ISBN 978-3-8233-8374-1 008 In language learning contexts, the role of the language teacher is a particularly crucial one: it is the teacher who, through and with their use of (the foreign) language, has a significant influence on the extent to which language learners are linguistically/ cognitively activated, and thus determines whether processes of language learning are initiated and promoted, or perhaps even impeded or prevented. Thus, it is of utmost importance for language teachers to acquire a high level of classroom discourse competence (CDC) - a professional competence that goes far beyond the notions of FL proficiency and communicative competence. Located at the intersection of theory, classroom research and practical approaches to (E)FL teacher education, Classroom Discourse Competence. Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education offers university students, trainee teachers, in-service teachers and teacher educators a comprehensive conceptualization of CDC (Part I). Furthermore, the chapters in this book explore facets of CDC (Part II) and present good-practice examples of CDC development in the context of pre-service teacher education (Part III). www.narr.de K. Thomson (ed.) · Classroom Discourse Competence Katrin Thomson (ed.) Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education Classroom Discourse Competence Classroom Discourse Competence Augsburger Studien zur Englischdidaktik Edited by Engelbert Thaler (Augsburg) Editorial Board: Sabine Doff (Bremen), Michaela Sambanis (Berlin), Daniela Elsner (Frankfurt am Main), Carola Surkamp (Göttingen), Christiane Lütge (München), Petra Kirchhoff (Erfurt) Volume 2 Volume 8 Katrin Thomson (ed.) Classroom Discourse Competence Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education DOI: https: / / doi.org/ 10.24053/ 9783823393740 © 2022 · Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG Dischingerweg 5 · D-72070 Tübingen Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Überset‐ zungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Alle Informationen in diesem Buch wurden mit großer Sorgfalt erstellt. Fehler können dennoch nicht völlig ausgeschlossen werden. Weder Verlag noch Autor: innen oder Herausgeber: innen übernehmen deshalb eine Gewährleistung für die Korrektheit des Inhaltes und haften nicht für fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen. Diese Publikation enthält gegebenenfalls Links zu externen Inhalten Dritter, auf die weder Verlag noch Autor: innen oder Herausgeber: innen Einfluss haben. Für die Inhalte der verlinkten Seiten sind stets die jeweiligen Anbieter oder Betreibenden der Seiten verantwortlich. Internet: www.narr.de eMail: info@narr.de CPI books GmbH, Leck ISSN 2367-3826 ISBN 978-3-8233-8374-1 (Print) ISBN 978-3-8233-9374-0 (ePDF) ISBN 978-3-8233-0375-6 (ePub) Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Natio‐ nalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http: / / dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. www.fsc.org MIX Papier aus verantwortungsvollen Quellen FSC ® C083411 ® www.fsc.org MIX Papier aus verantwortungsvollen Quellen FSC ® C083411 ® 7 9 13 31 59 73 89 105 131 149 Contents List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transcription Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part I - Introduction: Classroom Discourse and Classroom Discourse Competence Katrin Thomson Introduction. Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) in Foreign Language Teaching and Language Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katrin Thomson Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC): A Key Competence in Foreign Language Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part II - Exploring the Facets of L2 Classroom Discourse Competence Anna Rosen The Interplay between Teacher Input and Student Language in the Foreign Language Classroom. Focus on Conversational Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . Ralf Gießler Classroom Discourse Skills to Support Lexical Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jochen Baier / Emily Brehm Prompts as a Means of Scaffolding Literary Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katrin Thomson L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education. A Classroom Discourse Perspective on a Neglected Issue . . . . . Charlott Falkenhagen / Sieglinde Spath Teacher Discourse Competence in CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katalin Schober Teaching Pupils with Hearing Impairment in EFL Contexts. Towards Inclusive Classroom Discourse Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 175 189 205 221 237 257 275 Part III - Practical Approaches to CDC Development in Pre-Service Teacher Education René Koglbauer / Jon Haines / Paul Seedhouse Video Enhanced Observation. Enhancing Reflection, Pedagogy and Students’ Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen Glaser Enhancing Pre-Service Teacher Training through Inquiry-Based Learning. An Analytic-Reflective Classroom Videography Assignment in the English Teaching Practicum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Holger Limberg Classroom Corpora as Tools for Reflective Practice in Pre-Service Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Olaf Jäkel Revisiting an Old Acquaintance: Exploring the IRF Pattern in Corpus Data from 5th Grade EFL Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gabriele Blell / Friederike von Bremen Teaching Classroom Discourse Competence through Lesson Observation. Educational Resources Designed for EFL Teacher Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katrin Thomson Enhancing EFL Classroom Discourse Competence at Pre-Service University Level. ClaDis - A TEFL Course for Advanced Student Teachers . . . . . . . . . Sandra Stadler-Heer Developing Novice Teachers’ Classroom Discourse Competence through Micro-Teaching and Reflective Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Contents List of Abbreviations CA conversation analysis CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages CD classroom discourse CDC classroom discourse competence CM classroom management CLIL content and language integrated learning CLT communicative language teaching EFL English as a foreign language EPOSTL European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages ESL English as a second language FL foreign language FLC foreign language classroom FLT foreign language teaching KMK Kultusministerkonferenz; Standing Conference of the Ministers of Educa‐ tion and Cultural Affairs of the 16 Federal States in Germany LDC lexical discourse competence L1 a speaker’s first language (also: native language, mother tongue) L2 a speaker’s second language (also: foreign language) MT micro-teaching RP reflective practice TBLL task-based language learning TEFL teaching English as a foreign language TL target language Transcription Conventions T teacher S/ P student/ pupil (not identified) S1, S2, etc. identified student SSS several students at once or whole class = one turn follows another without any perceptible inter-turn pause (latching) (/ / ) simultaneous speech (2) length of a pause in seconds (.) pause of less than a second [nods] words/ phrases in these brackets indicate nonverbal or paralinguistic actions (e.g. a speaker’s gestures, voice modulation, actions etc.); these descriptions are given in order to gain a more detailed understanding of the teaching situation at hand […] these square brackets indicate that something has been omitted from the transcript so as to shorten it Whe: re a colon after a vowel is used to show that the sound is extended ↑ rising intonation ↓ falling intonation YOU words articulated with emphatic stress Part I - Introduction: Classroom Discourse and Classroom Discourse Competence Introduction Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) in Foreign Language Teaching and Language Teacher Education Katrin Thomson 1 Introduction: Volume Rationale This volume moves (E)FL teachers’ classroom discourse competence (CDC) center stage and emphasizes CDC’s vital importance to effective foreign language teaching and, consequently, to successful L2 student learning. Classroom dis‐ course, classroom interaction and classroom communication have been in the focus of researchers for many decades (cf. Walsh 2011: 1), with much of the work having come from (Applied) Linguistics. One of the main objectives of this volume is to further the scholarly discussion on classroom discourse and foreign language teacher education, which entails a marked shift of focus from learner to teacher competences. That is to say that in contrast to existing concepts (such as Galaczi/ Taylor’s (2018) interactional competence, Johnson’s (1995) classroom communicative competence or Walsh’s (e.g. 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014) classroom interactional competence), classroom discourse competence clearly and solely denotes a competence of foreign language teachers - not learners. Broadly speaking, language teachers, who have developed CDC, are able to structure and organize classroom discourse through professional use of the L2 (and other languages) in FL teaching and learning contexts. Language teachers’ (verbal) actions and classroom discourse tasks (including those in classroom management), then, are carried out purposefully and in ways that promote student learning. Moreover, teachers’ discoursal practices manifest themselves in classroom context-adapted decision-making, which - among other factors - is based on profound professional knowledge, pedagogic reflections and class‐ room discourse awareness. This (here only roughly mapped out) understanding 1 See Thomson’s chapter on “Conceptualizing L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC)” (in this volume) for a detailed elaboration. of CDC 1 rests on the premise that the quality of teacher talk in foreign language classroom discourse is of paramount importance for learners’ FL competence and achievement gains (Thomson 2020a). Teachers’ CDC, thus, goes far beyond the mere notion of L2 proficiency, communicative or interactional competence, as it always entails a pedagogical, professional dimension (cf. Widdowson 2002, Hallet 2006). It is apparent that a core competence like CDC requires theoretical conceptualization as well as systematic development in initial language teacher education. This volume seeks to tackle these issues, but by no means intends to be exhaustive. Any volume that conceptualizes classroom discourse competence as a profes‐ sional competence of language teachers is, of course, informed by the large body of international scholarly literature and research on foreign language teaching and learning, second language acquisition, classroom discourse, conversation analysis, language teacher education and other related areas. Tapping into these international perspectives as well, this volume however primarily focuses on the context-specific situation in Germany. Within this national context, language teachers’ professional competences in general have increasingly come into the focus of policy makers, researchers and teacher educators in recent years. This, however, does not necessarily hold true to the same extent for teachers’ professional L2 classroom discourse competences which, so far, have only played a marginal role in pre-service foreign language teacher education - and beyond (cf. García 2017). 2 On the Neglected Role of CDC in Language Teacher Education Teacher education at university level, which is the initial phase of teacher professionalization in Germany, primarily focuses on teacher candidates’ ac‐ quisition of specialist knowledge and competences in the school subjects they are going to teach later on. With regard to teaching degree programs in modern foreign languages such as English, French, Italian or Spanish, it is especially within the domains of linguistics, literary, cultural and media studies as well as within the field of general pedagogy and education that professional content knowledge (Fachwissen) and pedagogical knowledge (pädagogisches Wissen), respectively, is acquired. Furthermore, in tailor-made specialist courses on foreign language teaching (e.g. TEFL courses), prospective teachers are expected to gain pedagogical content knowledge (fachdidaktisches Wissen) and 14 Katrin Thomson develop expertise in various areas of language teaching such as lesson planning, practical implementations of CLT principles (like, for instance, student-activa‐ tion, task-orientation or differentiation), course book analysis, methodological approaches to teaching literature, culture, grammar, vocabulary etc., to name but a few. While teacher education programs at universities prioritize TEFL students’ acquisition of professional knowledge in the domains mentioned above, a core component of language teacher professionalism has been (and mostly still is) largely neglected: classroom discourse competence (CDC). There are several reasons for this: The past ten or fifteen years of research on foreign language teacher education in Germany have seen a remarkable increase in theoretical and empirical research activities with a strong focus on foreign language teachers’ professional knowledge. Researchers have been particularly interested in gaining deeper insights into the different types of knowledge (see above) that inform, determine or shape EFL teachers’ classroom actions and decision-making (e.g. Roters et al. 2011, Roters et al. 2013, Kirchhoff 2016). Roters et al. (2013), for instance, first specified the construct components of EFL teachers’ pedagog‐ ical content knowledge and, subsequently, operationalized this construct for the purpose of testing and evaluating (prospective) teachers’ knowledge in this particular domain. While researching and testing teachers’ professional knowledge is a challenging task in itself, theoretical modelling as well as the practical implementation and systematic assessment of teacher competences (such as CDC) presents even greater challenges to researchers and educators - considering the complexity of the construct ‘competence’ (e.g. Blömeke et al. 2015). Hence, for CDC to gain a more prominent role in EFL teacher education at university, a theoretical model is required which not only provides a structural framework for practical implementation at university level but also allows for operationalization in empirical research. With regard to foreign language teacher education in Germany, such a conceptual model or framework does however not yet exist. Another reason for teachers’ classroom discourse competences to remain on the sidelines of scholarly interest certainly has to do with a number of already existing concepts (such as Johnson’s (1995) classroom communicative competence or Walsh’s (e.g. 2011) classroom interactional competence), which might give the impression that there is no need to further pursue this line of enquiry if it would perhaps only generate ‘more of the same’ (cf. Bresges et al. 2014: 9). Without a doubt, especially Walsh’s work from an Applied Linguistics-perspective has been a major contribution to this research area and scholarly discussion. It certainly also informs many of the chapters in this 15 Introduction volume. However, Walsh’s conceptualization of CIC (classroom interactional competence) also has its limitations. First of all, it is the author himself who considers it to be of a “preliminary” (Walsh 2012: 1) and “initial” quality (Walsh 2012: 1 and 12, 2014: 5). Indeed, CIC is not a comprehensive competence model but rather describes a selection of “interactional strategies” (Walsh 2011: 177) which enable “teacher[s] and learner[s] […] to use interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning” (Walsh 2011: 158 and 165, 2012: 1 and 5, 2013: 46 and 51, 2014: 4, Walsh/ Li 2016: 495, italics KT). Referring to both teachers and learners, CIC, hence, is not conceptualized as a professional competence of language teachers. “CIC,” Walsh explains, “focuses on the ways in which teachers’ and learners’ interactional decisions and subsequent actions enhance learning and learning opportunity.” (Walsh 2011: 165 f.). In his work, the author analyzes “how teachers and learners display CIC” in authentic classroom data (ibid.: 166) and explores some possibilities of “how CIC can be developed in both teachers and learners” (ibid.: 177). Undeniably, this and other concepts are related to CDC in many ways and may also bear resemblance to it as far as terminology, or ‘labelling’, is concerned, but they do not exactly coincide with what CDC as a teacher competence refers to. It is in the nature of things that ‘preliminary’ work calls for further scholarly inquiry along these lines. Against this backdrop, the purpose of this volume, thus, is also to take into account existing concepts as well as the most recent developments in this field (e.g. Kuster et al. 2014, ECML 2019), in order to give further impetus to the scholarly discussion on classroom discourse and foreign language teacher education. Finally, the neglect of classroom discourse competences in teacher education can also be ascribed to a structural problem of teaching degree programs at universities in Germany. University students of foreign languages, literatures and cultures are usually required to take Sprachpraxiskurse, i.e. foreign language classes on grammar, phonetics/ phonology, oral presentation, academic writing etc. - regardless of whether they are enrolled in, for instance, North American Studies, Applied Linguistics or EFL teaching degree programs. Designed to increase students’ general and academic L2 proficiency, these courses do not only provide opportunities for acquiring linguistic knowledge about the target language system but also for improving foreign language skills through active language use and practice in academic contexts. However, specialized courses for teacher candidates are usually not part of these language proficiency pro‐ grams. Thus, the underlying implication of this approach is either that teachers’ L2 use in classroom settings is devoid of any professional dimension; or, that pro‐ fessional L2 classroom discourse competence somehow automatically evolves from a synthesis of declarative knowledge and foreign language proficiency 16 Katrin Thomson while teaching, and that it, therefore, does not require any systematic training. Whatever the underlying assumption may be, it is interesting that neither the current national standards of EFL teacher education in Germany (KMK 2019) nor existent models of EFL teachers’ professional competence (e.g. Roters et al. 2014) distinguish between general foreign language proficiency and teachers’ classroom discourse competence. Yet considering the deeper implications of for‐ eign language teachers’ tasks, (verbal) actions and responsibilities in classroom discourse, it becomes apparent that a differentiation between L2 proficiency and CDC is indeed necessary. From a purely language-related point of view, it is a fallacy to assume that a high level of L2 proficiency alone would qualify teachers to master the multitude of diverse and complex discoursal tasks in foreign language classrooms effectively. ‘L2 classroom discourse competence’ has different theoretical underpinnings than ‘foreign language competence’, because - to put it simply - the former is a context-specific professional competence whereas the latter is not. Any conceptualization of CDC and its subcompetences, therefore, presupposes a more detailed description of the discoursal context in which this competence is required - in this case: the educational context of foreign language education which is commonly, although not exclusively, embedded in the physical space of a classroom. In other words: In order to conceptualize CDC, it has to be clear what in fact is actually meant by ‘classroom discourse’. This clarity, however, cannot be taken for granted because the term ‘classroom discourse’ itself is used quite heterogeneously. Thus, it seems not only important but also necessary to shed some light on the term’s meaning and use in the context of this volume. 3 Defining ‘Classroom Discourse’ To begin with, the term discourse itself carries different implications. Ap‐ proaching it from an Applied Linguistics-perspective, ‘discourse’ (sometimes referred to as discourse with a small ‘d’) denotes “a longer stretc[h] of spoken or written language in context” (Walsh 2013: 23), and scholars addressing it from this angle are interested, for instance, in exploring the underlying structures or patterns of a sequence and in analyzing its discursive properties (cf. Hallet 2017, Janks/ Locke 2008). On the other hand, ‘discourse’ with a capital ‘D’ draws on Foucault’s work and refers to the sociocultural practices through which social, political, cultural etc. realities (truths and knowledge) are not only represented but also constituted and constructed by members of a discourse community (cf. Hallet 2017, Janks/ Locke 2008). Hence, notions of authority, power, and hierarchy are some of the related key concepts, which, if transferred 17 Introduction and applied to classroom discourse, allow for a close analysis and understanding of the otherwise hidden or unnoticed dynamics of classroom interaction and communication. With regard to foreign language teacher education and the conceptualization of classroom discourse competence, it is apparent that both meanings of ‘discourse’ need to be taken into account. As regards the term classroom discourse, matters are equally complex. First of all, ‘classroom discourse’ is often used synonymously and interchangeably with ‘classroom interaction’ and ‘classroom communication’ although these concepts are not congruent (see the contributions of Christ, Gnutzmann, and House in Bausch et al. 2000, Thomson 2020b). Strictly speaking, using them synonymously is not quite accurate, but not always evitable either - be it only for stylistic reasons. Complicating matters further, different meanings of the term ‘classroom discourse’ itself can be found as well. (a) In some publications, it is interpreted rather narrowly in that it only refers to the classroom language or classroom phrases required for managing classrooms. That is, ‘classroom discourse’ used in that sense does not encompass content-related classroom interaction (e.g. Klippel/ Doff 3 2012, Böttger 3 2020). (b) Others (e.g. Klippel 2003) define ‘classroom discourse’ in terms of language mode and class time: “Everything spoken in an English lesson makes up Classroom Discourse.” (ibid.: 56, italics KT). (c) There seems to be a strong tendency to equate ‘classroom discourse’ with teacher talk. Such approaches do recognize the key role of teachers in classroom discourse, but at the same time also reduce it conceptually to the realms of teacher talk, i.e. to the verbal actions of teachers, not necessarily also considering those of learners (e.g. Deters-Philipp 2018, Klippel 2003). (d) Finally, a broader, more holistic view on ‘classroom discourse’ - which is also favored here - acknowledges the concept’s complexity, multimodality and mediality (e.g. Hallet 2006, Hallet/ Königs 2010, Thomson 2020b, Tsui 2008). Tsui (2008: 261), for instance, provides the following definition: The term ‘classroom discourse’ […] refers to all forms of discourse that take place in the classroom. It encompasses the linguistic as well as the nonlinguistic elements of discourse. The former includes the language used by the teacher and the learners, as well as teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. The latter includes paralin‐ guistic gestures, prosody, and silence - all of which are integral parts of the discourse. Another conceptualization of ‘classroom discourse’ (see Fig. 1) ties in with Tsui’s but expands it by taking further important aspects into consideration as well: 18 Katrin Thomson Fig. 1: Classroom discourse in the context of foreign language education (Thomson 2020b: 7, adapted) ‘Classroom discourse’, as shown in Fig. 1, (#1) includes all interlocutors partic‐ ipating in the discourse processes. While in most cases this usually involves teachers and learners, it could also refer to invited guest speakers, co-teachers in school projects, prospective students etc. (#2) That said, ‘classroom discourse’ encompasses all communicative and interactional processes including monolog‐ ical formats (e.g. teacher talk in an extended input-phase, a student presentation) as well as dialogical formats with two or more interactants (e.g. between teacher —student and student—student). (#3) Furthermore, the notion of ‘classroom discourse’ is not restricted to the lesson context (i.e. the actual class time of usually 45 or 90 minutes) but transcends such temporal boundaries so as to acknowledge the fact that interaction and communication in the L2 may begin even before a lesson starts (e.g. greeting each other, T-S small talk, taking care of managerial issues etc.) and continue after a lesson has ended (e.g. extended teacher feedback to individual students, Q/ A on issues discussed during the lesson etc.). As Fig. 1 indicates (see the dotted line and arrows), the lesson context is embedded in the classroom context and both are closely intertwined, i.e. any discourse-related aspect may permeate from one into the other context. That is to say: valuable opportunities for (authentic) language use and language 19 Introduction learning can be created beyond the lesson bell if teachers are aware of the broader scope of L2 classroom discourse. (#4) Although ‘classroom discourse’ is often associated with the spoken/ oral discourse, it does refer to the written discourse as well. Students’ note-taking, the texts written into their