to regulation, they are also able to resist it. A tension exists, then, between structure (practices on the courses) and agency (ability of students to choose how they participate).

In order to shed light on the above, I have found Goffman’s analysis of ritualised interaction in social life (1981) to be a useful lens. Goffman argues that some activities in institutions are governed by ‘prearranged harmonies’ (1981, pp. 65-66). His ‘participation framework’ demonstrates how the speaker or ‘animator’ can use visual cues in order to address the whole circle equally, or certain listeners, as ratified participants. There may also be bystanders (those who overhear), and eavesdroppers (those who participate but are not specifically addressed). In addition, some speakers have ‘framing capabilities’ which enable them to recast the conventional sense of the conversation by engaging in ‘subordinate communication’ which interferes with the dominant communication (1981, p. 133). Goffman’s micro-analysis of interaction suggests inevitable inequalities between individuals in any group, linking well with Foucault’s notions of how power is embedded in social practices.

A framework which illuminates reasons underlying ritualised interaction in institutions is provided by Bourdieu’s (1991) theorisation of language as a vehicle for establishing power. Bourdieu employs an economic metaphor to explain how linguistic exchange is socially driven and how some forms of knowledge have a higher exchange value than others. In order to position themselves successfully, individuals strive to build up ‘symbolic capital’, a combination of ‘economic, social and cultural capital’ (material wealth, relationships/access to institutions, knowledge/qualifications). In any exchange, ‘the weight of different agents depends on their symbolic capital’ (1991, p. 72) determining the recognition that they receive from the group. This may lead to ‘symbolic domination’ by those with more power over those with less, whereby some are granted ‘right to speak’ while others are not. Symbolic domination, Bourdieu posits, is imposed upon those who are not speakers of the official language/standard variety and who believe in the legitimacy of that variety. The process which legitimises inequality between social groups and hierarchies of knowledge he calls ‘symbolic violence’, arguing that it is particularly through academic discourses that such violence is exercised (cf. Bourdieu & Passeron, 1997). While Foucault sees that humans can resist regulation through their agency, Bourdieu and Passeron are less optimistic; their account of how power is exercised through academic discourses in the French university system identifies the ‘whole logic of an academic institution’ (1997, p. 111) which privileges those who enter with cultural capital inherited from their background.

Bourdieu’s call to investigate how symbolic domination is played out in places where it is least visible has inspired the work of poststructuralist linguists such as Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004), who focus on the relationship between power, identity, language and learning. Here, identities are seen as ‘social, discursive and narrative options offered by a particular society in a specific time and place’ (2004, p. 19) which provide opportunities for action. As ‘particular forms of semiotic potential organised in a repertoire’ (Blommaert, 2005, p. 207), identities can enable individuals to employ agency in order to set up conditions and personal goals which meet their specific learning needs. Here again, a tension exists between agency and structure; identities formed reflexively (through self-positioning) are negotiable, and can be contested or imposed interactively by others (cf. Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). Their role in creating opportunities for learning, then, is contingent on power relations rather than predictable. It is particularly, the authors argue, when individuals find themselves in a new context that identities are in flux.

This paper is concerned with individuals in such a situation. L2 students, who have crossed physical and cultural borders, will meet with interactive practices on their courses which, following Foucault’s theorisation, will be grounded in specific core discourses. The possibility exists that these practices may expose inherent power relations which are unequal, as will be apparent from the case studies that follow.

3. Literature review

There is a growing literature on L2 students’ experiences of spoken interaction in anglophone universities. Over the past 40 years, the emphasis has shifted from a ‘pragmatic view’ which focuses on needs analysis and what the learner lacks, to a ‘critical view’, which shines light on the complexity of the context and the extent to which the learner is accommodated by the institution. As Hyland and Jiang’s recent bibliometric analysis of relevant publications shows (2021), the topics of identity, interaction and learning processes now dominate, as reflected in a body of participant ethnography research on the socialisation of L2 students into their host ‘discourse communities’. A number of these studies highlight the crucial role played by managing oral practices, and face-to-face spoken classroom interaction in particular, in academic success (cf. Benesch, 2001; Cheng, 2013; Leki, 2001; Morita, 2000; Salter-Dvorak, 2014). In the last two decades, research on interaction has moved beyond the classroom to explore spoken lecturer and peer feedback on master’s and doctoral drafts (cf. Salter-Dvorak, 2017; Mochizuki & Starfield, 2021), as well as interaction in virtual distance learning, e.g. Kwok-Wing Lai (2015). The following review is limited to studies on spoken face-to-face interaction in anglophone universities (henceforth referred to as interaction).

