Cultivos forestales

In this section, I will illustrate the more frequent sequential formats for managing the word searches, which will answer the first research: How are the learners’ word

searches sequentially developed and jointly accomplished in EFL classrooms?

In terms of the organization of the word searches, a prototypical word search (as those shown in section 4.2.1) is developed as follows: (1) In turn one, the speaker interrupts his/her ongoing talk to initiate a word search; (2) In turn two, the recipient supplies a candidate word, either with certainty or uncertainty; (3) In the following turn, the speaker confirms the proffered word. The confirmation were observed to take place in a number of ways, such as producing an acknowledgement token, repeating the word, or integrating the word into a larger constituent; (4) Subsequently, the participants resume to the main sequential action. The basic sequential pattern typically consists of three turns. This can be generalized as follows:

a. Turn 1—Learner A initiates a word search

b. Turn 2—Teacher or leaner B provides the candidate word c. Turn 3—Learner A confirms the candidate word

However, not all of the word searches were resolved so efficiently. When the speaker’s initial search turn did not successfully elicit the target word, a word search sequence became elaborated due to the need for the participants to further clarify the searched- for-item (e.g. extracts 11 and 12 in section 4.2.2, and extracts 13 and 14 in section 4.2.3). These extended word searches therefore consist of more than three turns.

95

Nevertheless, the three basic parts, i.e. initiation, supplying a candidate lexical item, and confirmation, are still observed in the sequence.

Although the data for his study were collected in the setting of teacher fronted-

classroom interactions, it was found that many of the word searches did not involve the teacher’s direct participation. However, nearly all the elaborated word search instances in the data collection are characterised by the teacher’s direct participation. More specifically, the further negotiation of meaning in a word search always occurred

between the teacher and learner(s), but never among learners. Further research is needed to consider whether or not it is a feature of word searches in the context of teacher fronted- classroom interactions.

The extended word searches, although resulting in a longer disruption to the talk, are arguably beneficial to learning because they push the learners to become more aware of the various features of the searched-for-word in the target language. For example, in extract 12, Christine used the words, such as” round”, “bamboo”, “holes”, and “flat” to further describe the object she was refereeing. In extract 13, Tracy’s circumlocution (before charge they will give you a ::) provides a clue for the teacher to formulate his alternative guess. In extract 14, Loran produced “Eskimos” and “small house” to further illustrate the target item.

The teacher’s active role in eliciting more information and making alternative guess about the target word, as shown in the extended word search examples, is worthy of discussion too. The crucial role played by the teacher in successfully managing classroom interaction is often emphasised by the EFL classroom researchers (e.g., Walsh 2006). As the analysis in 4.2.2 showed, the teacher were observed to use various verbal and nonverbal resources and strategies to further align with the word searches. For example, in extract 11, the teacher initiated a confirmation check on Morgan’s trouble source turn, which promoted Morgan and another peer to clarify the intended meaning through paragraphing. In extract 12, it was observed that the teacher used a “designedly incomplete utterance”, or DIU (Koshik 2002), gestures , the white board and a marker to solicit more clues from Christine. These resources prove to be useful resources in resolving the learner’s word searches in this specific context, as shown in the extracts in that they contribute to enhance mutual understanding. It can be suggested that such successful elicitation skills displayed by the teachers is revenant to teacher’s

96

Classroom Interactional Competence, or CIC (Walsh 2006) as they encourage further student participation in talk and help to maintain the progress of the talk. This study has shown some initial observation on teacher’s CIC within the context of word search. More research is needed in order to find out different interactional skills used by the teacher to facilitate word searches.

In sum, the close analysis of the sequential development of the word search examples has shown that the accomplishment of a word search is through the participants’ coordination with each other’s action, demonstrating that a word search is a social activity and is collaborative in nature. For example, for collaboration in a word search to happen, an opportunity to participate had to be proffered. When the learners initiated a word search and extended invitation to their recipients (teachers or fellow leaners), they paved the way for their recipients’ participation. On the other hand, when the recipients accepted the invitation and offered a word, the learners accepted or rejected it. When the target word is rejected, the participants continue pursuing the target word by further negotiation. Thus, the resolution of communication breakdown caused by a word search is not achieved through any individual party’s skills or abilities. Rather, it is

accomplished collaboratively. This observation adds to the existing literature in CA that describes how word searches are co-constructed through the participants’ mutual

monitoring of each other’s action (e.g. Carroll 2006; Goodwin and Goodwin 1986; Hayashi 2003; Park 2007), but further suggests that similar collaboration also occurs in the environment where the participants are engaged in pedagogical activities.

5.3 The Resources Utilised in Projecting Word Searches and Inviting Co-