folders, a teacher’s feedback or comments written in the margin of test papers, ideas collected on the blackboard/ whiteboard, hand-written notes secretly being passed among students etc. - all of these are forms, some overt/ covert, some public/ private, that shape and impact classroom discourse. (#5) As far as spoken classroom discourse is concerned, nonverbal and paralinguistic features have to be taken into consideration as well. In language teaching/ learning contexts, this is far more than a footnote because, if used effectively, nonverbal elements (such as facial expressions, gestures, gaze, positioning and movements within the physical classroom space), posture and proximity can enhance comprehension, encourage students to participate and help to structure the discourse for lan‐ guage learners. Likewise, paralinguistic aspects (such as pace, pausing, silences, volume, pitch variation, prosody, intonation, articulation etc.) allow teachers to flexibly adjust their utterances to the individual needs and proficiency levels of their learners. (#6) Classroom discourse, as defined here, comprises on-topic as well as off-topic interaction and communication. On-topic classroom discourse sub‐ sumes all forms of content-focused communication/ interaction taking place on the main level of discourse (e.g. a class discussion about a literary text or a cultural phenomenon, students explaining structural regularities which they may have discovered in new grammatical forms). Off-topic communication/ in‐ teraction relates to managerial and procedural issues dealt with on the level of classroom management (e.g. room management, seating arrangements, task instructions, classroom disruptions etc.). This distinction, however, does not imply that only on-topic discourse would facilitate language learning. Quite the contrary (see Thomson’s chapter on “L2 classroom management competence”). (#7) In classroom discourse, communicative and interactional processes do not take place within a spatial vacuum but rather in a concrete teaching and learning environment with a multitude of materials/ resources (e.g. worksheets, posters, coursebooks, dictionaries), media (e.g. blackboard, projector, CD player) and objects (e.g. pieces of classroom furniture). Explicit references to those entities are made frequently, especially in the managerial classroom discourse, and it is often through their integrated use in classroom work that learning and teaching processes develop and proceed. Teaching/ learning materials and media in particular can take on an (inter-)active role in the discourse - Hallet (2006: 76) speaks of ‘didactic entities’ (“didaktisch[e] Instanz[en]”) - if they pre-select 20 Katrin Thomson learning content, provide task instructions and explanations, structure students’ working process and the lesson as such. (#8) The most important factor in classroom discourse is, of course, language itself. In foreign language education, L2 learning cannot be facilitated if teachers do not use the target language effectively, consistently and with pedagogical intention. Nor does L2 learning take place if language learners, for whatever reasons, do not communicate and interact in the foreign language. Thus, the preferred language to be used is the L2. In foreign language classrooms, though, there is always at least one more language that permeates, influences and shapes the discourse in various ways: the teacher’s and/ or students’ L1. That is to say, ‘classroom discourse’ in language teaching/ learning contexts does not only refer to the target language to be learned, but to any other language spoken by the teacher and individual students in a particular learner group (e.g. heritage languages, second or other foreign languages already acquired etc.). Hence, in multilingual and/ or culturally diverse classrooms, additional languages (L3, L4 etc.) can serve as linguistic resources that teachers and learners can tap into. It is for this particular reason that the term ‘L2 classroom discourse’ finds its German equivalent in fremdsprachenunterrichtlicher Diskurs - rather than fremdsprachlicher Unterrichtsdiskurs, although both types exist and may overlap, of course. This distinction is a crucial one because it takes account of the language diversity that teachers and students may potentially encounter in foreign language classroom discourse, and it acknowledges the important role that especially the L1 may play in certain lesson contexts. Thus, it rejects the idea that L2 classroom discourse solely encompasses interaction and communication in the foreign language. From a teacher’s perspective, mastering all classroom discourse-related teacher tasks in ways that are conducive to student learning thus requires a high level of L2 classroom discourse competence (CDC). This term, then, has its equivalent in fremdsprachenunterrichtliche Diskurskompetenz - not fremdsprachliche Unterrichtsdiskurskompetenz. 4 Structure and Content: The Contributions in this Volume This volume on classroom discourse competence (CDC) is divided into three parts and consists of a total of fifteen chapters. The contributing authors in this book approach CDC from different angles and discuss selected issues. What all of these contributions share, however, is their focus on English language teaching/ learning and the question of how CDC and its related sub-competences can be promoted in the context of pre-service EFL teacher education at univer‐ sity level. 21 Introduction The opening section (Part I - Introduction: Classroom Discourse and Classroom Discourse Competence) lays the theoretical and conceptual foundation of this book. Following this introductory chapter, which presents the rationale and scope of this volume, the editor then addresses the issue of CDC development in language teacher education. Katrin Thomson argues that apart from general foreign language competence, (prospective) language teachers also need to acquire CDC since target language proficiency as such does not enable language teachers to professionally perform the complex discoursal tasks required of them in the FL classroom. Thomson first proposes a revised and expanded model of FL teachers’ professional competence and then, against this backdrop, ‘zooms into’ this model to present her conceptualization and definition of CDC. In the second section (Part II - Exploring the Facets of L2 Classroom Discourse Competence), the focus is on selected classroom discourse phe‐ nomena and specific sub-dimensions of CDC which (prospective) EFL teachers are eventually required to master. The chapter by Anna Rosen illustrates the vital importance of high-quality teacher talk for students’ development of conversational skills in the target language. Drawing on research findings which suggest that conversational features (such as discourse markers, question tags or stance markers) are underused in teacher talk, Rosen shows in her transcript analyses that when they do occur they are likely to lead to learner uptake in classroom discourse. Based on her findings the author points out some of the implications for English language teaching and teacher education. Among other recommendations, Rosen suggests that pre-service teacher education programs need to provide possibilities for awareness-raising and the acquisition of knowledge about conversational features and discourse strategies. Ralf Gießler focuses on lexical classroom discourse (LCD), i.e. a specific type of classroom discourse that aims to support students’ lexical learning. As regards the language learners’ perspective, developing lexical competence, the author argues, implies more than learning about word meanings. Foreign language learners also need to gain a deep understanding of a word’s form and use, its pronunciation, collocations etc. From a teacher’s perspective, mastering the complex and challenging tasks of ‘robust vocabulary instruction’, thus, requires a high command of LCD skills. In the context of university-level teacher education, these skills - the author suggests - can be developed if prospective teachers are given opportunities to explore and discuss the dimensions of vocabulary teaching/ learning in L2 classroom discourse. As Gießler’s chapter and case studies in particular show, this can be achieved by using video-recorded 22 Katrin Thomson lesson sequences in combination with individual written analyses (IWAs) of these vignettes. Video-based classroom data allows student teachers to investigate and reflect upon the teachers’ classroom discourse moves that may support (or hinder) lexical learning in specific classroom situations. Considering the importance of lexical learning in foreign language education, this chapter underlines the necessity to sensitize and prepare prospective teachers for the challenging tasks they will encounter in L2 lexical classroom discourse. In their chapter, Jochen Baier and Emily Brehm address the challenges that EFL teacher face in L2 literary classroom discourse. Structuring, orchestrating and shaping whole-class discussions about literary texts requires professional discourse competences which prospective teachers, the authors argue, need to develop systematically. Baier and Brehm emphasize that even with a native speaker-like command of English, scaffolding literary classroom discourse is quite difficult as it goes far beyond the notion of merely initiating follow-up communication with learners after having read a text. Apart from linguistic aspects, these challenges arise, they explain, from the theoretical frictions between opposing literary theories (such as New Criticism and Response Theory), which ultimately also inform different methodological approaches to teaching (with) literature in foreign language classrooms. Teachers, for instance, need to find ways to integrate and ‘reconcile’ cognitive-analytical and individual response-oriented approaches in literary classroom discourse. Further issues, such as the heterogeneity within learner groups or students’ altered reading habits in the era of digitalization, present further challenges that teachers are required to respond to in literary discourse. The use of scaffolding techniques such as prompting can be effective means to enhance student learning. Baier and Brehm categorize different types of prompts and discuss their functions and potentially beneficial effects on student-activation in L2 literary discourse. Using Kate Chopin’s “The Story of an Hour” as an example, the authors illustrate how prompts can be used to get language learners engaged in classroom discourse. Prospective EFL teachers, they conclude, would profit from training programs in which the development of L2 literary discourse competence, including the effective use of scaffolding strategies like prompting, would play a more prominent role. Turning to another subtype of CDC, Katrin Thomson focuses on teachers’ discourse competence in L2 classroom management contexts. In light of the conceptual changes that the notion of ‘classroom management’ (CM) has under‐ gone since the 1960s, Thomson pleads for a stronger consideration of CM issues in the subject-specific domain of EFL teacher education. Her conceptualization of L2 CM competence challenges previous views that assume that ‘classroom 23 Introduction management’ is exclusively linked to teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge. The author pinpoints the distinctive characteristics of CM discourse in ELT and shows that, in spite of the concept’s transdisciplinary nature, a subject-specific approach to developing L2 CM competences is required as well if prospective EFL teachers are supposed to master the multitude of discourse tasks which they will encounter in managerial contexts. Charlott Falkenhagen and Sieglinde Spath focus on teacher discourse competences in CLIL settings. Based on the notion that CLIL contexts require specific professional discourse competences, the authors use authentic class‐ room data from CLIL music/ English lessons in order to examine the functions and effects of certain discourse features (such as the amount of teacher talking time, teacher code-switching and the implementation of IRF patterns) in this pedagogical context. In view of the particular challenges that L2 learners encounter in CLIL classrooms, Falkenhagen and Spath stress the importance of teachers’ CLIL discourse competence and argue that EFL/ CLIL teachers require professional training to successfully combine language and content learning. Shifting the focus to a different subtype of classroom discourse competence, Katalin Schober’s chapter draws attention to the challenges that L2 classroom discourse in inclusive settings presents to foreign language teacher and learners alike. Focusing on hearing-impaired language learners in particular, Schober explains why EFL teachers need to acquire not only expert knowledge on inclusive classroom discourse, but also the skills and competences which enable teachers to use inclusive discourse strategies in order to meet and effectively respond to the special needs of hearing-impaired learners. For instance, lan‐ guage teachers in inclusive settings need to develop a nuanced understanding of certain discourse phenomema (such as code-switching and echoing) which have been subject to much critical discussion in other language teaching contexts. Emphasizing the importance of EFL teachers’ reflective-interactional competence and discoursal flexibility in inclusive classroom settings, the author pleads for a stronger and more adequate consideration of inclusive classroom discourse issues in pre-service teacher education programs at university level. The seven chapters in the third section (Part III - Practical Approaches to CDC Development in Pre-Service Teacher Education) present a variety of digital tools and resources as well as field-tested seminar modules and course concepts, all of which have been designed to foster prospective teachers’ CDC. The contributions in this section provide valuable insights into the practical work of TEFL teacher educators at university level, which may serve as inspi‐ ration for teacher educators and/ or teacher trainers in similar settings. What is more, these contributions demonstrate that CDC development at pre-service 24 Katrin Thomson stage has recently received somewhat greater attention - be it in the context of single seminar sessions, supervised school placements or full-fledged TEFL courses that are dedicated entirely to fostering student teachers’ CDC. Addressing the issue of technologically and digitally supported teacher edu‐ cation, René Koglbauer, Jon Haines and Paul Seedhouse introduce the Video Enhanced Observation (VEO) app. The authors explain how the app works, describe its features and illustrate ways of using the app in various contexts and phases of foreign language teacher education. Focusing particularly on the observation and analysis of classroom discourse and teacher talk, the video-recorded classroom data may serve as a basis for critical self-reflection and a constructive, professional dialogue between observed (pre-service) teachers and their teacher educators. Drawing on the concept of reflective practice, Kogl‐ bauer and his co-authors argue that using video-recordings of student teachers’ own teaching experience in post-lesson analysis and discussion provides val‐ uable opportunities for systematic, structured and focused reflection-on-action as observed teachers do not have to rely on their memory but can relate to empirical evidence of their actual teaching practices in language classrooms. Karen Glaser introduces the reader to a videography research project on classroom discourse competence (CDC) which primary school TEFL students conduct in the context of a school internship module. Glaser describes the general structure and objectives of her students’ research projects and, on the basis of two select student samples, illustrates how specific videography assignments on teachers’ instruction-giving and feedback behavior respectively can foster students’ analytical and reflective skills with regard to classroom discourse phenomena in the EFL primary school classroom. Referring to the positive outcome of these videography assignments, Glaser concludes that small-scale research projects on classroom interaction, teacher and student talk - if preceded or accompanied by university TEFL seminars/ lectures - can foster student teachers’ classroom discourse competence and raise classroom discourse awareness. Holger Limberg discusses the potential of classroom corpora in EFL teacher education at university level. Focusing on primary school education, he argues that a qualitative approach to lesson transcripts increases student teachers’ professional knowledge and leads to a deeper understanding of how EFL pri‐ mary school teachers implement the principles and methods of FLT in classroom discourse. Limberg uses transcript samples from the Primary English Classroom Corpus (PECC) to illustrate how analyzing and discussing authentic spoken discourse can foster prospective teachers’ awareness of discourse patterns in primary school language education. Classroom corpora, Limberg points out, 25 Introduction are a valuable tool for EFL teacher professionalization as they provide student teachers with opportunities to explore specific aspects of classroom discourse, analyze patterns of use and discuss how teachers’ verbal actions may affect student learning. In a similar vein, Olaf Jäkel also focuses on the use of classroom corpora in language teacher education. Drawing on transcript data from the author’s own classroom corpus (FLECC), Jäkel provides detailed analyses of year 5 lesson transcripts. He ‘revisits an old acquaintance’, as the author himself puts it: the IRF exchange structure, which has attracted much scholarly interest for decades both in Applied Linguistics and in foreign language education research. The IRF pattern has also been at the centre of much critical debate. On the one hand, the IRF exchange structure has been criticized not only for rendering classroom discourse monotonous, mechanical, and predictable, but also for minimizing opportunities for genuine communication in language classrooms. On the other hand, it has been noted that in certain lesson contexts its use can support students’ language learning (see also Limberg’s chapter). Jäkel returns to this particular discourse pattern in order to illustrate that the IRF structure can be used to serve multiple purposes (such as giving formand content-focused feedback, expressing appreciation of learner contributions, incorporating repair work), provided that EFL teachers are aware of these different functions. Taking transcript analyses of IRF sequences as an example, Jäkel emphasizes the merits of using authentic classroom discourse corpora and - like Limberg - pleads for an increased use of such data in university TEFL seminars. Gabriele Blell and Friederike von Bremen describe the purpose and design of the VirtU learning module project in which student teachers of TEFL observe, analyze and discuss video vignettes recorded in authentic EFL classrooms. Aiming to promote prospective teachers’ reflective competence with regard to classroom discourse, the core component of this project lies in the use of tailor-made educational resources (tasks and guiding questions for video analysis and reflection). In their chapter, the authors explain the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of their task designs and then present two specific samples which focus on different teacher tasks in L2 classroom discourse: giving instructions and hosting a class discussion. Having made classroom discourse competence one of her major scholarly concerns not only in research but also in practical EFL teacher education at pre-service stage, Katrin Thomson presents ClaDis - a course concept which she designed and implemented at university level to foster student teachers’ CDC. Drawing on key concepts which presently inform language teacher educa‐ tion (including the construct of teachers’ professional knowledge, professional 26 Katrin Thomson vision, data-led classroom research and reflective practice), Thomson explains the complex theoretical underpinnings and conceptual framework of ClaDis. First presenting the three pillars which form the foundation of ClaDis (knowl‐ edge—reflection—practice), Thomson then shows what specifically each of these pillars entails in terms of actual course work and TEFL students’ competence gains. In her chapter, she incorporates selected extracts from two student teacher samples (by Anna Bichlmaier and Chiara Ballmann-Noukra) in order to illustrate the potential of this course concept to effectively and sustainably contribute to the development of CDC in the context of initial teacher educa‐ tion. Bichlmaier transcribed a self-selected video vignette and analyzed the teacher’s instruction-giving while teaching 9 th -grade students (‘other-data’). Ballmann-Noukra transcribed and analyzed a video-recorded micro-teaching sequence (simulating a lesson lead-in in 12 th grade) which she had prepared and subsequently taught in one of the ClaDis seminar sessions (‘self-data’). With the intention of giving greater recognition to students’ course work and achievements, both students were invited by the author to publish the written accounts of their individual course assignments as online supplements to this chapter. Full-length versions of their papers are accessible via the publisher’s website (www.meta.narr.de/ 9783823383741/ Zusatzmaterial.zip). In the last chapter of this section, Sandra Stadler-Heer presents a course concept which aims to foster prospective primary school teachers’ L2 class‐ room discourse competence through reflective practice (RP) and the use of video-taped micro-teaching (MT) sequences. Course participants, Stadler-Heer explains, are required to design and perform two different MT sequences, each one embedded in teaching/ learning contexts that are characteristic for the EFL primary school classroom: story-telling and game-based teaching/ learning. The course concept, thus, combines aspects of lesson planning, teaching English to young learners and L2 classroom discourse. Focusing particulary on the development of TEFL students’ reflective competences, Stadler-Heer gives special attention to the various ways of how this can be achieved in the context of pre-service language teacher education (i.e. through post-MT ad-hoc self-re‐ flections, oral peer reflections, written self-reflections using the stimulated recall method). A full transcript of a student’s ad-hoc self-reflection and further material has been made available by the author and can be downloaded from the publisher’s website (www.meta.narr.de/ 9783823383741/ Zusatzmaterial.zip). * In a volume that addresses theoretical, conceptual as well as practical issues of classroom discourse competence and EFL teacher education, it is clearly 27 Introduction impossible to cover every facet of the topic or to include the entire body of literature that informs the academic discourse in this field. Thus, this book cannot and does not claim to be exhaustive. It is the editor’s hope, however, that the chapters in this volume will both enrich and further advance the scholarly discussion of CDC. TEFL researchers, university teacher educators, teacher trainers and (prospective) language teachers will hopefully find value in this volume as it may provide them with new insights about the complexity of teachers’ CDC and/ or fresh ideas for the various professional contexts individual readers are involved in. Bibliography Bausch, Karl-Richard et al. (Eds.) (2000). Interaktion im Kontext des Lehrens und Lernens fremder Sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Blömeke, Sigrid et al. (2015). “Beyond Dichotomies: Competence Viewed as a Con‐ tinuum.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie 223: 1, 3-13. Böttger, Heiner (2020). Englisch lernen in der Grundschule. 3 rd , rev. ed. Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt. Bresges, André et al. (2014). “Einleitung.” In: Bresges, André et al. (Eds.), Kompetenzen diskursiv: Terminologische, exemplarische und strukturelle Klärungen in der LehrerIn‐ nenbildung. Münster: Waxmann, 9-14. Christ, Herbert (2000). “Die Dimension ‘Interaktion’ bei der Erforschung des Lehrens und Lernens fremder Sprachen.” In: Bausch, Karl-Richard et al. (Eds.), 59-67. Deters-Philipp, Ann-Cathrin (2018). Lehrersprache im Englischunterricht an deutschen Grundschulen. Eine Interviewstudie mit Lehrkräften. Münster: Waxmann. ECML European Centre for Modern Languages (2019). Teacher Competences for Languages in Education: Conclusions of the Project. Council of Eu‐ rope. Online. URL: www.ecml.at/ Portals/ 1/ 5MTP/ Bleichenbacher/ CEF RLT-conclu‐ sions-EN.pdf ? ver=2019-11-29-150323-533 (last access: 11.10.2021). Galaczi, Evelina/ Taylor, Lynda (2018). “Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions.” Language Assessment Quarterly 15: 3, 219-236. García, Marta (2017). “Unterrichtsinteraktion.” In: Surkamp, Carola (Ed.), Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik. Ansätze - Methoden - Grundbegriffe. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 361. Gnutzmann, Claus (2000). “Interaktion im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Forschungsgegen‐ stand und Zielsetzung.” In: Bausch, Karl-Richard et al. (Eds.), 89-96. 28 Katrin Thomson Hallet, Wolfgang (2017). “Diskursfähigkeit.” In: Surkamp, Carola (Ed.), Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik. Ansätze - Methoden - Grundbegriffe. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 48-49. Hallet, Wolfgang (2006). Didaktische Kompetenzen. Lehr- und Lernprozesse erfolgreich gestalten. Stuttgart: Klett. Hallet, Wolfgang/ Königs, Frank G. (2010). “Classroom discourse und Interaktion.” In: Hallet, Wolfgang/ Königs, Frank G. (Eds.), Handbuch Fremdsprachendidaktik. Seelze-Velber: Klett Kallmeyer, 190-195. House, Juliane (2000). “Interaktion und Fremdsprachenunterricht.” In: Bausch, Karl-Ri‐ chard et al. (Eds.), 111-118. Janks, Hilary/ Locke, Terry (2008). “Discourse Awareness in Education: A Critical Per‐ spective.” In: Hornberger, Nancy H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 6: Knowledge about Language. 2 nd ed. Boston: Springer, 31-43. Johnson, Karen E. (1995). Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirchhoff, Petra (2016). “Was sollte eine gute Englischlehrkraft wissen? Über die Auswahl von Items im FALKO-E Test zum fachspezifischen Professionswissen.” In: Legutke, Michael K./ Schart, Michael (Eds.), Fremdsprachendidaktische Professionsforschung: Brennpunkt Lehrerbildung. Tübingen: Narr Verlag, 75-98. Klippel, Friederike (2003). “Teaching English - Teacher Language in Primary School.” In: Hermes, Liesel/ Klippel, Friederike (Eds.), Früher oder später? Englisch in der Grundschule und Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht. Berlin: Langenscheidt, 53-68. Klippel, Friederike/ Doff, Sabine (2012). Englischdidaktik. Praxishandbuch für die Sekun‐ darstufe I und II. 3 rd ed. Berlin: Cornelsen. KMK (2019). Ländergemeinsame inhaltliche Anforderungen für die Fachwissenschaften und Fachdidaktiken in der Lehrerbildung. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 16.10.2008 i.d.F. vom 16.05.2019. Online. URL: www.kmk.org/ fileadmin/ Dateien/ ver oeffentlichungen_beschluesse/ 2008/ 2008_10_16-Fachprofile-Lehrerbildung.pdf (last access: 11.10.2021). Kuster, Wilfrid et al. (2014). Berufsspezifische Sprachkompetenzprofile für Lehrper‐ sonen für Fremdsprachen. PH St. Gallen. Projektwebsite. Online. URL: www.phs g.ch/ de/ forschung/ projekte/ berufsspezifische-sprach kompetenzprofile-fuer-lehrper‐ sonen-fuer-fremdsprachen (last access: 11.10.2021). Roters, Bianca et al. (2014). “Professionelle Kompetenz von angehenden Englischlehr‐ kräften (PKE).” Poster präsentiert auf der Eröffnungsfeier des Interdisziplinären Zentrums für empirische LehrerInnen- und Unterrichtsforschung (IZeF) der Univer‐ sität zu Köln am 17.01.2014. Online. URL: www.hf.uni-koeln.de/ 36292 (last access: 11.10.2021). 29 Introduction Roters, Bianca et al. (2013). “Fachdidaktisches Wissen angehender Englischlehrkräfte - Theoretischer Rahmen und empirische Ergebnisse zur Struktur eines Testinstru‐ ments.” Lehrerbildung auf dem Prüfstand 6: 2, 155-177. Roters, Bianca et al. (2011). “Professionelles Wissen von Studierenden des Lehramts Englisch.” In: Blömeke, Sigrid et al. (Eds.), Kompetenzen von Lehramtsstudierenden in gering strukturierten Domänen. Erste Ergebnisse aus TEDS-LT. Münster: Waxmann, 77-99. Thomson, Katrin (2020a). “Teacher Talk matters: Lehrersprache im Englischunterricht lernförderlich einsetzen.” Themenheft ‘Unterrichtsdiskurs’. Praxis Fremdsprachenun‐ terricht: Englisch 17: 4, 4-8. Thomson, Katrin (2020b). “Classroom Discourse im fremdsprachenunterrichtlichen Kon‐ text: Gegenstandsbereiche - Einflussfaktoren - Kompetenzentwicklung.” Basisartikel. Themenheft ‘Unterrichtsdiskurs’. Praxis Fremdsprachenunterricht 17: 4, 6-9. Thomson, Katrin (in this volume). “Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC): A Key Competence in Foreign Language Teaching.” In: Ibid. (Ed.), Classroom Discourse Competence: Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education. Tübingen: Narr. Tsui, Amy B.M. (2008). “Classroom Discourse: Approaches and Perspectives.” In: Horn‐ berger, Nancy H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 6: Knowledge about Language. 2 nd ed. Boston: Springer, 261-272. Walsh, Steve (2014). “Developing Classroom Interactional Competence.” Language Issues 25: 1, 4-8. Walsh, Steve (2013). Classroom Discourse and Teacher Development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Walsh, Steve (2012). “Conceptualising Classroom Interactional Competence.” Novitas: Research on Youth and Language 6: 1, 1-14. Walsh, Steve (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London/ New York: Routledge. Walsh, Steve/ Li, Li (2016). “Classroom Talk, Interaction and Collaboration.” In: Hall, Graham (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching. London/ New York: Routledge, 486-498. Widdowson, H.G. (2002). “Language Teaching: Defining the Subject.” In: Trappes-Lomax, Hugh/ Ferguson, Gibson (Eds.), Language in Language Teacher Education. Am‐ sterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 67-81. 30 Katrin Thomson Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC): A Key Competence in Foreign Language Teaching Katrin Thomson Existing models of FL teachers’ professional competence mark L2 competence as an important component of language teacher professionalism - along with the different types of professional knowledge as defined by Shulman (1986, 1987). Target language proficiency as such, however, does not automatically enable language teachers to professionally perform the complex discoursal tasks required of them in the L2 classroom. FL teachers also need to develop L2 classroom discourse competence (CDC) if interactional and communicative processes in classroom contexts are supposed to be effective and promote student learning. In this chapter, I will first revisit existing conceptualizations of language teachers’ professional competence in order to explain the rationale for expanding and revising those so as to mark CDC not simply as an additional but arguably the most crucial competence in foreign language teaching. I will then present my conceptualization of CDC and - synthesizing the issues discussed here - conclude this chapter with a definition of CDC. 1 Introduction: (Language) Teachers’ Professional Competence The past ten or so years have seen a marked shift from conceptualizing, assessing and evaluating learner competences towards defining and researching teachers’ professional competences - especially within the academic fields of general pedagogy and education (cf. König 2014: 22), but also increasingly so in individual subject domains such as TEFL. This ever-growing interest in teachers’ professional competences is, for instance, reflected in scholarly discussions about how ‘professional competence’ can be defined and concep‐ tualized. Aiming to systematically capture those factors and aspects that shape and influence teachers’ professional competence, generic competence models have been developed (e.g. Baumert/ Kunert 2006, Blömeke 2011, Blömeke et al. 2015). These are based on two general notions: (1) ‘Professional competence’ is a highly complex, multidimensional construct. It develops gradually and along a continuum. (2) Teachers’ cognitive resources (i.e. different types of knowledge), affective dispositions (i.e. teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, values etc.) and skills (i.e. teachers’ abilities to strategically and adequately use their intrapersonal resources in specific classroom situations) need to be considered as core dimensions of teacher professionalism (cf. Baumert/ Kunter 2006: 481). There is widespread consensus that teachers’ professional knowledge plays a crucial role in gaining professional competence. Thus, in seeking to further define teachers’ complex professional competence in the school subjects they teach, much attention has been directed to conceptualizing and researching teachers’ professional knowledge and its subtypes. In the scholarly discourse in Germany, Shulman’s (1987) taxonomy with its distinction between content knowledge (CK, Fachwissen), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK, fachdidak‐ tisches Wissen) and general pedagogical knowledge (GPK, allgemeines pädago‐ gisches Wissen) has proven to be most influential in the past few years (see Fig. 1). Fig. 1: Teachers’ Professional Knowledge (based on Shulman 1987) Here, Shulman’s work has prompted researchers of various academic disciplines to specify (and test) these different knowledge repositories. With regard to TEFL and EFL teacher education, the research projects by Roters et al. (2011), Roters et al. (2013) and Kirchhoff (2016, 2017) are particularly noteworthy as they have made a major contribution to gaining a more precise understanding of what constitutes EFL teachers’ professional knowledge. Research along these lines is increasingly developing in Germany (cf. Legutke/ Schart 2016: 13). For a more differentiated and comprehensive exploration of EFL teachers’ professional competence, however, other components than Shulman’s categories have to be taken into account as well. This includes, first and foremost, teachers’ classroom discourse competence (CDC) which is considered here as a key competence of foreign language teachers. Going far beyond the mere notion 32 Katrin Thomson 1 For a detailed definition and conceptualization of CDC see section 3 in this chapter. of teachers’ L2 proficiency, CDC denotes language teachers’ competence “to structure and organize classroom discourse through professional use of the L2 (and other languages) in FL teaching and learning contexts. Language teachers’ (verbal) actions and classroom discourse tasks, then, are carried out purposefully and in ways that promote student learning. Moreover, teachers’ discoursal practices manifest themselves in classroom context-adapted decision-making, which - among other factors - is based on extensive professional knowledge, pedagogic reflections and discourse awareness.” (Thomson, “Introduction”, this volume). 1 Such an understanding of CDC clearly implies that mastering classroom discourse tasks in the foreign language classroom requires more than just general target language proficiency. There is a pedagogical, i.e. professional dimension to CDC, which however has received too little attention in the scholarly discussion so far. 2 Overview: Existing Concepts, Recent Developments and Current Challenges 2.1 Target Language Proficiency vs. L2 Classroom Discourse Competence - Terminological Issues In scholarly discussions about FL-related dimensions of language teachers’ pro‐ fessional competence, a plethora of different terms and concepts has emerged. These include, among others: teachers’ ‘linguistic skills’, ‘linguistic abilities’, ‘linguistic competences’ (all in Kuster et al. 2014a), ‘classroom interactional competence’ (Walsh 2006 and ff.), ‘target language proficiency’ (Richards et al. 2013), ‘profession-related language competence’ (Kuster et al. 2014a), ‘class‐ room discourse competence’ (Thomson 2020a), or with regard to publications in German, ‘(didaktische) kommunikative Kompetenzen (Hallet 2006), ‘Sprach‐ können in der Fremdsprache’ (KMK 2019), ‘Sprachkompetenz’ (Bleichenbacher et al. 2016), ‘sprachpraktische Kompetenzen’, ‘sprachpraktische Fähigkeiten’ (both in Roters et al. 2013), ‘sprachliche Handlungsfähigkeit’ (Roters et al. 2014) and ‘fremdsprachenunterrichtliche Diskurskompetenz’ (see Thomson, “Introduction” in this volume) - to name but a few. This variety of different labels is an indicator of a certain terminological and conceptual indeterminacy as regards the question of what language-related aspects actually contribute to teachers’ professionalism. After all, terms such as ‘language proficiency’ or ‘linguistic skills’ on the one hand carry different implications than, for instance, ‘profes‐ sion-related language competence’ or ‘classroom discourse competence’ on the 33 Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) 2 KMK stands for ‘Kultusministerkonferenz’ and refers to the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the 16 Federal States in Germany. other: the latter denote context-specific professional competences with a clearly marked pedagogical dimension. This dimension, however, is missing from the first two terms (‘language proficiency’, ‘linguistic skills’), as is the aspect of context-specificity, i.e. the context of the language classroom, including its related learning environments beyond those spatial boundaries. Hence, it would be somewhat problematic to use these terms synonymously or to ignore the professional, pedagogical dimension in teachers’ classroom discourse competence altogether. This however seems to be the case, for instance, in the KMK  2 National Standards for Teacher Education in Foreign Languages in Germany (KMK 2019), where only one reference is made - not to FL teachers’ professional classroom discourse competence but - to the level of L2 proficiency that pre-service teachers are expected to have reached by the end of phase 1: “University graduates have acquired in-depth linguistic knowledge [‘Sprachwissen’] and ‘native speaker-like’ L2 proficiency [‘‘nativnahes’ Sprachkönnen’]; they are able to maintain this level and constantly refresh their foreign language competence.” (ibid.: 44; translation KT). Apparently, the underlying assumption here is that, from a linguistic point of view, native speaker-like (or C2+) proficiency in the target language is the determining factor for successful or effective teaching. The quoted passage above also suggests that EFL teachers’ preferably ‘native-like’ L2 language use within classroom settings is apparently no different from target language use in everyday real-world communication - or, if this distinction was indeed implied in the above quote, that teacher candidates would somehow automatically be able to (a) recognize these differences and (b) transform general L2 use into “pedagogically processed” language (Widdowson 2002: 77), i.e. the kind of language that is conducive to FL learning in classroom settings, the kind of language that activates learners, the kind of language “which has been pedagogically treated so that it is made less alien and more accessible to learners” (ibid.: 78). The importance of this ‘professional dimension’ in teacher talk and teacher-navigated classroom discourse has, by and large, been neglected in teacher education programs and in conceptualizations of EFL teachers’ profes‐ sional competence as well. More than fifteen years ago, Hallet (2006), for instance, emphasized the vital importance of teachers’ ‘professional discourse competence’, yet at the same time found that most competence models up until then did not even explicitly mention it. The author, therefore, concluded: 34 Katrin Thomson Actually, […] [discourse competence] deserves to receive more attention and ought to be given a central position in every competence model, given the fact that all processes of teaching and learning are language-based and […] therefore rely on continual communication and negotiation between all classroom participants. […] A precise description of this competence is required for it to gain a professional dimension and to move beyond the notion of everyday communication.” (Hallet 2006: 127, 129, 130; translation and emphasis KT) In foreign language teacher education and research in Germany, both of these calls have remained unanswered so far. While Shulman’s taxonomy (see Fig. 1) has been expanded to now also include a ‘linguistic component’ (“Sprachliche Handlungsfähigkeit”) in Roters et al.’s (2014) model of EFL teachers’ professional competence (see Fig. 2), the necessary distinction between teachers’ general foreign language communicative competence and a professional L2 classroom discourse competence is not made there. CK PCK GPK ‘ability to use English English language in action’ Fig. 2: EFL Teachers’ Professional Competence and Professional Knowledge (Roters et al. 2014, based on Shulman 1987) Moreover, this form of visualization puts teachers’ “sprachliche Handlungsfä‐ higkeit” on the same level with the different types of knowledge that (pro‐ spective) EFL teachers need to acquire. Whether or not this form of visual representation is appropriate is in fact a question worth tackling. Thus, the stance taken here is that (a) a distinction has to be made between ‘language competence’ and ‘classroom discourse competence’ (CDC) if a professional dimension is to be taken into account, and that (b) a conceptualization of CDC does not only call for a ‘precise definition’ of its components but also for a visual representation in which it is ‘given a more central position’ that reflects its key role in EFL teacher professionalism. 35 Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) 2.2 Existing Concepts and their Limitations - Conceptual Issues Classroom communication and classroom interaction have been in the focus of researchers for a considerable amount of time (Schwab et al. 2017). Theoret‐ ical conceptualizations of these constructs and their respective competences have emerged from this. Existing concepts such as Johnson’s (1995) classroom communicative competence (CCC) or Walsh’s (e.g. 2011) classroom interactional competence (CCC) certainly offer valuable conceptual frameworks which allow for a deeper understanding of the processes involved in foreign language class‐ room communication and interaction as well as of the skills and competences required to participate in these. They do not, however, relate exclusively to FL teachers’ professional discourse competence (also see Thomson, “Introduction” in this volume). Johnson’s notion of CCC, for instance, clearly denotes a language learner competence which enables them “to participate in and learn from their second language classroom experience” (1995: 6). Johnson defines CCC as “the knowl‐ edge and competencies that second language students need in order to partic‐ ipate in, learn from, and acquire a second language in the classroom” (ibid.: 160), and adds that CCC needs to be understood as “students’ knowledge of and competence in the structural, functional, social, and interactional norms that govern classroom communication” (ibid.: 160 and 168). Shifting the focus from language learners to both language learners and teachers, Walsh’s CIC relates to “interactional strategies” (2011: 177) which enable “teacher[s] and learner[s] […] to use interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning” (ibid.: 158 and 165, also 2012: 1 and 5, 2013: 46 and 51, 2014: 4, Walsh/ Li 2016: 495). Thus, these strategies, Walsh explains, are “open to both teachers and learners to enhance interaction and improve opportunities for learning” (Walsh 2012: 1). Defining CIC as a competence that both learners and teachers need to acquire, CIC, hence, is not exclusively conceptualized as a professional competence of language teachers. “CIC,” Walsh emphasizes, “focuses on the ways in which teachers’ and learners’ interactional decisions and subsequent actions enhance learning and learning opportunity.” (Walsh 2011: 165 f.). Walsh, then, is primarily concerned with the question of “how teachers and learners display CIC” in classroom interaction (ibid.: 166). Language learners having acquired CIC are, for instance, able to recognize a teacher’s pedagogical focus when using a particular type of question and to give relevant, timely, adequate and appropriate answers (ibid.: 174 f.). Furthermore, learners displaying CIC are able “to manage turns, hold the floor and hand over […] turn[s] at a particular point in the interaction”, and they recognize 36 Katrin Thomson and correctly interpret “key signals” in classroom discourse (ibid.: 174; for these examples and quotes also see Seedhouse/ Walsh 2010: 144 f.). Language teachers, on the other hand, display CDC through ‘interactional strategies’ such as “us[ing] language which is both convergent to the pedagog‐ ical goal of the moment and which is appropriate to the learners” (Walsh 2012: 6, also Walsh 2014: 5). CIC is also demonstrated by teachers who manage to “creat[e] [interactional] space for learning” and are able to “shap[e] learner contributions” (ibid.). These clearly pedagogically motivated strategies certainly play an important role in a teacher’s classroom discourse repertoire. That said, they are, however, of a much different quality than the interac‐ tional strategies of learners mentioned above: for instance, intentionally using language in ways so as to increase opportunities for learner participation in the classroom discourse (i.e. a teacher’s professional classroom discourse strategy) is different from using one’s linguistic resources in order to hold the floor (i.e. a learner’s communicative/ interactional competence). The former clearly describes the kind of purposeful, pedagogically informed verbal behavior that is characteristic of language teachers in the FL classroom context, but is usually not to be found in L2 interaction and communication outside the language classroom. The latter, on the other hand, relates to general FL communicative and interactional skills whose use is not restricted to the classroom context. Defining those as learners’ CIC, then, raises the question of (a) how learners’ interactional competence and classroom interactional competence differ from one another, and (b) how learners’ CIC and teachers’ CIC are conceptually linked. Thus, it seems legitimate to ask whether these teacher and learner strategies can and should actually be subsumed under the same term and concept, or whether a more fine-grained differentiation between teachers’ classroom discourse competence (CDC) and learners’ foreign language competence would not be more appropriate - also with regard to a competence model to be operationalized in teacher education. Drawing on existing models of communicative competence (e.g. Canale/ Swain 1980), theoretical conceptualizations of learners’ interactional competence have been expanded and further developed in recent years (e.g. Galaczi/ Taylor 2018). A precise and accurate conceptualization of teachers’ classroom discourse com‐ petence (CDC) as a professional competence of language teachers is, however, still pending. 37 Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) 3 The English translation of this passage is: ‘A fundamental characteristic of FL teachers’ language actions in classroom contexts […] is its linking to didactic and pedagogical actions. The link between verbal, didactic and pedagogical actions […] leads to specific forms of teachers’ language actions in foreign language classrooms […]. With regard to this particular context, a teacher’s didactic language action is a language action that is connected to a specific didactic goal, i.e. an action that aims at teaching something, at initiating a learning process, at moderating a process, at supporting a process etc. These language actions require specific competences from teachers, some of which differ significantly from everyday language use.’ 4 CEFR refers to the Common European Framework of References for Languages (Council of Europe 2001). EPOSTL stands for European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (Council of Europe 2007). 2.3 Recent Developments in Research and Teacher Education - Current Issues The fact that FL teachers’ verbal actions in classroom contexts are closely linked to didactic and pedagogical principles has recently been given more attention in research. For instance, the ‘Profession-related Language Competence Profiles’ (Ber‐ ufsspezifische Sprachkompetenzprofile für Lehrpersonen für Fremdsprachen, Kuster et al. 2014b), developed in a large-scale research project (2009-2013) in Switzerland, represent an enormously important contribution to this research field. In line with the position taken in this chapter and volume, these researchers also argue that foreign language teachers need to acquire specific language competences which partly differ significantly from everday language use: Ein grundlegendes Merkmal des sprachlichen Handelns von Fremdsprachenlehrper‐ sonen […] ist dessen Kopplung an ein didaktisches und pädagogisches Handeln im Kontext des schulischen Sprachenlernens. Die Verbindung von sprachlichem mit sprachdidaktischem und pädagogischen Handeln […] führt zu spezifischen Formen von Sprachhandlungen […]. Als didaktische Sprachhandlung wird in diesem Zusam‐ menhang eine Sprachhandlung bezeichnet, die mit einem bestimmten didaktischen Ziel verbunden ist, also darauf abzielt, etwas zu lehren, einen Lernprozess in Gang zu setzen, einen Prozess zu moderieren, zu stützen usw. Diese Sprachhandlungen erfordern von den Lehrpersonen spezifische Kompetenzen, die sich zum Teil deutlich vom alltagssprachlichen Sprachgebrauch unterscheiden. (Bleichenbacher et al. 2017: 13, emphasis in the original) 3 Drawing on important reference documents such as the CEFR and EPOSTL, 4 these profiles minutely define and describe “the communication-oriented linguistic skills required by teachers of foreign languages […] in order to practice their profession” in the context of primary and lower secondary school education (Kuster et al. 2014a: 2). The researchers distinguish between “five professionally relevant areas of 38 Katrin Thomson 5 While all of these five ‘areas of activity’ are part and parcel of the language teaching profession, not all of these relate to teachers’ CDC as conceptualized here. For instance, area 4 (establishing external contacts) and 5 (learning and further training) certainly require FL proficiency, but not necessarily CDC (see ch. 3.1 below). 6 These levels correspond with the following descriptions: Einstiegsniveau = profes‐ sion-related language competences that year 1-student teachers in Switzerland have at the beginning of their university studies (in Switzerland: B1-B2); Niveau ‘en route’ = developing/ sufficient profession-related language competences (B2-C1); Praxisniveau = sufficient/ good competences; Expertenniveau = good/ excellent competences (see Bleichenbacher et al. 2017: 15-17). language-related activity” (sprachliche Handlungsfelder von Fremdsprachenlehrper‐ sonen): 1. preparing lessons, 2. conducting lessons, 3. assessing, giving feedback and advising, 4. establishing external contacts, 5. learning and further training (ibid.: 3). 