First, in the pragmatic tradition, Mason’s (1994) investigation into how her L2 graduate students’ experienced spoken events (based on interviews with students and faculty) led to a classification of lectures into three types, each demanding different levels of student engagement:

Table 1
Types of lectures

	Type	Activity
1	talk-and-chalk	teacher expounds with visual aids;
2	give-and-take	teacher expounds while allowing questions;
3	report and discuss	teacher initiates topics and frames issues for groups to discuss

The first difficulty is receiving and processing information, both in terms of language and cultural knowledge: lecturers employ cultural references (jokes, slang) in order to ‘liven the lecture’, or to illustrate particular points which may be lost on those who do not recognise them (1994, p. 206).

The second difficulty is adapting to interaction norms of the new context; Mason identifies a relationship between the amount of interaction expected and perceived difficulty of the event; her students viewed ‘give-and-take’ and ‘report and discuss’ as more difficult than ‘talk-and-chalk’ (1994). In particular, they found interruptions in a ‘give-and-take’ lecture difficult. While asking questions is seen as desirable by both students and faculty (Ellwood & Nakane, 2009, p. 213) situated studies reveal the context as a site of struggle. Benesch’s critical ethnography of L2 Psychology undergraduates describes how, in response to the lecturer’s reluctance to take questions, students enacted agency by developing group strategies to support and empower each other, e.g. raising their hands in unison when a question was asked (2001, p. 117).

When it comes to engaging in discussion, Mason (1994, p. 203) found that four out of five L2 students felt unable to express themselves adequately. Explanations of a general linguistic nature abound, e.g. ‘poor command of English’ (Osmond & Roem, 2010, p. 11) and ‘language issues’ (Rienties et al., 2014, p. 66). Myles and Cheng identify accents as an obstacle in interaction between L2 postgraduates in Canada (2003, p. 256), while Allen and Higgins highlight ‘local slang’ and the ‘speed at which people spoke’ (in Osmond & Roem, 2010, p. 121). Tatar’s situated study of Turkish students in the US demonstrate that a major source of tension is time required for processing: on the one hand, preparing a contribution to the discussion can result in loss of input; one student reported ‘I miss a lot while I am trying to organise my sentence’; on the other hand, students were aware of keeping others waiting while preparing a contribution, sometimes opting for silence as a way of avoiding ‘sabotaging the discussion’ (2009, p. 298). For home students, the essential ‘translation phase’ may result in reluctance to work with L2 colleagues (Osmond & Roem, 2010, p. 119).

However, findings go well beyond the linguistic; as with lectures, the question of social norms arises. A Chinese student interviewed by Osmond and Roem emphasises how, at home ‘interrupting, disagreeing or sharing good ideas are not culturally acceptable’ (2010, p. 116). Here, ethnographic studies provide critical insights. Leki’s investigation of L2 students’ experiences of group work, for example, discusses how they were framed as ‘novices, incompetents or apprentices’ by their native speaker colleagues (2001, p. 60), while Duff’s socio-historic account of L2 learner identities and agency in a Canadian secondary school found that some were prevented from participating by being assigned ‘hearer identities’ (2002, p. 310) which became part of the social history of the group. However, Duff also raises the question ‘who is the student participating for?’ Her interview data reveal that those who spoke minimally viewed colleagues who spoke up as ‘loudmouths’; rather than being passive, they were ‘exercising their agency’ by making this choice (2002, p. 312). Conversely, Ellwood and Nakane (2009, p. 222), describe a ‘third space identity’ applied to students who desired to participate more themselves, while also developing a critical attitude towards colleagues’ contributions.

The challenges L2 students experience in spoken interaction, then, are considerable. The findings above echo the work of Goffman in highlighting how inequalities frame participants in conversations; from Bourdieu’s perspective, language proficiency and familiarity with norms can be seen as forms of cultural and social capital respectively, at the nexus of which L2 students position themselves and are positioned by lecturers and peers. Thus, while they are assumed to be ‘ratified participants’ on their courses, they may become ‘bystanders’.

It is interesting to note that, while many of the studies above are situated accounts, interaction is dealt with in a way which tends to be generalised and abstract; only Leki, Chang and Tan provide contextual detail on the actual nature of the interactive activities, their purpose, or their links to assessment, thereby enabling in-depth discussion on the critical role played by prior subject knowledge in interaction. Tan’s study of Malaysian TESOL students in collaborative team work (2003, p. 54) draws on Mercer’s work (1995) to classify classroom tasks:

Table 2
Types of interactive tasks

	Type	Activity
1	convergent	Converge towards a single goal, e.g. design a marketing strategy*
2	divergent	Maintain, argue for and support own opinions, e.g. explain interpretation of a text

• *The examples are mine, drawn from the two case studies that follow.

