The interactional moves on the part of the trainer that request a development, through
expansion/extension of the trainee’s description, regularly occur in multiple subsequent turns, following a FBTI. The trainers often instigate multiple requests for expansions/extensions of the descriptive aspect of FBTI; these actions could be glossed as the Tr ‘probing’ the
trainee’s description of the event in question. The following extract illustrates this
phenomenon; it is taken from a much longer sequence of negotiation and probing between the trainer and the Tw. This longer sequence includes numerous requests for accounts from the Tr, as they negotiate and develop the description of the event and practices specified in
the FBT initiator. Extract 22, selected from this longer sequence, is taken from the Tw’s feedback cycle on day eight of the course. The Tw is Dave and Liz is the trainer.
Extract 22 – “What did you want them to practice…” D8FB 220
1 D: I think it’s mo::re like practising [(.) ne:w voCA:B]
2 L: [practising what] dave
3 (1.0) what did you want them to practice there (0.8) and
4 were they practising it
5 (0.4)
6 D: when when they e:r (.) (tried)/(write) the activities
7 (0.6) then they need to: (.) find the (.) voca::bs there
8 (0.3)
9 L: !what vocab
10 D: it’s more like destination more like activities um::
11 (0.2)
12 L: can you be specific=
13 D: =ah: (1.0) li:ke (.) if we talk about the (.) of CITIES
14 (0.4)
15 L: a!ha::.
After an extended series of interactional moves (not included in the extract), oriented towards the development of the Tw’s description of an aspect of his experience from the previously taught lesson, the Tw claims that the main aim of this part of his lesson was “practising [(.) ne:w voCA:B]” (line 1). The Tr does not, however, wait for the Tw to complete his turn but requests an extension/expansion of his account in overlap, “[practising what]”. This overlapping talk from the Tr may be related to the amount of interactional work that has already been put into the development of this description in previous turns (not included in the extract), indicating perhaps an attempt to ‘move things along’. After a pause, she reformulates her initial question, “what did you want them to practice there” and adds an additional request for a development of the description “were they practising it” (line 4).
Thus, as in the previous extract, the first request projects the expectation of further specificity in the account of the Tw’s behaviour. The second request asks for a different kind of
description, a description of the behaviour and practices of the students in the class, as they relate to a claim that is being made by the trainee. So the expectation is projected to the trainee that they will include in their description of their experience, observed evidence as to whether or not the thing they are claiming was reflected in the behaviour of the students. This kind of request then focuses the description from the participants on grounding their claims in the practices of the students in their class. It is not necessarily enough to claim that a practice was, for example successful, but that the reflective process also entails providing evidence for this claim, grounded in the observed behaviour of the students in class, and described by the trainees in feedback.
The Tw orients to the first of the trainer's requests in his response, by providing a description of his expectation from the students “when when they e:r (.) (tried)/(write) the
activities (0.6) then they need to: (.) find the (.) voca::bs there” (line 6).
The trainer does not simply accept this claim from the Tw, rather in next turn position she reformulates her initial request, “!what vocab”. Again, this request is attempting to develop a particular aspect of the Tw’s description, specifying the exact expectations the Tw has for the students. The Tw then provides two candidate answers to the question: “more like
destination more like activities” (line 10). Once again though, the Tr does not accept
the Tw’s candidate answers and explicitly requests further specificity in his description: “can you be specific”. The Tw acknowledges uptake of the request with a floor holding device, “ah:”, latched to the Tr’s request. Following a pause, he provides another candidate answer,
“li:ke (.) if we talk about the (.) of CITIES” (line 13). Following a short pause,
the trainer acknowledges her acceptance of the description, of ‘vocabulary related to cities’, with a change of state token: “a!ha::.” (Heritage, 1984a) .This token serves to mark the ‘newsworthiness’ of the Tw’s claim and acts as acknowledgment and acceptance of this claim.
We see then in the above extract, the kind of interactional ‘work’ that can be employed in the negotiation of developing the description of the trainee’s experience. The description stage of the ELC is oriented to by the participants - in the ways the trainer requests further
descriptions, and the ways in which the trainees orient to these requests by continuing to offer candidate accounts. As stated earlier, the previous extract comes form a much longer sequence, and the negotiation of the description continues after the above extract, towards the
Tr’s second request, ‘were the students practising vocabulary for cities?’. This extract also provides further evidence for the notion that the mechanisms of ordinary conversation, in this case repair, are being employed for pedagogical purposes, within this interactional context. Repair is not simply being used to achieve intersubjectivity but is also being employed as a device to expand/extend the trainees’ descriptions of the events and practices specified in the FBTI. And in doing so encourages reflective practice.