5 For each of these areas, a variety of teachers’ ‘linguistic tasks’ (Sprachhandlungen) are specified in the form of can door rather “ability statements” (ibid.). These linguistic tasks, then, are categorized according to the different language skills involved, i.e. reading, listening, writing, spoken production, spoken interaction. For instance, area 2 (conducting a lesson) includes the following teacher tasks in the category of ‘spoken production’: ‘In the target language, the teacher is able to guide learners […] from one teaching sequence to the next.’ ‘In the target language, the teacher is able to give clear oral working instructions during a lesson.’ (ibid.: 10, 9). For the assessment and evaluation of these linguistic skills and competences, a comprehensive assessment tool was developed (2015-2016), consisting of a model which defines four different levels of teachers’ target language pro‐ ficiency (Niveaubereiche): “Einstiegsniveau, Niveau ‘en route’, Praxisniveau, Expertenniveau” 6 (Bleichenbacher et al. 2017). Undoubtedly, the merits of these detailed competence profiles and assessment tools lie in their practicability and explicit focus on “the practical, job-related use of language in foreign language teaching” (Kuster et al. 2014: 2), and they have certainly contributed a great deal to gaining a much deeper understanding of the complexity of teacher tasks in classroom discourse. However, there are also certain limitations with regard to practical pre-service teacher education and the theoretical modelling of teachers’ profes‐ sional classroom discourse competences: The multitude of ‘linguistic tasks’ described in the profiles does create a very differentiated picture of the ‘lin‐ guistic skills’ that foreign language teachers are supposed to master (‘ability statements’) and able to display. These documents, thus, are primarily outcome- 39 Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) 7 An enlarged version of this model is available on the publisher’s website (www.meta. narr.de/ 9783823383741/ Zusatzmaterial.zip). and assessment-oriented. They do not, however, explicitly provide insights into the underlying cognitive prerequisites and dispositions (i.e. teachers’ knowl‐ edge, comprehension, awareness of the underlying concepts and rationale) required for developing these discourse skills in the first place. That is, the two examples cited above only indirectly suggest that (prospective) teachers actually need to acquire classroom discourse knowledge about the pedagogic functions and relevance of teachers’ competent transition management (example 1) or instruction-giving (example 2). Thus, with regard to pre-service teacher education one of the remaining challenges is to link such concrete ‘linguistic tasks’ to the underlying concepts, processes, theories, principles etc. they relate to; and to make such links transparent in a theoretical model of CDC, which in turn may serve as a conceptual framework not only for practical pre-service teacher education at university level but also for operationalization in empirical research, testing and competence assessment (Legutke/ Schart 2016: 13). 3 Conceptualizing Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) The theoretical conceptualization of CDC presented here takes account of the issues discussed so far: terminological, structural, conceptual issues. Given the complexity of this topic, this chapter is divided into two parts. I will first address structural-topological issues (Baumert/ Kunter 2006: 481 f.) which mostly center around the questions of where in a complex model of FL teachers’ professional competence (Fig. 3) teachers’ CDC would have to be located if it is to be given a more ‘central position’ in a competence model, and how CDC is linked to the different types of teachers’ professional knowledge as described by Shulman and others. Against the backdrop of this overall model in Fig. 3, I will then, in a second step, ‘zoom in’ on the conceptualization of CDC in order to map out and explain its subdimensions (Fig. 4). I will conclude this chapter with a more precise definition of teachers’ L2 CDC. 3.1 Positioning CDC in a (Revised) Model of FL Teachers’ Professional Competence In light of the theoretical, conceptual and terminological issues discussed in this chapter, the following expanded and revised model of FL teachers’ professional competence (Fig. 3) 7 is proposed: 40 Katrin Thomson Fig. 3: Revised Model of (E)FL Teachers’ Professional Competence (based on Blömeke et al. 2015, Roters et al. 2014, Shulman 1987, adapted & expanded) 41 Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) In contrast to previous conceptualizations of (E)FL teachers’ professional com‐ petence, the model in Fig. 3 assigns an explicit and central role to L2 classroom discourse competence (CDC) and takes account of the following aspects: (a) This competence model as a whole draws on existing and established conceptualizations of teachers’ professional competence (e.g. Baumert/ Kunter 2006, Blömeke 2011, Blömeke et al. 2015). According to those, ‘competence’ is a complex, multidimensional construct. ‘Competence’ is acquired gradually, and this process is both based on and impacted by teachers’ cognitive-affective dispositions (i.e. knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values etc.) as well as their skills to strategically and adequately tap into these intrapersonal resources in specific classroom situations. Both dimensions - multidimensionality and processuality - are reflected in this model. (b) It distinguishes between teachers’ general foreign language competence on the one hand (far left in Fig. 3) and teachers’ professional classroom discourse competence (CDC) on the other hand (blue box in Fig. 3). Target language proficiency is considered here as a linguistic prerequisite for devel‐ oping CDC, not as its defining constituent. Foreign language competence, as conceptualized for instance by Canale/ Swain (1980), denotes the competence that for example non-native speaker TEFL students in Germany need for communicating/ interacting in English regardless of the setting or context (i.e. systemic, sociolinguistic and strategic competences). When students participate in university courses taught in English (e.g. Literary Studies courses, seminars in Linguistics etc.), read (academic) texts published in English or write term papers in English, their L2 proficiency increases as, for instance, subject-specific terminology (Fachsprache) is acquired. This, however, is not to be equated with CDC. Deviating from Roters et al.’s construct conceptualization (see Fig. 2 and ch. 2.1 above), foreign language competence is not merely seen here as a further addendum to the different types of knowledge but as an essential, that is basic component of EFL teacher professionalism, a prerequisite and foundation. In EFL teacher education at university, neither the acquisition of knowledge nor the development of CDC would be possible without foreign language competence. It is against this backdrop that ‘foreign language competence’ is positioned differently in Fig. 3 than it has been in other visual representations of professional competence. What is more, it is only through specialized TEFL teacher education (with a clear focus also on classroom discourse) that foreign language competence gains a pedagogical dimension in the shape and form of L2 CDC. In other words, L2 proficiency as such is not a sufficient factor in effective language teaching (Bleichenbacher et al. 2017: 5). That is to say that, after all, 42 Katrin Thomson “[t]he best speakers may not be the best language teachers” (Burke 2015: 5 qtd. in Bleichenbacher et al. 2017: 5 f.). (c) This competence model takes into account that teachers’ classroom dis‐ course actions are informed by and therefore closely linked to teachers’ content, subject-specific and pedagogical knowledge, but it also suggests that CDC does not automatically develop when students have acquired such knowledge. Little is known yet about the actual nature and structure of such links or interfaces, but empirical studies have indeed shown that they do exist and appear to be rather complex (cf. Bleichenbacher et al. 2017: 5). In this model, CDC is linked to the different knowledge repositories but is not situated on the same level since CDC - as the term implies - is to be seen as a complex sub-competence of teachers’ professional competence, i.e. it develops on the basis of specific CD knowledge and teachers’ CD skills to not only activate it but also to transfer and adapt it to concrete classroom situations (see ch. 3.2 below for an elaboration of this). Hence, it cannot be assumed that CDC magically ‘emerges’ when TEFL students, for instance, attend linguistics classes that are usually not tailored to the specific professional needs of language teachers, TEFL classes that more often than not focus on didactic and methodological issues of teaching ‘something’, or general pedagogy seminars in which, naturally, the subject-specificity of ELT is not taken into account. Thus, CDC’s topological distinction from CK, PCK and GPK in Fig. 3 serves to highlight that CD knowledge is a specific type of professional knowledge that can only be acquired when classroom discourse-related CK, PCK and GPK is systematically and explicitly linked in needs-oriented educational contexts. In Fig. 3, hence, CDC - as a key component of FL teachers’ professional competence - is ‘given a central position’ in the competence model (cf. Hallet 2006: 127). The model in Fig. 3 does not claim to be exhaustive. Its focus lies on visual‐ izing languageand discourse-related components of FL teachers’ professional competence in relation to teachers’ knowledge base. Thus, while certain aspects are foregrounded, others had to be marginalized due to spatial limitations. In Fig. 3, the dotted frame on the right-hand side, for instance, indicates that CDC is to be understood as one dimension of teachers’ so-called teaching competence (Unterrichtskompetenz). The notion of ‘teaching competence’ is a complex one in itself and also relates to skills and competences that are not directly linked to CDC. Among others, this refers to certain aspects of preparing lessons (such as reading and understanding commentaries in teacher manuals), teachers’ ability to communicate and cooperate with contact persons in target language regions (when, for instance, planning a student exchange or e-mail project), or teachers’ ability to participate in further teacher education and training programs (when, 43 Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) 8 An enlarged version of this model is available on the publisher’s website (www.meta. narr.de/ 9783823383741/ Zusatzmaterial.zip). for instance, attending a TEFL teacher symposium). In Kuster et al.’s (2014a) profession-related language competence profile, ‘linguistic tasks’ like these are categorized as teacher activities in area 1 (preparing lessons), area 4 (establishing external contacts) and area 5 (learning and further training). For example, the three ‘linguistic tasks’ below are mentioned in the competence profiles: ‘In the target language, the teacher is able to understand didactic and methodological information and instructions in order to be able to use them for the preparation of lessons.’ (area 1: preparing lessons, ibid.: 7) ‘In the target language, the teacher is able to write an e-mail to a teacher in the target language who is responsible for a school exchange, e.g. to inform him/ her of problems in a guest family.’ (area 4: establishing external contacts, ibid.: 15) ‘In the target language, the teacher is able to take down the key points of a lecture for personal learning purposes.’ (area 5: learning and further training, ibid.: 17). Although these teacher tasks require foreign language competence and may impact, directly or indirectly, one’s teaching practices, they do not however fall into the category of teachers’ classroom discourse competence. Thus, one of the defining features of CDC is its principal focus on the language learner and the processes of language teaching/ learning. The following section will ‘zoom into’ the model in Fig. 3 and specify the different dimensions that inform the construct conceptualization of CDC. 3.2 Conceptualizing and Defining Teachers’ L2 CDC As pointed out above, the complexity of CDC (see Fig. 4 8 ) results from a reciprocal interplay between teachers’ CD-related knowledge and CD-related skills. Both dimensions are inherently complex too, and therefore require a more precise description. Aiming to achieve visual-structural compatibility with existing models of other domains of language teacher professionalism, the form of visual representation in Fig. 4 draws on Roters et al.’s construct model of EFL teachers’ PCK with its two-dimensional structure (Roters et al. 2013, Roters et al. 2014). 44 Katrin Thomson Fig. 4: Conceptualization of Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) 3.2.1 Dimension 1: Classroom Discourse Knowledge In this model, classroom discourse knowledge, as a specific type of professional knowledge, is further divided into two knowledge repositories: ‘surface CD knowledge’ and ‘deep CD knowledge’ (see Fig. 5). The two types are supposed to represent different forms of declarative, theoretical expert knowledge. While ‘surface knowledge’ relates to knowledge of key terms, definitions, concepts, features of CD phenomena (i.e. What are features of classroom discourse and teacher talk in foreign language education? ), ‘deep CD knowledge’ aims at gaining a deeper understanding of the interrelatedness and complexity of these phenomena and how these may affect teachers’ classroom discourse decisions and actions (i.e. What does X have to do with Y and Z? How are these connections 45 Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) relevant to the efficacy of teachers’ discourse practices and students’ language learning? ). Fig. 5: Conceptualization of CD knowledge The ‘surface knowledge’ that language teachers need to acquire refers to theo‐ retical knowledge of common features and phenomena in classroom discourse, learner language and teacher talk. Particularly focusing on the characteristics and complexity of teacher talk, FL teachers need to possess knowledge of essential concepts including, for instance (! ), echoing, wait time, code-switching, discourse markers (such as sign-posts, transition markers, backtracking, connectors, hesitation markers, hedges etc.), Long’s speech modification techniques (such as clarification requests, confirmation requests, comprehension checks, paraphrasing, reformulation, shaping), elicitation techniques, types of teacher questions and ques‐ tioning techniques, types of feedback and teachers’ feedback and error correction techniques, teacherese (including aspects like grammatical/ lexial simplification, adjustment of pace, voice modulation, pausing, repetition, articulation and enunci‐ ation etc.), scaffolding, prompting, rich and comprehensible input, zone of proximal development, negotiation of meaning, non-verbal aspects of classroom discourse (e.g. gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, gaze, proximity, posture, spatial motion within the classroom) etc. etc. Language teachers also need to know about typical discourse patterns and mechanism that often occur in language classrooms. These include, for instance: turn-taking patterns like in adjacency pairs or IRF patterns, insertion sequences, discourse techniques for taking/ holding the floor, handing over, turn/ sequence completion, speaker nomination techniques etc. Furthermore, for classroom discourse to be effective, teachers need to have a clear understanding of the different levels of classroom discourse (content level, 46 Katrin Thomson managerial level) and the respective teacher tasks connected to these levels. For instance, with regard to the content-related level of CD, teachers need to have knowledge of the discursive approaches to shaping classroom discourse processes in the context of teaching literature, culture, foreign language skills (i.e. listening, writing, speaking etc.) and aspects of the language system (i.e. grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, orthography). Tapping into their PCK and CK repo‐ sitories, language teachers need to know how didactic, methodological and pedagogical principles in language teaching can inform and manifest themselves in teachers’ discourse actions when, for example, analyzing and interpreting a poem, discussing critical cultural incidents or exploring the meaning of unknown vocabulary with students. This is to say that simply ‘having’ PCK and CK is not the same as knowing the implications of transforming this knowledge into classroom discourse practices that are conducive to student learning. As regards the managerial level of classroom discourse, teachers - first and foremost - need to know about the multitude of teacher tasks in L2 classroom management (CM) and have a clear understanding of how these can materialize (non-)verbally in classroom discourse (see Thomson, “L2 Classroom Management Competence” in this volume). That is, FL teachers ought to acquire knowledge of the discursive approaches to performing CM teacher tasks in ways that ensure comprehension, promote L2 learning and help create a warm classroom climate. Such CM teacher tasks include, among many others: providing smooth transitions, giving clear task instructions, starting/ ending activities, reacting to unforeseen classroom situations and lesson disruptions, providing clear explana‐ tions as to how to change seating arrangements and spatial configurations in the classroom, explaining goals and purposes of activities explicitly, face-saving ways of reprimanding disruptive students and employing clear desists etc. For a solid knowledge base that fosters CDC development, ‘deep CD knowl‐ edge’ has to be acquired as well. ‘Deep knowledge’ relates to one’s expert understanding of how those classroom discourse phenomena are intertwined and how they enhance (or hinder) language learning. In the model proposed here, ‘deep knowledge’ goes beyond technical definitions and (prospective) teachers’ ability to explain what X or Y is. Having acquired ‘deep CD knowledge’ means being able to also understand how X and Y affect classroom discourse and how X and Y can be implemented effectively in classroom discourse so as to promote student learning. It is, I would argue, the type of knowledge that FL teachers need to have in order to arrive at a profound pedagogical understanding of CDand teacher talk-related phenomena. It is through the acquisition of ‘deep CD knowledge’ that teachers’ CDC gains the professional, pedagogic dimension that is key to foreign language teaching. I agree with Widdowson (2002) who 47 Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) 9 For a more detailed illustration of this example see Thomson’s chapter on “ClaDis - A TEFL Course for Advanced Student Teachers” in this volume. For further examples see Thomson (2020b). argues that “[t]his [specialist] knowledge […] gives warrant to the idea that they [i.e. language teachers] are practicing a profession” (67) and that this knowledge “is not something teachers just naturally acquire but something they have consciously to learn about. That is what teacher education is for: to guide teachers into an understanding of the principles that define their subject […] [and] to establish a general rationale for their particular practices.” (80). Thus, it is arguably the acquisition of ‘deep CD knowledge’ that enables (prospective) teachers to fully understand the complex - and perhaps at first sight less visible or obvious - relationships between effective classroom discourse, teaching objectives, individual learner differences and student learning. For instance, merely having knowledge of the different types of teacher ques‐ tions (e.g. display questions, referential questions, divergent questions, convergent questions, alternative questions, leading questions, rhetorical questions etc.) is not sufficient for actually being able to choose and use them appropriately in a specific classroom situation. For effective use of questioning techniques, teachers also need to understand, for example, how the choice of a question type impacts the complexity of a student’s response, what teachers’ questioning techniques have to do with individualization/ differentiation in the language classroom and how certain question types affect teachers’ wait time, or students’ speech production, or students’ participation in/ exclusion from classroom discourse. 9 The distinction made in Fig. 4 and 5, respectively, thus aims to emphasize that it is this expert knowledge of such complex connections that provides a solid basis for developing CDC. Thus, the purpose of acquiring ‘deep CD knowledge’ is to enable student teachers to develop a heightened awareness of the potential effects and consequences that each of their CD decisions/ actions may have on (individual) learners in a particular lesson context. Acquiring ‘deep CD knowledge’ can also lead to a more profound understanding of teachers’ responsibility in classroom discourse and their crucial role in either promoting or impeding students’ language learning. 3.2.2 Dimension 2: Classroom Discourse Skills A high level of CDC can be acquired if teachers are also able to activate, relate and transfer their theoretical knowledge to classroom discourse realities - both in terms of analytical approaches to classroom discourse (e.g. analysis of video-recorded or transcibed classroom data) and practical implementations in the language classroom (e.g. one’s own teaching practices). For both areas 48 Katrin Thomson teachers need CD-specific skills which however can only be developed if a solid knowledge base has been built up first. Drawing on the competence-as-con‐ tinuum paradigm, the point of view shared here is that “some [cognitive] dispositions have to be in place before […] specific skills can be acquired” (Blömeke et al. 2015: 7). This, however, does not imply that CDC development is a linear process. Rather, it is a dynamic, reciprocal process in which further CD knowledge can be acquired at all stages of teacher professionalization and in which CD skills can be further improved and broadened in the course of time. In Fig. 4, the dynamic, dialectical nature of gaining CDC is indicated by the arrows connecting the two dimensions. For achieving a high level of CDC, language teachers would have to acquire a skill set that comprises analytical skills, anticipation skills and adaptation skills. Analytical skills are those which enable teachers to critically analyze, reflect upon and evaluate classroom discourse processes on the basis of their expert knowledge and with regard to specific criteria. Such analytical and reflective processes might focus, for instance, on a teacher’s choice of certain error correction or corrective feedback techniques in a particular classroom situation. A teacher, then, would have to be able to identify and categorize the type of error (or mistake) that has occured, consider the lesson phase and its respective teaching goal(s), take into account the specific needs and capabilities of the learner group (or of individual students) and - against this background - opt for the most appropriate approach to error treatment in this context. Especially when these analytical and reflective processes take place while teaching (i.e. ‘online’, reflection-in-action) - as opposed to post-lesson analysis (‘offline’, reflection-on-action) -, teachers need to be highly flexible, attentive and simply extremely quick in grasping the classroom complexities in a given situation. Anticipation skills relate to teachers’ abilities to carefully consider and anticipate the potential positive/ negative effects and ramifications that their own (or another teacher’s) classroom discourse decisions and actions may have on (individual) students’ FL learning, classroom interaction/ communication as such, but also on teacher-student relationships and class climate. Being able to do this requires not only expert CD knowledge but also far-sightedness and the ability to look at classroom discourse processes from the language learner’s point of view. Conversational scaffolding, for instance, is arguably more effective when teachers are able to listen attentively to what a student is trying to say, draw logical inferences from the learner’s utterances about his/ her intended message, identify the learner’s competence or knowledge gap so as to be able to provide the language support that is actually needed. Anticipating both the specific linguistic needs and the effects of providing such language 49 Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) support can be beneficial to the learner’s achievement gains and motivation in FL learning. Not being able to do all this, however, may eventually lead to learner frustration or a learner’s lack of motivation to negotiate meaning. Similarly, error correction/ corrective feedback can be considered constructive when it really enables students to proverbially learn from their mistakes. Thus, overcorrection or the use of error correction techniques that are not adjusted to a learner’s cognitive capabilities, language proficiency or self-concept will most likely not result in repaired uptake but may cause language anxiety instead or lead to a decrease in the learner’s