Her investigation of convergent tasks through micro analysis of class transcripts reveals that, unless some knowledge is present, this will be difficult to extend, echoing Vygotsky (1978). In what follows, I present data on how two L2 students experienced spoken literacy events; I contextualise the interactive activities within their curricula by deploying Tan’s typology above.

4. The study

The data reported here are derived from a 13-month ethnography of communication at a UK university (cf. Salter-Dvorak, 2014; 2017). Autumn and Shahrzad (pseudonyms) were two instrumental case studies (cf. Stake, 1995), who were viewed in the context of their master’s courses (Professional Media and English Literature), enabling situated investigation of their learning experiences from start to finish. Grounded in the interpretive epistemological tradition of participant practitioner observation (cf. Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007), the study sought to provide a contrastive analysis of the dominant discourses on the two courses, and the dynamic between these discourses and language, power relations, agency, identities and learning opportunities in the experiences of the two students (Salter-Dvorak, 2017, p. 89).

Data collection and Analysis

The methodology was guided by Lillis’ notion of ‘cyclical talk’ (2008) around student texts, with particular focus on what participants considered salient and involved difficulty. Participants’ written assignments (with feedback and marks) and literacy events surrounding these (class observations) were filtered through my observer’s perspective and triangulated with their perspectives (interviews and journals), those of their lecturers’ (interviews, feedback and marks) and course documents (Salter-Dvorak, 2017, p. 89).

In order to track the two students’ experience over time, the study adopted the analytic lens of identities (Salter-Dvorak, 2014, p. 5) following Pavlenko and Blackledge’s view that identities are ‘located not only within particular discourses and ideologies but also within narratives’ (2004, p. 18). Analysis was guided by Richards’ distinction between ‘in vivo’ and ‘in vitro’ perspectives of data (2003, p. 17), which led to development of analytical categories: listening to participants’ narratives ‘in vivo’, followed by recursive reading of the data sets ‘in vitro’, enabled me to identify identities which reflected both how they positioned themselves as L2 learners and how they were positioned by others; I coded the identities, ascribed them to the students, and tracked them over time, e.g. references to inadequate linguistic proficiency were coded under ‘defective communicator’. However, rather than viewing these identities as fixed products, my analysis sought to explore the processes underlying their construction. Due to the sensitive nature of the data, respondent validation was not sought for ethical reasons; I felt that reading the analysis could have a negative effect on participants’ self-esteem (Salter-Dvorak, 2014, p. 5).

The research questions that guided the analysis of Autumn and Shahrzad’s experiences reported here were:³

1. How the two courses framed interaction;

2. How the affordances created by the above impacted on the participants’ identity construction;

3. How participants employed agency to optimise learning.

The master’s courses consist of taught modules in months 1-6; the following 7 months are devoted to writing the dissertation. Therefore, the data presented below come from months 1-6.

5. Findings

Autumn’s course: How ‘Professional Media’ (PM) framed interaction

Autumn, a female Chinese student aged 23, graduated in Media Management in China and immediately enrolled on PM. Designed specifically for international students with experience within journalism, the course centres around a theoretical framework applied to real life scenarios from the media industry. Analysis of the data sets identifies three core discourses:

Table 3
Discourses on PM

Discourse	Description
Interaction	The strong emphasis on collaborative learning is realised through interactive problem-solving tasks, which often lead to formative presentations followed by group discussion.
Multicultural collaboration	Students are expected to work in multicultural groups, reflecting the globalised media industry.
Media experience	A pluralistic approach is adopted, whereby students’ prior professional experience provides a key learning resource which shapes the curriculum.

The following observation of a three-hour class given by Vic, the course leader, exemplifies how these discourses are enacted in the everyday practice of PM. Each example of practice is underlined, and the discourse identified between brackets.

Figure 1
A PM class

Through analysis of the data, I identified that interaction was enabled by convergent tasks in the pedagogical model depicted below:

Figure 2
A convergent task on PM

How Autumn experienced interactions on PM

Autumn grew up in the Chinese media community. She was familiar with the ‘interaction’ discourse through the pedagogical approach used on her BA, and looked forward to participating actively on PM.

Initially, Autumn found lectures (mainly given by her course leader, Vic) easy to follow; the slow ‘give-and-take’ delivery and sensitivity to audience needs seemed to pre-empt requests for clarification:

‘You know Vic he is a VERY careful man ...he watch his audience very carefully if I can’t understand him, it will show up in my face and he will explain’

(Autumn, interview 6, month 3)

However, Autumn positioned herself as a ‘defective communicator’ almost immediately; processing demands of engaging in group work are foregrounded in her journals early on, as the underlined words below show:

On Thursday, we had seminar, three Chinese including me in our group, but each of us couldn’t catch up with the other members who came from Finland, Brazil and India. We even couldn’t have no chance to say our opinions after we finally understood the topic’s meaning.... oh my God I must improve my language!