willingness to participate in classroom discourse. And, for instance, anticipating that complex, open questions would most likely be too overwhelming for a certain student who struggles with foreign language learning in general, it would be an inappropriate decision to ask divergent or referential questions in this case, even if the goal was to initiate a class discussion. Instead, using questioning techniques (such as alternative questions or the two-step questioning technique) that are linguistically and/ or cognitively less challenging and more in line with the learner’s current compe‐ tence level would not only enable him/ her to contribute to and participate in classroom discourse; it would - if combined with other supportive (non)verbal discourse strategies - eventually boost this learner’s confidence in using the target language. Teachers mastering anticipation skills are able to consider the whole range of possible discourse actions, gauge how students might react to or be able to deal with those, and in light of the situation at hand, opt for the one action that is most beneficial for the learner(s). Adaptation skills, then, enable teachers to make the transition from cognition to discoursive implementation. Adaptation skills, as conceptualized in the model proposed here, refer to teachers’ abilities to make informed CD decisions about how to adjust (their) discourse practices linguistically and pedagogically to the requirements of a specific classroom situation and to the needs of a specific learner (group). It is this skill set that may enable teachers to turn cognitive considerations of what is strategically most effective into concrete (non)verbal discourse actions - both in ‘online’ and ‘offline’ mode. Returning to the error correction example described above, a teacher might, after careful consideration and anticipation of possible effects, decide to give (i.e. overtly verbalize) metalinguistic feedback after all (instead of using recasting, direct correction etc.) because the student having made the mistake does in fact have the metalinguistic knowledge and language proficiency that is required not only for understanding the teacher’s (non)verbal prompts but also for processing those in ways that allow him/ her to produce the correct form him-/ herself, resulting in self-generated learner uptake (Lyster/ Ranta 1997). With another 50 Katrin Thomson student (e.g. one who lacks metalinguistic competence or one who, in general, struggles with FL learning), or in another lesson phase (e.g. one in which the pedagogic focus is on fluency/ meaning), the teacher would most likely have to decide and act differently. It has become apparent that these classroom discourse skills relate to different components of CDC but are closely intertwined nonetheless. While the fine lines that separate them become blurred in the actual process of teaching (‘online’), they can and should be made visible in the context of teacher education where student teachers can analyze video-recorded/ transcribed teaching practices, ponder alternative, possibly more effective discourse actions, and discuss ways of implementing those in L2 classroom discourse (‘offline’). Breaking down ‘CD skills’ into analytical, anticipation and adaptation skills serves to make transparent in what ways ‘CD knowledge’ is essential to acquiring those skills. Like expert CD knowledge, these CD skills, too, are ‘not just naturally acquired’ (Widdowson 2002: 80) but have to be consciously learned and practiced in educational settings that are specifically tailored to the professional needs of foreign language teachers. Creating an interface between both dimensions fosters (prospective) teachers’ classroom discourse awareness (see Fig. 4), which goes beyond the notions of ‘language awareness’ (e.g. Gnutzmann 2016) or ‘teacher language awareness’ (e.g. Andrews 2008). Classroom discourse aware‐ ness denotes a cognitive disposition in which teachers are sensitized not only to the complexity of classroom discourse processes but also to the implied meanings of the oft-quoted notion of ‘effective classroom discourse and teacher talk’. Thus, linking both dimensions in pre-service teacher education is crucial for initiating CDC development at university level - a process which however needs to find its continuation in the induction phase of teacher training and beyond. The proposed conceptualizations of FL teachers’ professional competence (Fig. 3) and FL teachers’ CDC (Fig. 4) in this chapter certainly do not claim to be final or exhaustive. Though still preliminary, they can serve as fine-grained, theoretical frameworks providing teacher educators and (prospective) teachers with a fuller scope of what CDC development entails - possibly also with regard to curriculum and course design at pre-service stage, operationalization in practical teacher education and competence assessment. They also provide the theoretical underpinnings for a technical definition of CDC. Thus, synthesizing the aspects discussed in this chapter, L2 CDC is defined as the professional competence of foreign language teachers to consciously and reflec‐ tively structure, shape and navigate interactional and communicative processes through their own (L1, L2, L+, nonverbal) discourse actions in ways that are potentially 51 Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) 10 The German translation of this definition is: ‘Die fremdsprachenunterrichtliche Dis‐ kurskompetenz wird definiert als die professionelle Kompetenz von Fremdsprachen‐ lehrer/ innen, interaktionale und kommunikative Prozesse des Unterrichtsdiskurses durch ihr eigenes (L1, L2, L+, nonverbales) Sprachhandeln bewusst und reflektiert der‐ gestalt zu strukturieren und zu modellieren, dass sich dieses für den fremdsprachlichen Lernprozess der Schüler/ innen als potentiell lernförderlich erweist. Die fremdsprachen‐ unterrichtliche Diskurskompetenz von Lehrer/ innen erwächst auf der Grundlage und dem Zusammenwirken (i) ihrer allgemeinen fremdsprachlichen Kompetenz, (ii) ihres fundierten fachwissenschaftlichen, fachdidaktischen, pädagogischen und unter‐ richtsdiskursiven Wissens sowie (iii) ihrer Fähigkeiten, unterrichtdiskursive Prozesse und Sprechhandlungen zu analysieren, zu antizipieren und an die Erfordernisse und Bedingungen der konkreten Unterrichtssituation anzupassen. Hierbei sind Fremdspra‐ chenlehrer/ innen insbesondere in der Lage, die individuellen Lernvoraussetzungen und Lernbedarfe der Schüler/ innen sowie die unterrichtliche Situationsspezifik mit ihren konkreten Lehr-/ Lernzielen zu berücksichtigen.’ conducive to students’ FL acquisition and learning. CDC is informed (i) by teachers’ general foreign language competence, (ii) their professional content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge and classroom dis‐ course knowledge, and (iii) their ability to analyze, anticipate and adapt classroom discourse actions/ processes while also taking into account the given circumstances and conditions of a specific classroom situation. These include especially students’ individual differences and language learning needs as well as the concrete teaching/ learning objectives of the situation at hand. 10 Bibliography Andrews, Stephen J. (2008). “Teacher Language Awareness.” In: Hornberger, Nancy H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 6: Knowledge about Language. 2 nd ed. Boston: Springer, 287-298. Baumert, Jürgen/ Kunter, Mareike (2006). “Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften.” Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 9: 4, 469-520. Bleichenbacher, Lukas et al. (2016). “Sprachkompetenzen von Lehrpersonen, die Fremd‐ sprachen unterrichten.” Babylonia 3, 74-75. Bleichenbacher, Lukas et al. (2017). “Beurteilung berufsspezifischer Sprachkompetenzen von Lehrpersonen, die Fremdsprachen unterrichten. Projektresultate.” PH St. Gallen (PHSG). Institut Fachdidaktik Sprachen (IFDS). Online. URL: www.phsg.ch/ sites/ default/ files/ cms/ Forschung/ Institute/ Institut-Fachdi‐ daktik-Sprachen/ 201711%20BSSKP%2015-17%20 Produktbericht%20Webversion.pdf (last access: 11.10.2021). Blömeke, Sigrid et al. (2015). “Beyond Dichotomies: Competence Viewed as a Con‐ tinuum.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie 223: 1, 3-13. 52 Katrin Thomson Blömeke, Sigrid (2011). “Teacher Education and Development Study: Learning to Teach (TEDS-LT) - Erfassung von Lehrerkompetenzen in gering strukturierten Domänen.” In: Blömeke, Sigrid et al. (Eds.), Kompetenzen von Lehramtsstudierenden in gering strukturierten Domänen. Erste Ergebnisse aus TEDS-LT. Münster: Waxmann, 7-24. Canale, Michael/ Swain, Merrill (1980). “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing.” Applied Linguistics 1, 1-47. Galaczi, Evelina/ Taylor, Lynda (2018). “Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions.” Language Assessment Quarterly 15: 3, 219-236. Gnutzmann, Claus (2016). “Sprachenbewusstheit und Sprachlernkompetenz.” In: Bur‐ witz-Melzer, Eva et al. (Eds.), Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht. 6 th ed. Tübingen: A. Francke Verlag, 144-149. Hallet, Wolfgang (2006). Didaktische Kompetenzen. Lehr- und Lernprozesse erfolgreich gestalten. Stuttgart: Klett. Johnson, Karen E. (1995). Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirchhoff, Petra (2017). “FALKO-E: Fachspezifisches professionelles Wissen von Englischlehrkräften. Entwicklung und Validierung eines domänenspezifischen Test‐ instruments.” In: Krauss, Stefan et al. (Eds.), Fachspezifische Lehrerkompetenzen. Konzeption von Professionswissenstests in den Fächern Deutsch, Englisch, Latein, Physik, Musik, Evangelische Religion und Pädagogik. Münster: Waxmann, 113-152. Kirchhoff, Petra (2016). “Was sollte eine gute Englischlehrkraft wissen? Über die Auswahl von Items im FALKO-E Test zum fachspezifischen Professionswissen.” In: Legutke, Michael K./ Schart, Michael (Eds.), Fremdsprachendidaktische Professionsforschung: Brennpunkt Lehrerbildung. Tübingen: Narr Verlag, 75-98. KMK (2019). Ländergemeinsame inhaltliche Anforderungen für die Fachwissenschaften und Fachdidaktiken in der Lehrerbildung. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 16.10.2008 i.d.F. vom 16.05.2019. Online. URL: www.kmk.org/ fileadmin/ Dateien/ ve roeffentlichungen_beschluesse/ 2008/ 2008_10_16-Fachprofile-Lehrerbildung.pdf (last access: 11.10.2021). König, Johannes (2014). “Kompetenzen in der Lehrerbildung aus fächerübergreifender Perspektive der Bildungswissenschaften.” In: Bresges, André et al. (Eds.), Kompetenzen diskursiv: Terminologische, exemplarische und strukturelle Klärungen in der LehrerIn‐ nenbildung. Münster: Waxmann, 17-46. Kuster, Wilfrid et al. (2014a). Profession-Related Language Competence Profile for Foreign Language Teachers at Lower Secondary Level. Kompetenzprofil Sekundarstufe I Englisch. PH St. Gallen (PHSG). Institut Fachdidaktik Sprachen (IFDS). In collaboration with others. Online. URL: www.phsg.ch/ sites/ default/ files/ cms/ For 53 Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) schung/ Projekte/ Berufsspezifische%20Sprachkompetenzprofile%20f%C3%BCr%20Le hrpersonen%20f%C3%BCr%20Fremdsprachen/ KP_Sek.I_EN_21.4.15.pdf (last access: 11.10.2021). Kuster, Wilfrid et al. (2014b). Berufsspezifische Sprachkompetenzprofile für Lehrper‐ sonen für Fremdsprachen. PH St. Gallen. Projektwebsite. Online. URL: www.phs g.ch/ de/ forschung/ projekte/ berufsspezifische-sprach kompetenzprofile-fuer-lehrper‐ sonen-fuer-fremdsprachen (last access: 11.10.2021). Legutke, Michael K./ Schart, Michael (2016). “Fremdsprachliche Lehrerbildungsfor‐ schung: Bilanz und Perspektiven.” In: Legutke, Michael K./ Schart, Michael (Eds.), Fremdsprachendidaktische Professionsforschung: Brennpunkt Lehrerbildung. Tübingen: Narr Verlag, 9-46. Richards, Heather et al. (2013). “Foreign Language Teachers’ Language Proficiency and their Language Teaching Practice.” The Language Learning Journal 41: 2, 231-246. Roters, Bianca et al. (2014). “Professionelle Kompetenz von angehenden Englischlehr‐ kräften (PKE).” Poster präsentiert auf der Eröffnungsfeier des Interdisziplinären Zentrums für empirische LehrerInnen- und Unterrichtsforschung (IZeF) der Univer‐ sität zu Köln am 17.01.2014. Online. URL: www.hf.uni-koeln.de/ 36292 (last accessed: 11.10.2021). Roters, Bianca et al. (2013). “Fachdidaktisches Wissen angehender Englischlehrkräfte - Theoretischer Rahmen und empirische Ergebnisse zur Struktur eines Testinstru‐ ments.” Lehrerbildung auf dem Prüfstand 6: 2, 155-177. Roters, Bianca et al. (2011). “Professionelles Wissen von Studierenden des Lehramts Englisch.” In: Blömeke, Sigrid et al. (Eds.), Kompetenzen von Lehramtsstudierenden in gering strukturierten Domänen. Erste Ergebnisse aus TEDS-LT. Münster: Waxmann, 77-99. Schwab, Götz/ Hoffmann, Sabine/ Schön, Almut (2017). “Von der Interaktion zum Unter‐ richtsdiskurs.” In: Schwab, Götz et al. (Eds.), Interaktion im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Beiträge aus der empirischen Forschung. Berlin: LIT Verlag, 7-15. Seedhouse, Paul/ Walsh, Steve (2010). “Learning a Second Language through Classroom Interaction.” In: Seedhouse, Paul et al. (Eds.), Conceptualising ‘Learning’ in Applied Linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 127-146. Shulman, Lee S. (1987). “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform.” Harvard Educational Review 57: 1, 1-22. Shulman, Lee S. (1986). “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching.” Educational Researcher 15: 2, 4-14. Thomson, Katrin (2020a). “Classroom Discourse im fremdsprachenunterrichtlichen Kon‐ text: Gegenstandsbereiche - Einflussfaktoren - Kompetenzentwicklung.” Basisartikel. Themenheft ‘Unterrichtsdiskurs’. Praxis Fremdsprachenunterricht 17: 4, 6-9. 54 Katrin Thomson Thomson, Katrin (2020b). “Teacher Talk matters: Lehrersprache im Englischunterricht lernförderlich einsetzen.” Themenheft ‘Unterrichtsdiskurs’. Praxis Fremdsprachenun‐ terricht: Englisch 17: 4, 4-8. Thomson, Katrin (this volume). “Introduction: Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) in Foreign Language Teaching and Language Teacher Education.” In: Ibid. (Ed.), Classroom Discourse Competence: Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education. Tübingen: Narr. Thomson, Katrin (this volume). “Enhancing EFL Classroom Discourse Competence at Pre-Service University Level: ClaDis - A TEFL Course for Advanced Student Teachers.” In: Ibid. (Ed.), this volume. Thomson, Katrin (this volume). “L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education. A Classroom Discourse Perspective on a Neglected Issue.” In: Ibid. (Ed.), this volume. Walsh, Steve (2014). “Developing Classroom Interactional Competence.” Language Issues 25: 1, 4-8. Walsh, Steve (2013). Classroom Discourse and Teacher Development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Walsh, Steve (2012). “Conceptualising Classroom Interactional Competence.” Novitas: Research on Youth and Language 6: 1, 1-14. Walsh, Steve (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London/ New York: Routledge. Walsh, Steve (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. London/ New York: Routledge. Walsh, Steve/ Li, Li (2016). “Classroom Talk, Interaction and Collaboration.” In: Hall, Graham (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching. London/ New York: Routledge, 486-498. Widdowson, H.G. (2002). “Language Teaching: Defining the Subject.” In: Trappes-Lomax, Hugh/ Ferguson, Gibson (Eds.), Language in Language Teacher Education. Am‐ sterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 67-81. 55 Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) Part II - Exploring the Facets of L2 Classroom Discourse Competence The Interplay between Teacher Input and Student Language in the Foreign Language Classroom Focus on Conversational Competence Anna Rosen Becoming proficient in conversational speaking is an essential aspect of acquiring a foreign language but it is also one of the most challenging tasks for learners. Recent research indicates that acceptance by an interlocutor is determined not only by grammatical accuracy but also by speaking style, including the adequate use of conversational features. This positions a fluent and natural speaking style as a prerequisite for successful communication. However, conversational features have been shown to be critically underused by both university students of English (e.g. Götz 2013) and by teachers and students at German secondary schools (Rosen 2019b) compared to native speakers. This contribution builds on this research and examines the interplay between teacher input and student language in the foreign language classroom more closely. Drawing on an analysis based on a 425,000-word corpus of English lessons videotaped at German secondary schools, it determines which characteristics of classroom discourse have a beneficial effect on the learner’s use of conversational features. 1 Introduction Spontaneous speaking is one of the essential skills in foreign language learning and a skill that learners find both desirable and challenging. The importance of being able to converse fluently and appropriately in various situations and contexts is emphasised by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), the basis for many foreign language syllabuses, and by curricula for secondary schools in Germany and elsewhere (see also Theinert 2013: 1-4, Miede 2019: 12). Foreign language educationalists, however, have repeatedly pled for higher standards in the teaching of oral competence and for more consideration of typically spoken features in the English as a Foreign 1 An unpublished questionnaire study among German students at secondary schools indicates, however, that about half of the 200 participants are also regularly exposed to English input via Youtube videos and online streaming services (see Pätzold/ Vormfelde 2019). Language (EFL) classroom (see, e.g., Haß et al. 2006: 97, Klippel 2014: 100-101). Recent research indeed indicates that a fluent and natural speaking style is just as important to being accepted by an interlocutor as grammatical accuracy and therefore a prerequisite for successful communication (e.g. Romero Trillo 2002, Aijmer 2011, Brandt/ Götz 2011, Hughes 2011, Gilquin 2016). The adequate use of conversational features (such as discourse markers, question tags or formulaic utterance launchers) seems to make it easier for learners to bridge planning time and to sound more natural (e.g. Hasselgren 2002, Götz 2013). Observations in the literature on teaching speaking in Germany and else‐ where, however, indicate that conversational features and speaking strategies are rarely taught at schools (Rühlemann 2008, Grum 2012, Rogge 2012, Diao-Klaeger/ Thörle 2013), perhaps due to the idea, among both educationalists and teachers, that such features are difficult to learn via focused instruction and better acquired via exposure to (natural) input (e.g. Wulf 2001: 43, Light‐ bown/ Spada 2007: 178-179). Unlike textbooks, which rarely include features of authentic conversations (e.g. Müller 2005, Römer 2005, Rühlemann 2008), and audioor video-taped teaching material, the teacher is the one who can demonstrate the use of the foreign language spontaneously in situations that directly concern and involve his or her students (see also Wulf 2001: 13-14). This makes the teacher’s spoken input, and classroom discourse in general, a key model for spontaneous speech and for the use of conversational features. Moreover, since students at German secondary schools are mainly exposed to the target language in the classroom, usually only for a few hours a week, this input might, in the sense of “transfer-of-training” (Selinker 1972: 216), deeply affect learners in their acquisition process. 1 On the significant role of teacher language as a model in foreign language learning, see also Wulf 2001: 23, 41-43, Haß et al. 2006: 97, Wipperfürth 2009, Klippel 2014: 100-101. There are only few studies to date that investigate oral competencies at secondary schools (see, however, Schwab 2009, Theinert 2013, Dörr 2018, Miede 2019) and none that focus on conversational features and spontaneous speech in the English as a Foreign Language classroom (on this desideratum, see Burwitz-Melzer 2014: 25, Klippel 2014: 102-103). However, the few existing empirical studies on the use of conversational features, mainly discourse markers and formulaic expressions, by university students of English (Müller 2005, Götz 2013, Rosen 2019a) and by non-native speaking teachers and students 60 Anna Rosen at German secondary schools (Rosen 2017, 2019b) show that such features occur significantly less frequently, and often drastically so, among German learners of English compared to native speakers. With a focus on discourse markers, question tags and the utterance launcher now (then), Rosen (2019b) concludes that teacher talk in the German EFL classroom is often an inadequate model for spontaneous speech. Moreover, her findings can also cautiously be taken as an indication that the quality of teacher input has a direct effect on learners’ use of conversational features, especially for the use of question tags and the use of well, kind of and really. The current paper will build on this research and examine the interplay between teacher input and student language in the foreign language classroom more closely. Drawing on a 425,000-word corpus of 105 English lessons, video-recorded at German secondary schools in 2003 and 2004, it will analyse a selection of lessons in which teacher-student interactions are representative of a high, average and low frequency of conversational features as compared to the entire corpus data. Its main aim is to determine which characteristics of teacher talk and classroom discourse have a beneficial effect on the learners’ use of conversational features and should therefore receive more consideration in the language training of students and future teachers. The following section will give a brief description of the data and methodology used in the present study, before its main findings will be presented and discussed (Section 3). In a concluding section, implications for teaching speaking at secondary school and for the education of foreign language teachers will be assessed. 2 Data and Methodology The study presented here draws on data from a publicly funded and representa‐ tive study of student performances in English and German called DESI (Deutsch Englisch Schülerleistungen International) (Klieme et al. 2001-2008). These data were collected at 219 secondary schools in Germany in 2003 and 2004 and involved students from year 9, thus between 14 and 15 years old, who usually had a B1 or B1+ level (CEFR) of language proficiency. For a supplementary investigation (Helmke et al. 2003-2004), lessons of a representative cross-section of 53 classes taught at German Gymnasien were video-recorded. Each class was filmed for two lessons, usually one lesson with a language focus and one on an intercultural topic. These lessons were supposed to encourage students to talk, otherwise teachers were free in their choices of content and methods. Based on the transcripts of these lessons, I compiled a corpus of spoken classroom interaction, which includes code-switching, stretches of planned and 61 The Interplay between Teacher Input and Student Language unplanned speech and at times written texts read out in class. In total, the corpus comprises 425 054 tokens. Teacher utterances amount to 266 767 tokens (roughly two thirds of the entire corpus). Building on an earlier quantitative study (Rosen 2019b), I selected ten classes and their respective lessons for a more fine-grained qualitative analysis (see Table 1). The classroom discourse in these lessons is representative of a high, average and low frequency of occurrence of conversational features as compared to the means of the teacher talk and the student talk in the entire corpus - with a mean of 9.1 occurrences per thousand words (ptw) in the teachers’ utterances and of 1.99 occurrences ptw in the students’ utterances (see Rosen 2019b). Class ID number of words freq. of convers. features (ptw) teachers students teachers students 13500704 3467 2861 high (16.73) low (0.70) 13501001 5961 3152 high (20.13) low (0.32) 13501502 4678 3507 high (14.11) high (15.11) 14500107 3159 4300 low (2.53) high (6.74) 14501103 4420 2112 average (10.86) average (3.79) 17500204 5232 3127 average (8.98) average (1.28) 18500102 4976 2699 average (8.64) high (5.19) 21500303 2651 2566 low (2.26) low (0.78) 22500104 4453 3424 high (20.44) average (1.46) 26500107 5200 1446 low (2.31) average (2.07) Tab. 1: Sample design and frequency of occurrence of conversational features (ptw) in relation to the teachers’ and students’ utterances in the entire corpus Note that the present analysis, as well as Rosen (2019b), mainly focuses on four categories of conversational features based on Biber et al.’s (1999: 1037-1125) grammar of conversation: discourse markers (well, you know, like, kind of, sort of, quite and I mean), standard question tags, stance adverbials (actually, really, in fact) and the formulaic utterance launcher now (then). In a qualitative approach, both the transcripts and videos of the selected lessons were carefully examined to identify teacher-student or student-student interactions which favour or clearly disfavour the use of conversational features. Interactions in 62 Anna Rosen 2 Please note that all names in the recordings have been anonymised. which students use conversational features were further analysed in terms of their context and appropriateness. Any generalisations of the findings need to be taken with a degree of caution, however, as the overall frequency of occurrence of conversational features in the student utterances (as examined in Rosen 2019b) is very low with an average of 3.1 occurrences per lesson. It must, of course, also be noted that the data were collected at a single point in time and cannot reflect ongoing learning processes (see also Miede 2019: 54-55 for a critical discussion of the lack of longitudinal data in this line of research). 3 Major Findings Despite the data sample being somewhat limited in scope and size, a close analysis of the twenty English lessons taught by ten different teachers reveals some important aspects of input and teaching contexts that seem beneficial to the learners’ use of conversational features. The broader trends found in the data concern the quality of teacher input (Section 3.1), the level of authentic, real-life interactions (Section 3.2), the use of imitation and role play activities (Section 3.3) and the presence or absence of linguistic feedback and language focus (Section 3.4). 3.1 Teacher Talk The teachers’ use of conversational features varies greatly in terms of frequency and variety. There are vast individual differences in frequency, with a range between 6 and 120 occurrences of conversational features per teacher. A high proportion of conversational features in the teacher talk, however, does not necessarily co-occur with appropriate or native-like use of these features. Sometimes, a high frequency of conversational features in the input is simply due to an extensive overuse of a certain feature. This is clearly the case in the lessons where the teachers’ frequency of use is classified as ‘high’ and the students’ use as ‘low’ (see Table 1). In lessons 13501001-1 and -2, well occurs as often as 69 times in the teacher’s utterances. In lessons 13500704-1 and -2, the teacher’s use of well also stands out with 46 occurrences of well and no occurrence of any other discourse marker. Both teachers also use German ja ‘yes’ in contexts where question tags or other discourse markers would be used by native speakers, such as in Example (1). 2 63 The Interplay between Teacher Input and Student Language (1) 13500704-1 [31: 16-31: 19] T: Shall we write that down, ja? Wulf (2001: 36) lists the use of ja or yes instead of a question tag as among the twenty most frequent errors in teacher talk. In this sample, eight out of ten teachers use ja regularly, with 661 occurrences of ja overall. This use is picked up on by students, as Example (2) illustrates. (2) 13500704-1 [11: 32-11: 37] T: Ja good, then we can talk about the text I think, as I said it’s not really difficult. […] S: After lunch uh, they had school. T: Pardon? S: Ja (/ / ) T: (/ / ) The time uh the tense sorry (/ / ) S: (/ / ) Ja after lunch they hashave school. T: They have lessons we say, yes. S: Ja they have lessons. T: Yes, mhm. Students use ja very frequently with a total occurrence of 201 in the data. Interestingly, they only use it in those lessons where teachers also make use of it. The occurrence of ja in the students’ utterances strongly suggests that they have not yet acquired other ways of expressing the functions covered by ja in their interlanguage, such as requesting confirmation, introducing a turn or expressing hesitation. A similar situation can be found in stance marking. I think is regularly used by teachers (81 occurrences, 1.8 ptw) and is widely preferred by students (149 occurrences, 5.1 ptw), compared to I mean (0.13 ptw) and other stance adverbials (1.3 ptw). Again, this suggests that students frequently express stance. As they are unaware of or unfamiliar with alternative strategies, however, they use one that they can directly transfer from German. On the other hand, a rich and varied use of conversational features by teachers, as in lessons 14501103, 18500102 and 22500104, can be shown to be helpful in the sense that students then echo their teachers’ use of conversational 64 Anna Rosen features. In Example (3), the teacher uses kind of both as a vagueness and hesitation marker, which is used in the same way in the student’s answer to her question. (3) 22500104-1 [05: 28-05: 37] T: Now, uh, today we will talk about child labour as well, but a different kind of uh child labour. Do you think that children still have to do work like that today? Is there child labour nowadays? Uh, you just said that there wasn’t any child labour nowadays, but it is. Yes. S: Uh, in Europe, there isn’t, but in Africa or Asia, there are uh unc- … uh, there are this … these kind of uh jobs for children. The same can be shown for the discourse marker well as in Example (4). (4) 18500102-2 [08: 29-08: 39] T: Well, we leave it at that. What is the product of this commercial, what is it advertising, what is the product or the campaign? Philipp S: Well, it’s a campaign between the uh from some associations I don’t know, ZDF or ARD etcetera (/ / ) More support for such a link between teacher input and their students’ acquis‐ ition of conversational features can be found in the domain of question tags. Rosen (2019b) shows that the teachers’ use of question tags seems to have a positive effect on students’ use of these features as there is a (weak) correlation between teachers’ and students’ use of question tags. In general, however, instances where students directly echo their teacher’s use of conversational features, as illustrated in Examples (3) and (4), are rare in the data. 3.2 Genuine Conversations One of the major and perhaps unexpected findings revealed by the DESI video study is the low proportion of spontaneous student talk (about 10%) in the majority of lessons (Helmke et al. 2008: 352). Despite an emphasis on communicative and oral competencies in school curricula, students often do not seem to get a chance to say more than a few words or single sentences in a lesson and this has been confirmed by subsequent research (cf. Miede 2019: 42). This is also the case in the subset of DESI data examined for the present study. Conversational features hardly occur in typical IRE-patterns (initiation - response - evaluation) in classroom discourse. Example (5) shows what IRE-sequences regularly look like in the data. 65 The Interplay between Teacher Input and Student Language (5) 26500107-1 [36: 49-36: 51] T: Whom would you like to visit in Australia… and why? S: Uh I would like visit Peter Watkins uh because I uh I find a sport interesting (/ / ) T: (/ / ) Hm (/ / ) S: (/ / ) And… I would try to do it. T: You would like to visit… Peter because of the sport. Are you also a sports freak? S: Yes T: What’s your favourite sport? S: Uh, maybe riding a horse T: Okay. So, and the other ones? Lisa. Whom would you like to visit… and why? S: I would vis-… uh, visiting uh, Ben because of (t) a very interesting sport and because of the beautiful beach. T: Mhm, you would like to visit Ben. This exchange vividly illustrates classroom discourse that is devoid of any features that would be part of a true conversation. Apart from the teacher’s relatively formal wording of the question with whom, she simply echoes the students’ contribution and/ or evaluates their answers with one word. The students receive no linguistic feedback, neither directly nor at a later point in this lesson. Although students rarely use conversational features in the data, instances that serve a genuine communicative purpose seem to be favourable for the use of conversational features, as shown in Example (6) where a student asks a grammar-related question in a lesson about tense and aspect. (6) 14501103-2 [31: 17-31: 18] T: Jan. S: You could also use the gerund, couldn’t you? [reads] Because of having become too dangerous. T: Yes, you could also use the gerund. This is one of the rare instances of a question tag produced by a student in the data. Incidentally, and probably not coincidentally, his teacher uses nine 66 Anna Rosen question tags in the two recorded lessons herself and thus is one of the few teachers in the data sample who uses question tags with a native-like frequency. Theinert (2013: 330, 336-337) also confirms that a learning environment that provides opportunities for genuine or authentic communication in combination with the teaching of useful phrases for communication strategies helps students develop essential skills in spontaneous speaking. 3.3 Imitation and Role Play Apart from conversations that are situated in real life and have a genuine communicative purpose, role play and imitation also seem to favour the use of conversational features by students. While students are generally more active in these contexts and offer longer contributions of speech, they also seem more prone to imitating what they hear in recorded teaching material or, perhaps, from other authentic input outside the classroom (cf. Note 1). In lesson 14500107-1, for instance, the students listen to a recorded conversation between Australian teenagers, which sounds authentic and includes question tags and the discourse markers I mean, well, you know and right. Although the teacher’s input is low in terms of conversational features in this lesson, students use conversational features when they imitate the way the characters in the recording speak. Take Example (7) where the discourse markers well and you know occur in a vocabulary activity, both in direct speech. (7) 14500107-1 [24: 04-24: 18] [whispering, student writes “to be into sth./ sb.” on the board] S: Uh, I hope you can see it, to be into something or somebody. Uh, bit hard to explain, it’s uh when a couple meetsmeetmeets, uh the boy is getting romantic and he says, Well you, I’m really into you, you know, and it’s another expression … to fancy something or somebody. A similar instance can be found in the following lesson where the class discusses the recorded conversation in more detail. A student also introduces the thoughts of one of the characters with well (see Example 8). (8) 14500107-2 [04: 01-04: 09] S: So uh maybe uh Darrel thought, ‘Well, he’s just kidding’ because boys always do this kind of stuff. 67 The Interplay between Teacher Input and Student Language In lesson 13501502-1, the students prepare and act out a panel discussion about bootcamps (see an extract in Example 9). All students speak relatively freely without reading their notes. It can be observed that the frequency of conversational markers increases once they feel more at home in their respective roles. (9) 13501502-1 [27: 03-27: 08] S: Now, uh your… your son was in a bootcamp. Uh was it suc-… was this visit to a bootcamp successful or is heuh is he still as bad as he was before? S: Well, my son has never been bad, but I think bootcamps doesn’tdon’t help because uh there the guards uh always shout at the inmates and only uh uh treat them bad and so I don’t think they help. Apart from actually, the students use those conversational features that the teacher also uses frequently such as well, really and the utterance launcher now. In the remainder of the lesson, before and after the role play, the students hardly use any conversational features and some opportunities for authentic conversations between teacher and students are not seized as the conversation proceeds in German as shown in Example (10). (10) 13501502-1 [10: 18-10: 20] T: So, Tine, hier sind die Rollen. S: Ja, ne, aber, können Sie mir gerade mal sagen, wer pro und contra ist? T: Judge is contra, eh, Moment, die beiden sind (/ / ) S: (/ / ) Kann ich mir Namen für die ausdenken, weil dann kann ich die anspre‐ chen? T: Das wäre ganz wichtig (/ / ) S: Ich kann ja schlecht sagen (/ / ) Conversational features in role plays and quoted or direct speech can be found in several lessons. Thus, it seems easier for students to use conversational features in contexts where they imitate native speakers, perhaps because they are otherwise not encouraged to use such features in teacher-student interactions. 68 Anna Rosen 3.4 Language Focus It is striking that none of the lessons analysed here contain any linguistic feedback that goes beyond the correction of a few grammatical structures or the pronunciation of individual words. And even such feedback is scarce. This lack of feedback on language use, register, genre and vocabulary is also confirmed by a recent study by Miede (2019: 302). When and in what ways corrective feedback should be given in language learning is a much debated issue in foreign language acquisition research, but most studies would agree that some form of feedback is important for successful language learning (see, e.g., the summary in Lenhard 2016: 86). Moreover, phases of reflection on language or a language focus within a task cycle are conspicuously absent. These were similarly rare in Miede’s (2019: 302) study. It seems, then, that teachers provide occasions for speaking but do not equip students with the skills to communicate effectively. As Goh and Burns (2012: 2) rightly point out, “although speaking activities occur frequently in their classrooms, learners seldom have the opportunity to learn the skills and strategies and the language to improve their speaking”. 4 Implications for Teaching and Teacher Education A close analysis of the way conversational features are used in a sample of EFL classroom discourse at German secondary schools provides insight into which aspects need more consideration in teacher training and in classroom instruction to help students acquire features of unplanned conversational speaking more effectively. Correct stylistic choices assist students in rendering their speech more fluently and producing utterances that are more acceptable to native interlocutors. Although the sample is limited in size, it offers surprisingly clear answers as to what circumstances are beneficial to the use of conversational features in the EFL classroom. Based on the main findings of this study, four general recommendations can be put forward. First, future teachers should be made aware of and taught about conversa‐ tional features and speaking strategies. Pre-service teacher education should offer language classes that help future teachers improve their own proficiency in this regard so as to be useful models for spontaneous speech in the classroom (in the same vein, see also Martinez 2014: 158-159). Second, teachers should allow for as many genuine conversations in the classroom as possible so that students see a real purpose in communicating in the foreign language in a variety of situations and contexts. Third, students should be encouraged to imitate the way proficient speakers of English use conversational features in 69 The Interplay between Teacher Input and Student Language spontaneous speech. This could, for example, be achieved through a teaching approach proposed by Thornbury (2005), which builds on awareness-raising of spoken features and speaking strategies and subsequent appropriation activities. During these activities, learners are encouraged to incorporate the targeted features in various ways. Thornbury’s suggestion of making students aware of the features and strat‐ egies used in spoken texts ties in with the fourth recommendation to be made here. Teachers should make enough room in their lessons for linguistic feedback: they should include phases where students focus on the appropriate use of spoken and conversational language and make students aware of characteristic features of spontaneous speech (see also Barraja-Rohan 2011 on the success of teaching that is informed by Conversation Analysis). Speaking strategies should be explicitly taught, including specific phrases that students can use to apply these strategies. It should go without saying that material for teaching speaking needs to take into account recent linguistic research on the syntactic and pragmatic multifunctionality and phonetic shape(s) of conversational features. All in all, the findings of the present study demonstrate that, in an effort to make learners’ spontaneous speech and ultimately oral communication more successful, conversational features need greater consideration in EFL classroom discourse. Bibliography Aijmer, Karin (2011). “Well I’m not sure I think… The Use of Well by Non-native Speakers.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16: 2, 231-254. Barraja-Rohan, Anne-Marie (2011). “Using Conversation Analysis in the Second Lan‐ guage Classroom to Teach Interactional Competence.” Language Teaching Research 15: 4, 479-507. Biber, Douglas et al. (1999). Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Brandt, Christiane/ Götz, Sandra (2011). “Fluency versus Accuracy in Advanced Spoken Learner Language: A Multi-method Approach.” International Journal of Corpus Lin‐ guistics 16: 2, 255-275. Burwitz-Melzer, Eva (2014). “Die Sprachkompetenz im Fremdsprachenunterricht ange‐ messen üben und beurteilen.” In: Burwitz-Melzer, Eva et al. (Eds.), Perspektiven der Mündlichkeit. Arbeitspapiere der 34. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdspra‐ chenunterrichts. Tübingen: Narr, 17-28. Diao-Klaeger, Sabine/ Thörle, Britta (2013). “Diskursmarker in L2.” In: Bürgel, Chris‐ toph/ Siepmann, Dirk (Eds.), Sprachwissenschaft - Fremdsprachendidaktik: Neue Im‐ pulse. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren, 145-160. 70 Anna Rosen Dörr, Simon (2018). Lehrer- und Schülersprache im Englischunterricht der bayrischen Mittelschule. Münster: Waxmann. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle (2016). “Discourse Markers in L2 English. From Classroom to Natu‐ ralistic Input.” In: Timofeeva, Olga et al. (Eds.), New Approaches in English Linguistics: Building Bridges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 213-249. Goh, Anne/ Burns, Christine (2012). Teaching Speaking: A Holistic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Götz, Sandra (2013). Fluency in Native and Nonnative English Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grum, Urška (2012). Mündliche Sprachkompetenzen deutschsprachiger Lerner des Eng‐ lischen. Entwicklung eines Kompetenzmodells zur Leistungsheterogenität. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Hasselgren, Angela (2002). “Learner Corpora and Language Testing: Smallwords as Markers of Learner Fluency.” In: Granger, Sylviane et al. (Eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 143-173. Haß, Frank et al. (2006). Fachdidaktik Englisch. Tradition, Innovation, Praxis. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett. Helmke, Andreas et al. (2003-2004). Unterrichtsbeobachtung - DESI. Forschungsdaten‐ zentrum Bildung. Helmke, Tuyet et al. (2008). “Die Videostudie des Englischunterrichts.” In: Klieme, Eck‐ hard et al. (Eds.), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie. Weinheim: Beltz, 345-363. Hughes, Rebecca (2011). Teaching and Researching Speaking. London: Routledge. Klieme, Eckhard et al. (2001-2008). Deutsch Englisch Schülerleistungen International. Forschungsdatenzentrum Bildung. Klippel, Friederike (2014). “Mündlichkeit im Englischunterricht.” In: Burwitz-Melzer, Eva et al. (Eds.), Perspektiven der Mündlichkeit. Arbeitspapiere der 34. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. Tübingen: Narr, 98-107. Lenhard, Stefan (2016). Fehlerkorrekturen und Rückmeldungen im Englischunterricht. Münster: Waxmann. Lightbown, Patsy M./ Spada, Nina (2007). How Languages Are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martinez, Hélène (2014). “Mündlichkeit - Zur Frage der Umsetzung wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse und didaktischer Umsetzungskonzepte in die fremdsprachliche Unter‐ richtspraxis.” In: Burwitz-Melzer, Eva et al. (Eds.), Perspektiven der Mündlichkeit. Ar‐ beitspapiere der 34. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. Tübingen: Narr, 154-164. 71 The Interplay between Teacher Input and Student Language Miede, Sebastian (2019). Förderung des Sprechens im kompetenzorientierten Englischun‐ terricht der gymnasialen Oberstufe. Eine qualitativ-empirische Studie. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto. Müller, Simone (2005). Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pätzold, Elsa/ Vormfelde, Marika (2019). Umfrage zum Konsum von englischsprachigen Medien. Student paper. University of Freiburg. Rogge, Michael (2012). “Sagen können, was man zu sagen hat: Mündliche Kompetenz mit Sprechaufgaben fördern.” Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch 116, 2-6. Romero Trillo, Jesús (2002). “The Pragmatic Fossilization of Discourse Markers in Non-native Speakers of English.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 6, 769-784. Römer, Ute (2005). Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy. A Corpus-driven Approach to English Progressive Forms, Functions, Contexts and Didactics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rosen, Anna (2017). “Investigating Teacher Language in the EFL Classroom: Focus on Discourse Markers and Smallwords in Spontaneous Speech.” Fourth Saarbrücken Conference on Foreign Language Teaching, Saarbrücken. Rosen, Anna (2019a). “The Use of Smallwords in the Speech of German Learners of English: A Corpus-based Study of the Factors of Instruction and Natural Exposure.” In: Götz, Sandra/ Mukherjee, Joybrato (Eds.), Learner Corpora and Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 219-241. Rosen, Anna (2019b). “Teacher Language in the German EFL Classroom: A Model for Spontaneous Speech? ” Eighth Biennial International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English, Bamberg. Rühlemann, Christoph (2008). “A Register Approach to Teaching Conversation: Farewell to Standard English? ” Applied Linguistics 29: 4, 672-693. Schwab, Götz (2009). Gesprächsanalyse und Fremdsprachenunterricht. Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik. Selinker, Larry (1972). “Interlanguage.” IRAL 10: 3, 209-231. Theinert, Kerstin (2013). WELL done! ? - Wechselseitiges Lehren und Lernen als spezielle Form kooperativen Lernens zur Förderung kommunikativer Kompetenz im Englischun‐ terricht? Eine empirische Studie. Hamburg: Dr. Kovač. Thornbury, Scott (2005). How to Teach Speaking. Harlow: Pearson Education. Wipperfürth, Manuela (2009). “Welche Kompetenzstandards brauchen professionelle Fremdsprachenlehrer und -lehrerinnen? ” ForumSprache 2, 6-25. Wulf, Herwig (2001). Communicative Teacher Talk. Vorschläge zu einer effektiven Unter‐ richtssprache. Ismaning: Max Hueber. 72 Anna Rosen Classroom Discourse Skills to Support Lexical Learning Ralf Gießler In this paper the argument is made that teachers need specific classroom discourse skills to deal with lexis in the EFL classroom. Supporting lexical learning is more than simply providing explanations of unknown words. It includes episodes of rich instruction through which learners become aware of the interrelatedness of meanings and enrich their knowledge about form or use aspects of words. Another issue is the question how classroom discourse skills for supporting lexical learning can be fostered in university-based teacher education. It is suggested that student teachers’ noticing of classroom discourse can be enhanced through the analysis of lesson videos. Three situations of lexical learning taken from published lesson videos are used to illustrate key principles of a robust approach to vocabulary instruction and their implementation in classroom discourse. Some data from a design-based research study on video-based teacher education are presented to show how student teachers perceive classroom discourse in specific learning situations brought to them via video. 1 Introduction This paper deals with classroom discourse that specifically aims at increasing learners’ range of vocabulary and enriching their lexical knowledge. It is argued that there is a need for dealing with lexis and lexical knowledge through classroom discourse since each lexical item carries a plethora of information (e.g. phonological, grammatical, and pragmatic) and lexical learning is incremental in nature (Barcroft 2012). The term lexical classroom discourse (LCD) is used in this paper to indicate a specific type of classroom discourse that aims at supporting lexical learning. Scherfer (1985), who coined the term ‘lexical learning’ in the German-speaking TEFL literature (Scherfer 1985; 1994), distinguishes three different perspectives on vocabulary teaching and learning: 1. What is to be learned: lexis as object in teaching, e.g. selection of words and multi-word units, meaning boundaries of words, aspects of word knowledge? 