(Autumn, journal entry 2, month 2)

This group was allocated by the course leader; the aim of the literacy event, which related to the first written assignment and was facilitated by a TV producer, was to prepare a formative presentation which simulated a promotion of a new TV program. As her colleagues embarked on a discussion, Autumn and her Chinese colleagues struggled with classmates’ accents, the speed of the interaction and the vocabulary. She explains:

We don’t mean to interrupt them because they are in a good....but we listen a lot of key words, so we think maybe this maybe that...because we knew we had a presentation after so when they did the presentation we can understand more than before.

(Autumn, interview 2, month 2)

Autumn’s reaction echoes the ‘faster pace’ described by Morita’s informant (2000, p. 298). Her use of ‘we’ and ‘they’ underlined above testify to a clear divide emerging on the course between ‘bystanders’ and ‘animators’ in Goffman’s terms. However, while Autumn seems to view this event through the lens of language alone, I suggest that knowledge plays a key role here. The following two episodes trace Autumn’s gradual shift in attitude regarding the ‘interaction’ discourse and the affordances it can offer or deny her.

Episode 1: the symbolic domination of ‘little sister’

In month four (the excerpt given in the introduction), Autumn describes an out-of-class literacy event consisting of informal group work (students were asked to stay in the groups described above). The objective was to prepare a formative group presentation which led onto an individual written assignment on marketing of electronic media.

Autumn’s underlined words here suggest her positioning as a weaker member of the group, with limited ‘right to speak’ (Bourdieu). As she explained in the subsequent interview, three out of the four students came with a diagram; hers was rejected straight away. Eva (from Finland) and Carlos (from Brazil) then discussed their own contributions at length, often digressing onto other topics, while Manny (from India) and Autumn listened:

Sometimes the Indian guy (Manny) tells them to get back to the point but they don’t listen. The trouble is, they both want to be the leader of the group, but we only need one leader!

(Autumn, interview 7, month 4)

The episode provides evidence of how fleeting moments of interaction serve to create and consolidate a group history. It seems that Eva and Carlos’ have hijacked this literacy event and re-framed it as an opportunity for what Goffman calls ‘subsidiary talk’; their refusal to respond to Manny’s words above positions Autumn and Manny as ‘eavesdroppers’ in their power struggle rather than co-participants in the literacy event which could extend their ZPD. As the interview progresses, however, Autumn provides new insights into the ‘what is it that’s going on here?’ question by identifying differences between herself and her colleagues:

They are all 10 years older

Their English is much better

They all have much work experience in the media

They have worked in electronic media, and I have worked only in print media...so they see me as their ‘little sister’.

(Autumn, interview 7, month 4)

The underlined words above suggest Autumn’s socialisation into the Media Experience discourse; they also shed light on the role played by knowledge here. As Eva and Carlos enact their identities of experienced media workers, it is the richness of their conceptual framework rather than their linguistic proficiency alone which carries cultural capital. This frames them as experts and provides social legitimacy, establishing a situation in which they assume, and are granted, political power within the group; their ‘symbolic domination’ (cf. Bourdieu) enabled by all the participants’ collective respect for their media experience marginalises Autumn, who, listening in like their ‘little sister’, is again assigned a ‘hearer identity’ (cf. Duff, 2002). Thereafter, her contribution to the group presentation was limited to the introduction, and her written assignment received the disappointing mark of 52%. Unlike Rientis et al.’s findings that students in culturally mixed groups benefit more through ‘knowledge spillover’ (2014, p. 64), Autumn did not perceive that this out-of-class literacy event provided her with affordances. By the next group work session, she has made the decision to do things differently.

Episode 2: a counter discourse to ‘multicultural collaboration’

The episode below shows how Autumn enacts her agency to resist the Multicultural Collaboration discourse in order to optimise her learning. In preparation for the individual Business Plan described in figure 2, students were asked to self-select themselves into groups.

Figure 3
Autumn’s choice of group

Following the class, Autumn explained that she chose to work with Chinese colleagues because she is concerned about the assignment, and does not want to repeat the experience of episode one.

Until now, I am happy with the way we do the work because it is much more easy than the last time. We have similar opinion and background, the same language and live close to each other, it makes the assignment easy to finish.

(Autumn, interview 8, month 5)

Here we see Autumn addressing the ‘and what’s in it for me?’ question; by adopting a pragmatic view of how factors relating to language, knowledge and culture intersect (see underlined words) she has chosen to work with Chinese colleagues. This will provide her with learning opportunities for the Business Plan as well as a positive experience of participation. Her action echoes findings that international students prefer to work with those of similar cultural backgrounds (cf. Rienties et al., 2014; Osmond & Roem, 2010).

As the course leader says:

Yes we try to encourage them to work in mixed groups but by this stage of the course many of the South East Asian students choose to work together....it’s up to them

(Vic, interview 5, month 5)

Vic’s words here support Autumn’s use of agency to optimise learning in this particular context. The episode, then, exemplifies Duff’s question ‘Who is the student participating for?’ Autumn’s written assignment received a mark of 62%, a merit, and her highest mark to date. While it is difficult to argue causality here, I suggest that her perception of the positive experience is in itself valuable.

Shahrzad’s course: How ‘English Master’s’ (EM) framed interaction

Shahrzad, an Iranian student aged 23, enrolled on EM immediately following her BA in Teheran (English Literature). EM was created for the home market, and was subsequently opened to L2 students with BAs from abroad. The orientation is academic rather than professional, involving familiarisation with a number of theoretical frameworks which are applied to reading literature through ‘analytical, sceptical questioning’ as the course leader explains. Analysis of the data identifies three dominant discourses which do not include interaction:

Table 4
Discourses on EM

Discourse	Description
Independent Research	Independent learning is more highly valued than collaboration; students are expected to ‘produce substantial independent research’ (handbook, p. 8).
Theoretical Perspectives on Literature	Knowledge of literary and cultural theory is required for the advanced, wide ranging study of English Literature.
Critical Analysis	The course aims to develop ‘critical skills in reading and analysis of texts’ and ‘critical reasoning’ (handbook, p. 3).

The following observation of a one-hour lecture given by Angela, a visiting lecturer, exemplifies how the discourses above are enacted in the everyday practice of EM. Each example of practice is underlined, and the discourse it exemplifies identified in brackets.

Figure 4
An EM lecture

Through analysis of the data, I identified that interaction was enabled by divergent tasks in the pedagogical model depicted below:

Figure 5
A divergent task on EM

Shahrzad’s experiences of interactions on EM

Shahrzad arrived in the UK from Iran with excellent spoken competence. Although her exceptional school leaving marks had qualified her to study Science, she resisted this channelling by choosing to study English Literature (Salter-Dvorak 2014, p. 8).

Early on, Shahrzad’s described her difficulties with understanding classmates’ accents while chatting before the class:

when those students are speaking with different accents sometimes as far as I can catch it’s fine but my worst moments are moments when I miss what they are talking about I can’t follow and then I feel like crying

(Shahrzad, interview 1, month 1)

This led to her self-positioning of ‘defective listener’, echoing both Autumn’s experience and Miles and Cheng’ findings discussed above. However, when Shahrzad states that she misses ‘what they are talking about’ there may be more than accents at stake here, as the following demonstrates:

Episode 1: the symbolic domination of ‘silent participant’

Arguably, the most salient phenomenon in Shahrzad’s experience relates not to what happens (how interaction provides learning opportunities), but rather to what does not happen (how lack of interaction denies these), as demonstrated by the literacy event described in figure 3. Of the seven students present, four are graduates from Anglophone universities (three L2 and one L1), while three (L2) have graduated from their home countries. Immediately following the class, I ask Shahrzad to explain some of the key words used. She is able to define ‘suffragette’, but understands ‘music halls’ as a synonym for ‘concert halls’. In answer to the question ‘Which social class attended music halls?’ she says ‘the same as those who attended theatres’. When I ask what ‘otherised’ means, she looks blank. Sensing her discomfort, I move onto classroom behaviour:

Figure 6
Shahrazd asking questions in class

Shahrzad’s underlined words above corroborate findings by Mason, (1994) and Benesch (2001) that asking questions poses significant challenges to L2 students. In this context, however, Shahrzad’s reluctance to ask may be due to two reasons, encapsulated by her words ‘if some students know then why am I asking questions?’ First, she is aware that the class is pitched at the level of those who do know (graduates from anglophone universities). Second, she feels the onus is squarely on her to compensate for her deficit by engaging in preparatory independent research. However, the fact that there have been no requests for clarification during the class, together with Shahrzad’s statement that she finds asking questions ‘uncomfortable’, provide evidence that seeking clarification is not part of the ‘ritualised routine’ (cf. Goffman) here.

Following this up in my interview with Angela, I ask what challenges she thinks present themselves to the L2 students in her classes. She explains that this is difficult to discern, adding:

‘they don’t INDICATE that they don’t understand’

(Angela, interview 2, month 2)

She then pauses, as if reflecting on her words, but does not share her thoughts. It strikes me later that the key issue here is what Angela means by ‘understand’. When we consider the content of the Orientalism lecture, I suggest that it is not possible to separate the language from the cultural references which Shahrzad struggles with, echoing Mason and Morita’s findings above.