2. How to teach it: techniques for communicating word meaning; rich instruc‐ tion; negotiation of meaning 3. How will it be learned: retention and memorization; recall and recognition; mnemonics (Scherfer 1985: 413 f.) It is obvious that the second perspective entails classroom discourse and the teacher’s interactive moves in the classroom. However, the teacher can or rather has to decide which lexical items will move to the center stage of the learning situation. Which aspects of word knowledge (e.g. use or pronunciation) should be dealt with explicitly and in detail? The third perspective is also relevant for lexical classroom discourse. Some prompts or teacher questions may have the only didactic purpose of stimulating recall of lexical items in learners. Full mastery of a word involves knowledge about a word’s meaning, its form and its use and consequently requires episodes of rich instruction and learners’ active engagement with words: “Overall, it seems that virtually anything that leads to more exposure, attention, manipulation, or time spent on lexical items adds to their learning” (Schmitt 2008: 339). Furthermore, lexis encompasses a broader range of phenomena than just single words (the traditional notion of vocabulary), but also multi-word units, idiomatic expressions, formulaic expressions. A teacher with a command of lexical classroom discourse skills will create multiple exposures to target words and involve learners in negotiating mean‐ ings. Lexical classroom discourse skills also manifest when teachers provide a rich source of definitional and contextual information so that learners even‐ tually enrich their vocabulary knowledge. This specific kind of classroom discourse engages learners actively to ensure deep processing of words when for example the teacher explores meaning boundaries of words with learners, and clarifies constraints on use. After all LCD should lead to high-quality word representation (Perfetti 2007). “Word knowledge is thus far more than simple labels or definitions but rather a deep network that holds crucial connections to language development and growth in general knowledge” (Ford-Connors/ Paratore 2015: 53). High-quality word representations are a pre-requisite of successful comprehension and thus form a foundation of communicative competence. In the next section, the rationale for a specific type of classroom discourse, that is directed at supporting lexical learning, is presented. We will draw upon 74 Ralf Gießler a synthesis of research by Ford-Connors/ Paratore (2015) around the topic of vocabulary instruction, classroom discourse and teacher talk. McKeown, Beck and their colleagues (e.g. McKeown/ Beck/ Omanson/ Pople 1985) provide principles of robust vocabulary instruction that can inform LCD. In section 3, three situations from video-taped EFL lessons will serve as concrete points of reference for grounding the theoretical claims in actual teaching practice. First, the situations will be described. Then student teachers’ perspectives on these situations from the lesson videos will be presented. It is argued that lesson videos in university-based teacher education are effective to raise student teachers’ awareness about lexical classroom discourse skills. 2 The Need for Supporting Lexical Learning through Classroom Discourse One feature of lexical learning according to Ford-Connors/ Paratore (2015: 52) is the multidimensionality of lexis. Aspects of word knowledge, commonly subdi‐ vided into form, meaning and use (Nation 2001: 99), add to the learning burden of a word. The dimensions approach (i.e. looking at aspects of word knowledge) can have “a simplifying effect of breaking complex behaviour (vocabulary acquisition) into its more manageable components for analysis” (Schmitt 2010: 224). Schmitt (2010: 224 f.) points at the potential of using dimensions (aspects of word knowledge) for a precise analysis of vocabulary acquisition and a precise diagnosis of learner needs. It takes the teacher to address those “manageable components” (ibid.) and explain specific aspects of word knowledge that the L2 learner is not aware of due to a lack of exposure. It is on these grounds that lexical learning can be characterized as an incremental process (cf. Schmitt 2007: 827). Full mastery of a word needs several encounters with the word as well as opportunities to use it. Another feature of lexical learning is the interrelatedness and connectedness of lexical items (cf. Ford-Connors/ Paratore 2015: 52). This feature of lexical learning needs to inform LCD. In their review of research on instructional procedures for supporting lexical learning, the authors emphasize “that vocabulary is a complex construct with connections to many aspects of language development and general knowledge growth. […] Deep word knowledge emerges over time through productive interactions with authentic texts, tasks, and talk” (Ford-Connors/ Paratore 2015: 83). For word representations to be flexible and to allow “for rapid retrieval of meaning when we meet the words in text” (Perfetti 2007: 13), learners need high-quality entries in their mental lexicon. A high-quality representation according to the Lexical Quality Hypothesis constitutes an interconnected network about aspects of the 75 Classroom Discourse Skills to Support Lexical Learning written and spoken form, the morphological parts, the patterns of use and the semantic associations of a given word (cf. Perfetti 2007: 12, Aitchison 2012). When children learn new words, “they begin by using each one in a restricted setting, then later fit it into an overall network as they detach it from the context in which it was learnt” (Aitchison 2012: 220). Learning new words involves labeling and packaging, i.e. “the classification of a number of objects under a particular label” (ibid.: 221), and network-building. Children only gradually acquire the meaning differences “between overlapping words, such as tall, big, fat, high” and thus progress in network-building is “tortoise-like” (ibid.: 219). Ford-Connors/ Paratore (2015: 83) summarize evidence for “practices and discursive contexts that support word learning”. Classroom discussions and productive interactions require the knowledgeable teacher who “offers a lan‐ guage-rich community in which to engage with others to explore words’ meanings and uses and to tie important vocabulary to texts and content” (Ford-Connors/ O’Connor 2019: 137-138). Silverman et al. (2013) analyze the relationship between certain types of vocabulary instruction and the vocabulary learning of monolingual and bilingual students in 33 third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade classrooms. The authors find that both monolingual and bilingual students benefit when instruction includes attention to explicit definitions, word relations, and morphology and syntax. Beck et al. (2013) revised their initial concept of rich instruction. By robust instruction they “mean instruction that goes beyond definitional information to get students actively involved in using and thinking about word meanings and creating associations among words” (Beck et al. 2013: 83). After “directly explaining the meanings of words […] thought-provoking, playful, and interac‐ tive” activities should follow (ibid.: 3). Robust instruction provides opportunities for students to use the words themselves, and “explore the facets of meaning and consider relationships among words” (ibid.). Some principles of robust vocabulary instruction can inform lexical classroom discourse. First, student-friendly explanations of words are an essential feature of LCD: it is essential to “capture the essence of a word and how it is typically used”, so that pupils understand “its role in the language and what is communicated when we use this word” (Beck et al. 2013: 45). When explaining it, it is important to “explain the meaning in everyday language” (ibid.). The second principle of robust vocabulary instruction states that aspects of word meaning should be included in vocabulary instruction. “Word knowledge extends far beyond simple definitions (as vocabulary is frequently conceptual‐ ized in classroom instruction) to a deep network of information about the world” (Ford-Connors/ O’Connor 2019: 135). Thus, the teacher should reveal aspects of 76 Ralf Gießler word meaning that are not apparent for L2 learners due to a lack of salience or interlingual difference (e.g. hot chocolate vs. kalter Kakao). Underlying concepts, associations and the core meaning are elements of the word’s meaning and thus should be included in the teacher’s response to a child’s comment or answer (Beck et al. 2013: 75). Third, in robust vocabulary instruction teachers should give deliberate attention to “the similarities and the differences among words and the precise roles they can play” (ibid.: 93). Vocabulary should be presented and practiced “within culturally authentic semantic fields and networks of relationships and in ways that distinguish the native and the target culture” (Spinelli/ Siskin 1992: 313). In classroom discourse, teachers should focus “on explorations of complex dimensions of a word’s meaning and the relationships that exist to other words along some of those dimensions” (ibid.). This principle contradicts the commonly suggested practice of teaching word meaning through synonyms (cf. Thaler 2012: 228). Although teaching new words as synonyms seems to provide a “quick anchor point for a word, [it] is a bankrupt way to teach word meaning” (Beck et al. 2013: 93). Great care needs to be taken to avoid that related lexical items do not interfere with each other (cf. Nation 2001: 52). To sum up, the following features of LCD are effective for enhancing vocabulary knowledge and comprehension for learners of all ages: ■ multiple exposures of the words being taught ■ breadth of information - definitional and contextual ■ engagement: active or deep processing of words by getting students to think about and interact with them. In conclusion, it becomes apparent that the principles of robust vocabulary instruction can inform LCD, which will manifest in specific lexical classroom discourse moves. A teacher who has a command of LCD skills is aware of the complexities of lexical learning, the limitation of definitions and synonyms for communicating word meaning, and the need to engage learners in the process of negotiating meaning with learners in a student-friendly language. 3 Case Studies: Student Teachers’ Perspectives on Lexical Classroom Discourse In this section, we will address the question how student teachers can acquire classroom discourse skills that support lexical learning in a way just described above. How can student teachers’ attention be directed to classroom discourse which is in agreement with the principles of robust vocabulary instruction? 77 Classroom Discourse Skills to Support Lexical Learning The argument is that lesson videos can be used to enhance student teachers’ awareness of classroom discourse and the need for specific classroom discourse moves that support lexical learning. Research on teacher education suggests that video is a valuable resource for learning about subject-specific teaching (e.g. Zhang/ Koehler/ Lundeberg 2015, Lindmeier 2013, Weger 2019). Depending on the accompanying tasks and prompts, lesson videos in teacher education can stimulate knowledge-based reasoning about key concepts of teaching, such as implementing lexical classroom discourse. In a multiple-case study, which is grounded in the general framework of design-based research, an entire course on teaching lexis, titled “Supporting Lexical Learning”, was taught using lesson videos as showcases for illustration and analysis (Gießler 2018). The individual written analyses of seven student teachers were analyzed in depth in order to give answers to the following research questions: ■ What do student teachers notice in lesson videos? ■ To what degree do they make use of theoretical knowledge to classify events and situations? ■ Does their subject-related professional vision develop throughout the course? The lesson videos show EFL classes with explicit and implicit situations of lexical learning and vocabulary instruction from year 2 to year 12. The backbone of the empirical part of this study consists of individual written video analyses (IWAs). Student teachers were instructed to respond to four prompts while writing each lesson analysis. One of the prompts aims at directing student teachers’ attention to classroom discourse: “How is lexical learning supported through communication and interaction in the lesson? ” (Gießler 2018: 123). The answer to this question and further questions about the aims of the lesson and alternatives make up the IWAs. Using a qualitative content analysis scheme, the texts of student teachers are coded along the following dimensions: describing, classifying, predicting, suggesting alternatives and evaluating. The findings provide evidence that at the end of the course, student teachers are able to classify situations in the classroom using appropriate concepts of lexical learning (e.g. aspects of word knowledge, negotiation of meaning). Some of the student teachers are also able to make suggestions for alternative classroom discourse moves (Gießler 2018: 386-391). In the subsections 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5 three selected situations from the lesson videos are presented. In the subsequent sections 3.2, 3.4 and 3.6 we will look at 78 Ralf Gießler individual student teacher’s perspectives on each situation of lexical learning from the different lesson videos. In this paper only a selection of extracts from the written video analyses by Martha (cf. Gießler 2018: 340-370), Kerstin (cf. ibid.: 242-283) and Kate (cf. ibid.: 317-339) can be presented and discussed. Martha is an 8 th -semester student who aims at teaching English in primary school. Kate has been studying English for eight semesters as well. She wants to become a teacher at secondary school with Biology as her second subject. Kerstin is a 6 th -semester student for English and Religious Education; she has substantial experience in tuition teaching. None of the student teachers has taken a course on systematic lesson observation. All student teachers had to answer a questionnaire about their beliefs with respect to effective vocabulary instruction. Kerstin considers providing contexts for meaningful use as essential. Martha thinks that opportunities for speaking and interaction are an important factor for ensuring vocabulary development in learners. Kate sees a need for regular repetition and thinks that teachers should aim at a variety of communicative tasks. 3.1 Situation 1: How Many Times Do We Need to Practice? In this year 2 lesson (MSB), the teacher’s aim is to repeat lexical items from the word field ‘food’. The focus is on the meaning and the correct pronunciation of words. Learners have to recall the correct word form as the teacher shows them picture cards of words like ‘ham’, ‘roll’ and ‘hot chocolate’. The teacher engages learners by asking them how often a particular word, like, for instance, ‘hot chocolate’, should be practiced. The children respond: “Ten times! ” What follows is choral repetition. Learners may have an intuition about the difficulty of the word based on its length and the silent letter ‘o’. However, the teacher does not ask the students why they think that ‘hot chocolate’ should be repeated that often, nor is there an opportunity to use the word in meaningful and relevant contexts (e.g. In which season do you drink hot chocolate? ), nor does the teacher correct or check learners’ articulation of the word. The teacher’s question “How many times do we need to practice? ” aims at enhancing memorization and retention in learners. Beyond that, it has potential to raise learners’ lexical awareness and to take an analytical stance towards lexis. The teacher’s question could lead the learners to a deeper, but still child-like insight into the complexity of lexis. It would be natural to ask these year 2 learners why they think that the word ‘hot chocolate’ should be practiced, i.e. repeated, ten times. Such a simple question would stimulate deeper thinking and awareness of the difficulty of words (e.g. multi-syllabic word; silent vowel). The teacher also points out there that there is no such word as *cold chocolate in English. However, it remains 79 Classroom Discourse Skills to Support Lexical Learning unclear which word can be used to refer to the cold cocoa drink that pupils can order in German schools. According to its dictionary definition, “cocoa” is used to refer to a “hot drink made from cocoa with milk or water” (Hornby/ Cowie 1994: 218). 3.2 Student Teachers’ Perspective on Situation 1 Martha directs her attention to the classroom discourse in the given sequence in her second individual written analysis (IWA). She infers learning gains by predicting that children will know that you can only say ‘hot chocolate’ in English. There are two situations that I really like. Hot Chocolate: The teacher does not tell the learners that it is HOT chocolate but stresses that it is not COLD chocolate. The children remember the word hot and then know that it is HOT CHOCOLATE. (Martha IWA II, 4) However, as the teacher only instructs the learners about this constraint on use, there is no evidence for this learning outcome which could result from, for example, learners talking about their favourite drink or whether they prefer hot chocolate to other drinks. Kerstin describes the situation in great detail and refers specifically to the lesson video by quoting teacher prompts. She is also aware of the learning burden of the lexical item ‘hot chocolate’. However, like Martha, she also assumes that the learners will use the word correctly and will have understood that there is no such thing as *cold chocolate. Kerstin does not reflect upon the pupils’ wish to practice the word ten times. Still, she notices that the pupils intuitively feel that ‘hot chocolate’ is more difficult than the previous practiced words. The teacher continues with another picture card. She now wants to focus on the item hot chocolate. This is actually a multi-word unit and therefore the learning burden is a little bit higher. The teacher is aware of this fact and gives a hint to her pupils by saying “It’s actually two words.” [see 1: 27]. The pupils do not get that hint right from the beginning. One of the students just says “chocolate” so the teacher needs to give another hint to the solution. In our case she works with an antonym. She says: “Remember, it is not cold chocolate.” [see 1: 30-1: 35]. Now the pupils get it and are able to give the right expression. After that they practice it ten times. This demonstrates again that some words have a higher learning burden than others. The lexical item hot chocolate seems to be a rather difficult one so even the pupils feel the need to practice it more intensively. (Kerstin IWA II, 10) 80 Ralf Gießler 3.3 Situation 2: Can You Afford to Buy a House? After repeating words from the word field ‘money’, the teacher wants to introduce some new words that these year 7 learners will come across in a song by ABBA in the next phase of the lesson. The teacher asks one learner whether he thinks that he can afford to buy a house. The pupil is not quite sure and hesitates. Then the teacher asks: “Could you afford it, have you got enough money, could you afford to buy a house just now? ” Again, the pupil is at a loss. “I don’t know”, he says. The teacher approaches another pupil and asks him whether he can afford to buy an ice cream. When the pupil hesitantly responds, “I think yes”, the teacher goes on and asks, “How much is an ice cream? ” On giving the answer “four francs” the pupil demonstrates his understanding of the concept behind the target word. He is of course able to spend four francs on an ice cream from his pocket money. The teacher tries to keep the conversation going and adds student-friendly, short explanations: “Four francs, okay, so you can afford that, you can easily pay for it”. Realizing that his learners do not get the concept of ‘to afford’ through negotiation of meaning, he decides to use a simple explanation: “you can easily pay for it. […] That’s, when you can afford it, then it’s not too high for your budget. That’s when you can afford it”. 3.4 Student Teachers’ Perspective on Situation 2 Kate notices quite a lot of details in this situation: there are two questions, both of which remain unanswered. The student does not know the word yet, that is why there is no communication. For improving the quality of lexical classroom discourse here, Kate suggests a more student-friendly explanation. The word afford is explained in a wrong way. It is not effective to explain a word with a question. That’s why when he asks “Can you afford to buy a house? ” the student doesn’t know what to say. Noticing his mistake the teacher paraphrases his question: “Could you afford it? Do you have enough money? ” But there is no answer again. There is an impression the student doesn’t know the word enough as well. It would be more effective to say: if I have 3 $ I cannot afford to buy a house. It is not enough. (Kate IWA-Post, 14) Kate takes a very critical stance towards the classroom discourse of the teacher in this situation and notices that his initial question “Can you afford to buy a house? ” is not answered by the pupil. The teacher’s attempt to communicate the word’s meaning by exemplification in a dialogue with the learners does not lead to comprehension in the end. 81 Classroom Discourse Skills to Support Lexical Learning Martha notices the inadequacy of the teacher’s first moves in classroom discourse for communicating the word’s meaning, but acknowledges the com‐ prehensibility of the teacher’s final explanation as he uses everyday language. The teacher wants the learners to use English words and vocabulary in order to explain certain expressions and there is a nice one he wants to make clear to his student: “to afford” (10: 40) That word seems to be really unknown and therefore has to be explained. He makes an example (! ) “Can you afford to buy a house? ” (10: 48) but recognizes that this example does not really help to clarify the meaning of the verb. The teacher uses then another example (can you afford to buy an ice cream 11: 00) and gives a certain explanation: “You can easily pay for it” (11: 13) In this case I think that the teacher really does a good job. (Martha IWA-Post, 12) Both extracts from the IWAs by the student teachers demonstrate that lesson videos are a valuable resource for analysing classroom discourse behaviour. However, the following example demonstrates that at times a guided analysis of specific situations from the lesson video is necessary in order to raise student teachers’ awareness of skills needed for effective classroom discourse that will eventually support lexical learning. 3.5 Situation 3: The Window Dresser The teacher of this year 9 class wants learners to guess the words for specific jobs shown in pictures on a course book page. According to the course book vocabulary list, the word ‘window dresser’ is a new lexical item that learners have not met yet. Learners try to guess the correct word and suggest ‘fashion designer’ and ‘shop assistant’. Both words are of course related to the target word ‘window dresser’ and have some semantic features in common; still, they differ substantially, as a shop assistant does not have the task to decorate shop windows as his or her prime duty, and a fashion designer would certainly not dress dolls in shop windows with the clothes he or she has designed. As the learners suggest several possible words to refer to the person shown in the picture, the teacher neither clarifies nor involves the learners in an interactive follow-up by asking, for example, “Oh, that is a good point. What do a fashion designer and a window dresser have in common? ” Thus, a key principle of robust vocabulary instruction is violated here as learners’ interest and awareness of words is not instigated (cf. Beck et al. 2013: 13). The teacher’s lexical classroom discourse in this sequence is characterized by vagueness and undetermined behaviour. Even though pupils present two related jobs (fashion designer, shop assistant), the teacher avoids discussing the meaning differences and similarities between the three lexical items. 