This episode exemplifies lack of awareness on two levels: Shahrzad is not aware that she has missed some key cultural references, as demonstrated by her answers to my questions above. Angela, meanwhile, assumes that students understand because they ‘don’t indicate’ otherwise. A vicious cycle is thus created, leading to a ‘culture of not asking’ in the classroom. However, in order to meet the requirements of the ‘critical analysis’ discourse on EM, students would need three key learning resources: first, understanding of the concept of Orientalism (cf. Said, 1978) in the context of 19^th century London from the perspective of the theoretical literature; second, understanding of culturally specific practices of that particular context (e.g. working class people attending music halls), and the webs of connotations which these carry; third, opportunities to ask questions. I suggest that it is these learning resources which constitute cultural capital on EM. For L2 students from the East like Shahrzad, this poses two problems: not only are the cultural references unfamiliar, but, more crucially, the perspective (which in this case requires viewing the East through the lens of the West) is new. The fact that this perspective is assumed and not made explicit results in a clash of frames between those who possess the cultural capital and those who do not. As she finds herself in a group where the majority (four out of seven) are graduates from anglophone universities, it is not surprising that Shahrzad does not find it easy to ask.

Arguably, while the class has provided Shahrzad with information on Orientalism, no affordances have been offered for knowledge construction here. Shahrzad’s written assignment on Orientalism in fashion received the disappointing mark of 53%. The feedback found that the essay was:

‘too descriptive and did not engage sufficiently with the theoretical framework of Orientalism’

(Shahrzad, lecturer feedback on Orientalism essay, month 5)

The essay provides an account of oriental rather than orientalist fashion, thereby lacking discussion of the socio-historic meaning. One could hypothesise a link between the ‘culture of not asking’ and Shahrzad’s lack of engagement with the theoretical framework.

The symbolic domination which takes place here, then, is of a subtle nature; rather than being interactively cast as a ‘silent participant’ with no right to speak, it is the very lack of interaction which leads to the imposition of this alien identity on Shahrzad.

Episode 2: The ‘loudmouth’ and the ‘traditional student’

This episode describes a two-hour seminar for which students were asked to read extracts from a Gothic novel.

Figure 7
An EM Seminar

I start my interview with Angela immediately following the class by remarking that a vociferous student going off the point in class is a familiar experience to all teachers. Angela admits that she rarely deploys group work as it is not always successful, especially if students do not read the texts in advance (which she felt was the case today). She explains that the novel discussed relates to only one of the assignments from a choice of five. Referring to the incident, she says:

‘I saw the Iranian students looking ‘defensive’ (mimics a sitting back gesture, with palms extended outwards), and then, when Rosa mentioned Pakistan, they looked relieved. Yeah, if there is to be discussion then there is always a risk that someone will say something embarrassing’

(Angela, interview 3, month 5).

Reflecting on the incident in our interview two days later, Shahrzad reported that, following the class, she and her Muslim colleagues, Nura from Iran and Zeynep from Turkey, discussed the incident:

‘Sometimes I feel that she was claiming a fact but she didn’t say in a voice of hesitation she was sure about it ...but it gives a very ugly picture to the people about the Muslim people.. so unfair unjust’

(Shahrzad, interview 5, month 5).

Shahrzad’s underlined words above express an awareness of Rosa’s abuse of her ‘right to speak’. Although Shahrzad did not feel that Angela should have intervened more, she appreciated her moving the discussion on. In fact, it seems that she shares Angela’s views on the limited value of interaction:

‘Angela doesn’t spend too much time on discussion...if someone doesn’t come up with the answer she just goes on lecturing.... that’s the thing I really adore about her this strategy ....some students just typical to comment on everything and so if the whole class is running as a discussion, just imagine how boring this can be for students who don’t want to comment on everything they prefer to be a listener’

(Shahrzad, interview 5, month 5).

Shahrzad’s underlined words here suggest a ‘traditional student ’ identity; she expresses a counter discourse to ‘interaction is good for learning’, which resonates with the literature on L2 students: Duff’s student refers to ‘loudmouths’ (2002, p. 312), while Morita’s student wonders ‘if they really think before they open their mouth’ (2000, p. 298). What is interesting here is Shahrzad’s alignment with both Angela’s view and the EM culture. Arguably, this alignment stems from different individual interests: as a new lecturer, Angela avoids interaction; it is easier to manage the class through ‘chalk and talk’. Meanwhile, Shahrzad is accustomed to ‘talk-and-chalk’ and prefers to listen to the ‘authority’ rather than to her peers.

I suggest that these data demonstrate the negative effect which interaction can have on a learner’s identity. From Shahrzad’s perspective, listening to colleagues is distracting at best, and alienating at worst.

6. Discussion

The situated findings above corroborate those in the literature on the complex, multifaceted nature of interaction. For both Autumn and Shahrzad, literacy events are hindered by language related problems such as accents and speed of delivery (cf. Allen & Higgins, 1994; Myles & Cheng, 2003; Osmond & Roem, 2010; Rienties et al., 2014; Tatar, 2009), leading to the ‘defective communicator’ identity. Language, then, emerges not only as an instrumental tool for communication, but also as a form of cultural capital (cf. Bourdieu, 1991) and a semiotic system which drives identity formation (cf. Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). A further finding is the critical role played by prior subject knowledge in interaction, echoing Leki (2001), Cheng (2013) and Tan (2003). Autumn lacks relevant media experience, which hampers engagement in interaction, while Shahrzad lacks familiarity with theoretical frameworks and culturally constructed perspectives on literature.

How, then is interaction framed on the two courses? The table below summarises the design of interactive activities on the two courses:

Table 5
Interactive activities on PM and EM

Course	Stage	Interactive Activity	Product	Assessment	Feedback
PM	1	Group discussion for convergent task	Group presentation	No	Formative
	2		Individual assignment	Yes	Summative
EM	1	Group discussion for divergent task	Notes taken	No	Formative

Here we see how the two very different classroom practices on the two courses are underpinned by the core discourses. On PM, interaction is central to the vocational ethos of the course and its design; the privileging of multicultural collaboration and media experience enables participants to share knowledge through activities which are explicitly linked to specific assignments; the convergent tasks require students to apply key principles to practical projects, thereby constituting a strong established practice, and a medium for exchange of cultural capital, which Autumn clearly values; interaction is high-stakes here. On EM, the role of interaction is considerably less prominent; here, the independent research and critical analysis discourses translate into divergent tasks which require students to adopt and defend a position by applying literary and cultural theory to texts. The fact that links between interaction and written assignments are far less explicit leads to limited opportunity for formative feedback. Here, interaction is not high-stakes. Yet there is no intrinsic reason why divergent tasks cannot engender successful interaction; this would require careful planning and purposeful classroom management, e.g. the lecturer plays devil’s advocate or presents counter arguments to those offered by students.

When we examine how the above impacts on participants’ identities, and how they enact agency to optimise learning, the data demonstrate how counter discourses can emerge to the ‘official’ course ones, exemplifying the agency/structure tension. On PM, the experienced students dominate literacy events, while Autumn concludes that ‘interaction is good for learning’ only if it involves useful exchange of ideas which will feed into assignments, and enable good grades. Her response to the question ‘And what’s in it for me?’ is that of an active agent who has identified how her social learning context can meet her learning needs; this is co-constructed by both her colleagues and the course leader. Conversely, Shahrzad’s case suggests that, in some socio-historical circumstances, structure overrides agency, as Blommaert (2005) and Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004) argue. Here, the Anglophone perspective assumed by EM bars her from its conceptual infrastructure, framing her as a ‘silent participant’, who is sometimes not sure why she does not understand, or even that she does not understand.

7. Conclusion

This paper has argued that, to explore how L2 students experience the ‘interaction is good for learning’ discourse, one requires a situated view of literacy events in their cultural context. So what is it that’s going on here? And what should lecturers do? I suggest that there are implications for pedagogy, course design and research.

First, from a teacher’s perspective, interaction is an investment of class time; like any investment, it carries risks. When it succeeds, it benefits the group by providing affordances for knowledge construction and positive learning experiences, leading to positive identities and fruitful learning communities. A risk it carries is the fact that, as both cases show, it can lead to symbolic violence. The absence of interaction, however, can have even more serious consequences in that it will not enable the opportunity for knowledge construction; it can also serve to alienate students.

In terms of managing interaction, the literature offers helpful suggestions: lecturers can actively employ strategies to assist students in interaction, by explaining clearly the purpose of activities (Cheng, 2013; Morita, 2004; Osmond & Roed, 2010), allocating groups (Rientes et al., 2014), intervening in turn taking practices (Morita, 2004; Cheng, 2013), and regulating ‘non-inclusive behaviour’ (Ryan & Viete, 2009, p. 311).

However, I contend that these trans-contextual solutions do not go to the heart of the matter. The essential question for lecturers here is ‘What’s interaction for?’ It is only when this has been considered that the real work can begin. As this article has shown, the discourses underpinning courses differ considerably, creating different discourse communities. There are, however, a number of principles which would empower faculty to integrate interaction into their courses in a way which is relevant and purposeful at curriculum level:

1. Interaction needs to be planned into the curriculum and presented purposefully to students.

2. Divergent and convergent tasks will require different levels of planning, intervention and challenge by the teacher.

3. The more high-stakes an interactive activity is, the more seriously students will respond and enact agency.

4. A way of promoting participation is by providing equal opportunities to talk, e.g. two-minute turns in presenting a case.

Finally, in order for research on interaction to have an impact by leading to meaningful developments on courses, constructivist views of specific courses are needed; only by adopting a fourth-generation evaluation model (cf. Guba & Lincoln, 1989) which enables triangulation of all participants’ perspectives of interaction, can the localised complexity of specific courses be captured (including data on their prior subject knowledge and course outcomes). Recommendations for pedagogy and design may then be identified for specific courses.

References

• Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics and practice. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed). London: Open University Press.
• Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: CUP.
• Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture (trans Richard Nice). London: Sage.
• Cheng, R. (2013). A non-native student’s experience on collaborating with native peers in academic literacy development: a socio-political perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.10.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.10.003
• Duff, P. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 289-322. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.3.289
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.3.289
• Ellwood, C., & Nakane, I. (2009). Privileging of speech in EAP and mainstream classrooms: a critical evaluation of participation. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 203-230. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00165.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00165.x
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: an essay on the organisation of experience. England: North Easter University Press.
• _____. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
• Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage.
• Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: The sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for the learning of another language. Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 145-166. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.145
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.145
• Hammersely, M., & Atknison, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Routledge.
• Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words. Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: CUP.
• Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2021). A bibliometric study of EAP research: who is doing what, where and when? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 49, [100929]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100929
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100929
• Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Kwok-Wing Lai. (2015). Knowledge construction in online learning communities: a case study of a doctoral course. Studies in Higher Education, 40(4), p. 561-579. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.831402
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.831402
• Lea, M. R., & Street, B. (2006). The ‘academic literacies’ model: Theory and applications. Theory and Practice, 45(4), 68-377.
• Leki, I. (2001). ‘A narrow thinking system’: Nonnative-English-Speaking students in group projects across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 9-66. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587859
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/3587859
• Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing”. Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25(3), 353-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308319229
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308319229
• Mason, A. (1994). By dint of: Student and lecturer perceptions of lecture comprehension strategies in first-term graduate study. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.). Academic listening research perspectives (pp. 199-218). Cambridge: CUP.
• Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Talk, amongst teachers and learners. USA: Multilingual matters.
• Mochizuki, N., & Starfield, S. (2021). Dialogic interactions and voice negotiations in thesis writing groups: An activity systems analysis of oral feedback exchanges. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 50, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100956
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100956
• Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialisation through oral classroom activities in a TESOL graduate Program. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 279-310. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587953
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/3587953
• Myles, J., & Cheng, L. (2003). The social and cultural life of non-native English speaking international graduate students at a Canadian university. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 247-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00028-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00028-6
• Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.) (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual settings. USA: Multilingual Matters.
• Osmond, J., & Roem, J. (2010). Sometimes it means more work...: Student perceptions of group work in a mixed cultural setting. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalisation and the student voice: Higher education perspectives (pp. 113-124). London: Routledge.
• Richards K. (2003). Qualitative research in TESOL. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Rienties, B., Alcott, P., & Jindal-Snape, D. (2014). To let students self-select or not: That is the question for teachers of culturally diverse groups. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(1), 64-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315313513035
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315313513035
• Ryan, J., & Viete, R. (2009). Respectful interactions: Learning with international students in the English-speaking academy. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 303-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902898866
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902898866
• Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Salter-Dvorak, H. (2014). ‘I’ve never done a dissertation before, please help me’: accommodating L2 students into anglophone academia through course design. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(19), 847-859. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.934344
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.934344
• _____. (2017). How did you find the argument? Conflicting discourses in a master’s dissertation tutorial. London Review of Education, special issue on Academic Literacies, 15(1), 85-100. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.15.1.08
  » https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.15.1.08
• Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage.
• Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: CUP.
• Tan, B. T. (2003). Does talking with peers help learning? The role of expertise and talk in convergent group discussion tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00033-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00033-4
• Tatar, S. (2009). Why keep silent? The Classroom Participation Experiences of Non-native-English-speaking students. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5(3-4), 284-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470508668902
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470508668902
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: CUP.

• 2
  An L2 student is one studying through a second language whether at home or abroad. This paper discusses specifically international L2 students at Anglophone universities.
• 3
  Names and some details have been changed, while the students’ words from journals and interviews are presented verbatim without corrections.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  03 Dec 2021
• Date of issue
  2021

History

• Received
  01 Apr 2021
• Accepted
  30 Aug 2021