82 Ralf Gießler 3.6 Student Teachers’ Perspective on Situation 3 In the context of a TEFL course on lexical learning, this situation was taken up again in a course meeting with student teachers after they had analysed the situation in their written video analysis. (In each subsequent session after the written video analyses were submitted, the lesson video was discussed again with student teachers in the course.) It became clear from the individual written video analyses that a majority of student teachers failed to notice the inadequacy of the teacher’s classroom discourse behaviour. The evolving dialogue during the course illustrates how challenging it is for student teachers to understand the need to improve the teacher’s classroom discourse in this situation. It became clear that there was a need to clarify in the discussion what the three words actually have in common. Student teachers had to be prompted several times in order to stimulate deeper thinking about the differences between ‘fashion designer’, ‘window dresser’ and ‘shop assistant’ on the level of the underlying concepts. MR G: […] the window dresser is also an example. Do you remember what one of the pupils says? S6: Fashion designer. MR G: Fashion designer, yes. S: It could be, he says then. S6: Ja. MR G: It could be. S: It was a good answer actually. MR G: Yes. MR G: […] How could you get from fashion designer to window dresser? Or how could the teacher work with this answer from the pupils to arrive at the right word here? Think of design. S9: Yes, not the same meaning. MR G: Yes, o. k., it’s a different job. Yes, but what does a window dresser do? Does […] it have something to do with design? MR G: It has, but, it has to do. MR G: Yes, o. k. How could the teacher do this in terms of communicating word meaning? S9: In explaining it. 83 Classroom Discourse Skills to Support Lexical Learning MR G: O.k. S7: Well, I just want (? ) word fields, and with the word fields he could work with this, because, it’s not the same, eh, kind of job, but it’s related to each other in some way. MR G: Yes. S7: First we have to produce, eh the cloth, then you can put it into the window. MR G: O.k. [31: 02 - 31: 03] S8: And, well window dresser designs in a way, but not the clothes, but how the window look likes. In sum, video-based discussions have the potential to raise student teachers’ awareness of lexical classroom discourse skills (and other language teaching related issues as well). It is student teacher S8 who realizes after all how the two jobs are related. Still, it does not become clear what exactly the teacher’s explanation should entail in order to show the interconnectedness of the words in question. Thus, modelling the negotiation of word meanings can sometimes be a necessity in teacher education as well. 4 Conclusion Lexical classroom discourse cannot be entirely planned. It takes “that combina‐ tion of thoughtfulness and improvisational skill that allows a teacher to respond productively to children’s comments” (Beck et al. 2013: 75) and their contribu‐ tions. In other words: teacher language awareness precedes learners’ language and lexical awareness. A teacher’s preparedness to respond appropriately to learner contributions in class depends on ■ a teacher’s general (lexical) awareness of the multi-dimensionality of lexis, ■ insights about the learning burden of specific words (i.e. form, meaning or use aspects) and ■ a detailed analysis of newly to be learnt lexical items during lesson planning. The teacher in situation 1 creates opportunities for multiple exposures by having learners recall the word and repeat its spoken form several times. The teacher in situation 2 provides definitional and contextual information about the word ‘to afford’. He also manages to engage students in interactions that stimulate deeper thinking about the word (“Can you afford to buy a house? ”). Pointing out conceptual differences and associations is part and parcel of LCD: In situation 2 the teacher makes it clear that the concept behind ‘to afford’ includes the idea of 84 Ralf Gießler spending money in agreement with your available budget. In comparison to the phrase ‘to spend money’ - a collocation that easily comes to mind when thinking about the word field ‘money’ - the concept behind the less frequently used item ‘to afford’ is more complex as it includes the idea of planning to spend money in relation to an individual budget. In situation 3 the conceptual difference between ‘window dresser’, ‘fashion designer’ and ‘shop assistant’ must remain blurry for learners, as the teacher does not work toward a clarification. Classroom discourse that supports lexical learning clearly goes beyond com‐ municating word meaning through definitions. A teacher who has a command of lexical classroom discourse skills seizes opportunities to spend time on words and create multiple encounters with words, as single encounters with words are “not adequate to provide the depth of meaning, conceptual knowledge, and information about usage that permits full ownership” (Graves 2006, quoted in Ford-Connors/ Paratore 2015: 52). Lexical learning is supported through classroom discourse whenever “a word’s broad range of semantic connections and related concepts” (Ford-Con‐ nors/ Paratore 2015: 53) are clarified. Whenever the teacher decides to decontex‐ tualize words (cf. Nation 2001: 119) and teach something about specific aspects of word knowledge, lexical classroom discourse skills are required so that learners gain a deeper understanding of words and their interrelatedness. Bibliography Aitchison, Jean (2012). Words in the Mind. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Barcroft, Joe (2012). Input-Based Incremental Vocabulary Instruction. Alexandria, Virginia: TESOL International Association. Beck, Isabel L./ McKeown, Margaret G./ Kucan, Linda (2013). Bringing Words to Life. Robust Vocabulary Instruction. New York: Guilford Press. Cummins, Jim/ Davison, Chris (Eds.) (2007). International Handbook of English Language Teaching. 1 st ed. New York: Springer-Verlag US. Ford-Connors, Evelyn/ Paratore, Jeanne R. (2015). “Vocabulary Instruction in Fifth Grade and Beyond.” Review of Educational Research 85: 1, 50-91. Ford-Connors, E./ O’Connor, C. (2019). “Classroom Conversations as Support for Vo‐ cabulary Learning.” In: Grøver, V./ Uccelli, P./ Rowe, M./ Lieven, E. (Eds.), Learning Through Language: Towards an Educationally Informed Theory of Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP, 135-146. Gießler, Ralf (2018). Lexikalisches Lernen im Englischunterricht ermöglichen. Fallstudien zur Unterrichtswahrnehmung angehender Lehrkräfte. Tübingen: Narr Francke At‐ tempto Verlag. 85 Classroom Discourse Skills to Support Lexical Learning Graves, M. F. (2006). The Vocabulary Book: Learning and Instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hornby, Albert Sydney/ Cowie, Anthony P. (Eds.) (1994). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. 4 th ed., 8 th impr. Oxford: OUP. Lindmeier, Anke (2013). “Video-vignettenbasierte standardisierte Erhebung vom Leh‐ rerkognitionen.” In: Riegel, Ulrich (Ed.), Videobasierte Kompetenzforschung in den Fachdidaktiken. Münster: Waxmann, 45-62. McKeown, Margaret G./ Beck, Isabel L./ Omanson, Richard C./ Pople, Martha T. (1985). “Some Effects of the Nature and Frequency of Vocabulary Instruction on the Knowl‐ edge and Use of Words.” Reading Research Quarterly 20: 5, 522-535. Ministerium für Schule und Bildung (MSB). Englisch in der Grundschule. Unterrichts‐ mitschnitte. Online verfügbar: www.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/ cms/ angebote/ egs/ u nterrichtsvideos/ filmsequenzen-film-1/ film-1-sequenz-4-practising-new-words.html (last accessed: 28.07.2021) Nation, Ian S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press. Perfetti, Charles (2007). “Reading Ability: Lexical Quality to Comprehension.” Scientific Studies of Reading, 11: 4, 357-383. Scherfer, Peter (1985). “Lexikalisches Lernen im Fremdsprachenunterricht.” In: Schwarze, Christoph/ Wunderlich, Dieter (Eds.), Handbuch der Lexikologie. Königsstein: Athe‐ näum, 412-440. Scherfer, Peter (1994). “Überlegungen zu einer Theorie des Vokabellernens und -lehrens.” In: Börner, W./ Vogel, K. (Eds.), Kognitive Linguistik und Fremdsprachenerwerb: Das mentale Lexikon. Tübingen: Narr, 185-215. Schmitt, Nobert (2007). “Current Perspectives on Vocabulary Teaching and Learning.” In: Cummins, Jim / Davison, Chris (Eds.). International Handbook of English Language Teaching. New York: Springer, 827-841. Schmitt, Norbert (2008). “Review Article: Instructed Second Language Vocabulary Learning.” Language Teaching Research 12: 3, 329-363. Silverman, R. D./ Proctor, C. P./ Harring, J. R./ Doyle, B./ Mitchell, M. A./ Meyer, A. G. (2013). “Teachers’ Instruction and Students’ Vocabulary and Comprehension: An Exploratory Study with English Monolingual and Spanish-English Bilingual Students in Grades 3-5.” Reading Research Quarterly 49, 31-60. Spinelli, Emily/ Siskin, H. Jay (1992). “Selecting, Presenting and Practicing Vocabulary in a Culturally-Authentic Context.” Foreign Language Annals 25: 4, 305-315. Thaler, Engelbert (2012). Englisch Unterrichten. Berlin: Cornelsen. Weger, Denis (2019). “Professional Vision - State of the Art. Zum Konstrukt der pro‐ fessionellen Unterrichtswahrnehmung in der Lehrer-(innen)bildung.” Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen 48: 1, 14-31. 86 Ralf Gießler Zhang, Meilan/ Koehler, Matthew/ Lundeberg, Mary (2015). “Affordances and Challenges of Different Types of Video for Teachers Professional Development.” In: Calandra, B./ Rich, P. (Eds.), Digital Video for Teacher Education. Research and Practice. New York/ London: Routledge, 147-163. 87 Classroom Discourse Skills to Support Lexical Learning Prompts as a Means of Scaffolding Literary Discourse Jochen Baier / Emily Brehm Hosting a free (analytical) discussion about fictional texts constantly proves to be one of the major challenges for budding teachers. Prompts offer a chance to develop the necessary competence and support the students by scaffolding the ivory tower of literature. This aspect of discourse competence has been widely neglected, even though it is a promising and easily attainable way of putting the ideals of communicative teaching into action. This paper shows how prompts can be rooted in the conflicting principles of Response Theory and New Criticism as well as the classical discourse-related approaches that - in terms of ELT in Germany - date back to the foundations laid by Piepho, Bredella, Werlich or, particularly in regards to this paper, Nissen. Largely based on his phase model, this treatise systematically demonstrates how different categories of prompts can be deployed to match the challenges which changing reading habits, new styles of communication and the currently prevailing didactical approaches bring about for the Foreign Language Classroom (FLC). Prompts can trigger activity, focus thoughts, help to elaborate, individualize, change perspectives, and, on a meta level, enable reflection on literary classroom discourse. 1 Literary Discourse in the German ELT Classroom If we - at the backdrop of the communicative turn - see classroom discourse as a fruitful exchange that enables the use of the target language to produce meaningful content, literary discourse, above all, has to face the challenge of defining what is ‘meaningful’ in regards to a piece of literature and its perception. To start off, the orchestration of an appropriate discourse in the FLC has to overcome the classical clash between New Criticism and Response Theory - the contrastive ideals of how we want to define, read and understand literature in general. The two opposing ends of the spectrum have brought about didactical representations such as Werlich’s, respectively Nissen’s ideas about teaching literary texts that are - at least seemingly - just as incompatible. That is a conundrum that has never been entirely resolved by didactical scholars, who 1 As reading amongst young people has drastically changed, this can potentially also include new genres that because of their unconventional character (Thomson 2019: 12) might lead to new motivation. 2 Also see Yule, who formulates that communicative approaches to teaching follow the belief that “the functions of language […] should be emphasized rather than the forms of the language” (2017: 212). 3 For the limitations that school brings about in regards to the students’ freedom and their perception of literature see Hermes’s critical remarks (1997: 124). were, for good or ill, saved by the bell that announced the rise of TBLL and other approaches that focus on the interaction between student and learning material rather than on group interaction. Despite this and other challenges, elaborated in the following, this article argues that literary discourse as such must return to the classroom - the process being an objective of its own - and that teachers must be trained accordingly: e.g. to use effective scaffolding techniques such as prompts, which prove that literary discourse can be competently furthered by the teacher as a host and (if the text basis is well chosen) be truly rewarding. 1 At the latest with Piepho, who was one of the first German scholars ad‐ vocating the urge to develop communicative competence (Piepho 1974) the communicative turn began. Drawing on Habermas’s “Theory of communicative competence” he elaborates on “Diskurstüchtigkeit” and formulates various groundbreaking theses, which, in most cases, can be interpreted as desiderata and set new standards (Piepho 1974: 11). Even though in the 1970s linguistic accuracy was still considered desirable, the production of authentic, meaningful content emerged as the prime target: [Der] Erfolg, vernünftige, reale und ehrliche Behauptungen und Beiträge zu äußern […] [, soll] in erster Linie an der Verständlichkeit, Direktheit und Ehrlichkeit der kommunikativen Absicht (und ihres Erfolgs) gemessen und bewertet werden. (Piepho 1974: 15) 2 In most areas of language teaching this could easily be achieved by focusing on the acquisition of a repertoire of speech acts (see Volkmann 2010: 19) that concentrated on real-life situations and thus had (future) relevance for the every-day lives of the students. By freely combining these speech acts, discourse seemed almost unlimited, that is, at least within the predefined framework of the schooling system as such. 3 By contrast, New Criticism calls for a single, allegedly the one and only correct, interpretation of a literary text and hence severely limits student discourse. The reading process can be defined as the objectivist reconstruction of the ‘original’ sense of the text - a piece of literature can only possess one single meaning. This can only be identified if the reconstruction process is carried out the correct 90 Jochen Baier / Emily Brehm 4 That “[the] word discourse is usually defined as ‘language beyond the sentence’” (Yule 2016: 158) hints at another potential weakness of Werlich’s approach of (ab-)using literature as a vehicle to merely teach technical terms for text analysis. 5 The struggle to keep the balance between freely, and maybe even somewhat randomly, reading a text and deploying it in a teaching scenario is impressively depicted in Dela‐ noy’s model of reading and working with texts that comprises two axes, one of which reaching from a complete orientation at the “literary text” on the one hand to putting the complete and utter focus on the “task” on the other (Müller-Hartmann/ Schocker-von Ditfurth 2014: 126). way, i.e. with a profound knowledge about the interdependency of form (e.g. stylistic devices) and content as well as the necessary analytical skills. At the backdrop of this rather strict approach, literary discourse is inevitably confined to a 45-minute game of right and wrong - a contribution to the classroom talk either fits the model solution or it does not. If it does not, it has to be rejected, no matter how understandable, honest, and direct it may be, as Piepho puts it. The rest is learning gigantic word fields of technical terms such as in Werlich’s approach to “Textformlehre” (1976, 1988, 1989) - striving at the acquisition of a maybe overly sophisticated repertoire that goes far beyond what Olaussen labels as “all-purpose academic words“ (2016: 2597). 4 Unlike New Criticism, Response Theory focuses on the reader and aims at the individual construction of meaning. Gaps of indeterminacy, which are laid down in every literary text - the Unbestimmtheitsstellen as Iser and Jauß call them -, are freely filled by top-down processes, using the world knowledge of each individual reader. As a consequence of this subjectivist process, each individual produces a different meaning: […] Bedeutungen literarischer Texte werden überhaupt erst im Lesevorgang generiert; sie sind das Produkt einer Interaktion von Text und Leser und keine im Text versteckten Größen, die aufzuspüren allein der Interpretation vorbehalten bleibt. Generiert der Leser die Bedeutung eines Textes, so ist es nur zwangsläufig, wenn diese in einer je individuellen Gestalt erscheint. (Iser 1975: 229). Hence, at the backdrop of Response Theory it was just as impossible to meet the challenge of initiating appropriate classroom discourse as it was in regards to New Criticism: if the potential perceptions of a literary text - and thus also the corresponding classroom talk - can and, indeed, must be identified as potentially endless, how can we define a teaching objective or a sufficient repertoire of speech acts or even a systematic structure of our mutual discourse and is this attempt even justifiable? 5 The answer obviously is in the negative, which adds to Bredella’s criticism of Response Theory and its application to the classroom: 91 Prompts as a Means of Scaffolding Literary Discourse 6 For further differences between New Criticism and Response Theory also refer to Bredella (1991: 47f. and 51ff.). 7 Concerning Nissen’s significance as a founding father of a modern literary discourse in the German FLC see Brusch/ Caspari (1998: 169). Mit der Annahme, dass wir gar keinen fremden Sinn verstehen, zerstören die subjektivistischen Ansätze die pädagogische Bedeutung des Lesens und Verstehens literarischer Texte, die sich gerade daraus ergibt, dass wir uns nicht über den Sinn des Textes hinwegsetzen, sondern darin, dass wir uns unter seiner Lenkung in Charaktere versetzen und die Welt mit deren Augen sehen. Dadurch erreichen wir eine Erweiterung unserer Sichtweisen und Einstellungen (2000: 57). Based on the recognition that we should not void a text from its contents, thus embowel and sacrifice it for the sake of the reader’s autonomy (ibid.), Bredella advocates an interactionist approach, that was one of the first decisive steps to theoretically conciliate the two extremes. 6 Closest to consistently putting Bredella’s interactionist model into practice and thereby partly resolving the inherent opposition of New Criticism and Response Theory in the German FLC was probably Nissen, who combined individual ways of understanding and predefined objectives by drafting a phase model. 7 It depicts a process from the reader to the text and back: first, the open beginning, which fairly strictly follows the ideals of free reader-response, enables the creation of meaning by the student and the chance to share it with the group of learners (“Ermöglichung”); second, the teacher’s guidance and his input address the variety of the students’ points of view (“Entfaltung”); and third, they also define a focus and potentially ascribe a predefined meaning to the text and thus include elements of a text analysis typical of New Criticism (“Konsolidierung”). Finally, input and recognition are transferred to other texts, intertextualized or related to the students’ personal lives (“Transfer”) (Nissen 1998: 164, also compare Nissen 1982: 115, and 2002: 25). His ideas - no matter how compromising and pragmatic they may seem - show that the theoretical frictions concerning literary discourse can be overcome. Neither its endlessness nor its potential to be abused as a scenario to merely introduce technical terms for text analysis, justify its abolition. Instead, literary discourse should be systemized and trained to also meet the practical challenges of today depicted in the following. 2 Current Challenges to Literary Discourse Challenges to literary discourse are the natural - yet presumably increasing - fear of speaking and taking part in group discourse but also recent developments 92 Jochen Baier / Emily Brehm 8 For a more profound psychological approach see Kraft’s elaboration on the fear of speaking (2016: 58ff.) 9 Concerning the teachers’ dominance inherent in the old-fashioned IRF models for example see Al-Smadi/ Ab Rashid (2017: 165). That, once they had been abandoned, teaching/ learning discourses have been dealt with but superficially is shown by Friedrich (2002: 126). such as changing reading habits, as well as the prevailing didactical approaches that almost dogmatically assign a different role to the teacher (i.e. a role unfit for discourse) - both make it difficult to match the requirements of the curricula. The natural fear of speaking in front of a group can maybe best exemplified by Jerry Seinfeld’s anecdote about speaking and dying, in which he, with a (justifiable) twinkle in his eye, looks at the situation at a funeral: he interprets a survey that ranks the most common fears by inferring that most people prefer dying, and thus being IN a grave, to holding a speech at someone else’s grave (Havener 2017: 123). 8 Indeed, discourse as a process “in vivo” (Feinbier 2015: 45) poses challenges that can easily be derived from the characteristics of oral speech production in general, i.e. similarity, multimodality, reciprocity, reliability, pace, interactivity and context (see Feinbier 2015: 46-47). If we look at young people’s communication systems, especially the preferential use of WhatApp, voicemessages, chatrooms etc. above phone calls and face-to-face conversations, we can surmise that especially pace poses a difficulty that adds to the fear. No wonder only “few students contribute most of the answers” (Nuthall 1997: 3) - “interactional routines” as Al-Smadi and Ab Rashid call it (2017: 164) increasingly fail. The challenge of changing reading habits shows in the rise of the internet: 96% of adolescents use it every day (Rathgeb/ Schmid 2019: 14) and spend an extraordinary amount of time on digital media (about 6 hours per day as of 2016 according to Twenge/ Spitzberg, 2019: 342). By contrast, only 34% of young people read a book more than once a week, and we can consistently observe that reading (longer) texts has become less and less popular as a leisure time activity (Rathgeb/ Schmid 2019: 14). Indeed, it has currently reached the lowest level recorded in the new millennium (see Clark/ Teravainen-Goff 2020: 2). Not only does this support Twenge and Spitzberg’s conclusion that digitalization has taken time away from classical media, especially print (2019: 342), and thus prose fiction, but we can also assess that the corresponding threat to literary discourse is increasing. The challenges brought about by recent didactical approaches to EFL teaching, such as TBLL, contribute to this effect. Even though they seem sensible at the backdrop of the daunting, mostly useless teacher-centered approaches of the 20 th century, they threw out the baby with the bathwater. 9 The teacher, who is needed or at least highly useful as a participant in literary discourse, gets frequently confined 93 Prompts as a Means of Scaffolding Literary Discourse 10 Indeed, open literary discourse can justifiably be considered imperfect when it comes to “meet[ing] the needs of each individual“ as this - for example in a one-on-one teacher-student talk - “would be extremely time consuming” (Van der Stuyf 2002: 12). Yet, this argument could be countered by saying that everybody has the same chance to contribute to the conversation and thus set both level and focus. In other words, discourse guarantees the pursuit of recognition to every participant, not recognition as such. 11 Even though none of the recent publications in the field explicitly advocates that it should be abolished, frequently the idea of literary discourse is simply dropped or it is confined to an indirect exchange in which the teacher reads (and hopefully at least offers feedback to) the students’ reading logs (see Eisenmann 2019: 89). to the role of a supplier of materials and a silent guide at the side (for such an interpretation of the teacher’s role in context of station learning see Eisenmann 2019: 78). Students are no longer used to taking part in literary discourse anymore. This tendency to focus on student/ teaching material-interaction rather than on student/ teacher-discourse has (lately) been enhanced by the ongoing discussion about increasingly heterogeneous classrooms and the need to further differentiate and individualize the FLC (see Eisenmann 2019: 73-75). For example, individualized week plans undoubtedly help to advance differentiation but, as a result, more often than not, literary discourse falls by the wayside. 10 Today it almost frequently is disregarded at the top level of the taxonomy of methods and is not valued as a process in its own right. None of the books used for this article considered it important enough to dedicate even a subchapter to it. This seems surprising as even recent approaches still define communicative competence as the first target of teaching literature in a second language (Nünning/ Surkamp 2016: 22). Discourse, instead, for a whole generation of budding teachers, seems to be classified as a mere side-effect of perceiving literature, a way of generating “follow up communication” (see ibid.: 95), an appendix of the reading process if we want to play the devil’s advocate here. 11 Seeing literary discourse competence as a leftover from the reading compe‐ tence buffet or just as one of many forms of formal speech production also does not comply with German curricula that attribute a major significance to literary discourse. Especially in Sekundarstufe II, students are confronted with fictional texts, which are meant to develop their sensitivity for language and verbally mediated communication, as, for example, the Bildungsplan Baden-Württem‐ berg explicitly requires (2016: 14). According to the legal framework, these texts are meant to challenge the students in their analytical skills and address them affectively, aesthetically and in their creativity (Bildungsplan BW 2016: 6). Additionally, literature in ELT is ascribed the function to further diverse ways of thinking and acting, adopting or questioning other perspectives, and dealing with texts in an analytical and creative way (ibid.). Literary discourse offers 94 Jochen Baier / Emily Brehm 12 For the connection between scaffolding and the concept of ZPD also see Van der Stuyf (2002: 1-12). 13 Prompts, by following easy patterns, even offer the chance to encourage the students to construct those impulses themselves for their fellow classmates. And by performing the role of the teacher the students can potentially be involved in “deep-reasoning” (Nuthall 1997: 9). students the opportunity to put their own interpretation into perspective, to compare it with those of others and to check the degree to which their individual understanding of the text can be objectified as the Lehrplan Rheinland-Pfalz formulates it (1998: 9). In a nutshell, literary discourse is a legal must. Considering the challenges and the necessity “to implement dialogic teaching” (Olaussen 2016: 2595), it seems self-evident that teachers offer appro‐ priate help to the students. Maybe only extensive scaffolding opens the chance to be successful in creating cyclical hermeneutic progress within a classroom conversation (also compare Trujillo/ Ortega 2010: 162): in regards to literary discourse, the use of techniques such as prompting appears to be an essential competence of the teacher (see Friedrich 2002: 127). 3 Prompts as a Chance Scaffolding in general comprises any technique that supports the students’ learning process. As the image suggests, it predominantly helps learners to reach to the higher levels of language learning: even though it starts at ground level of the “Bildungs-building-site”, it rather applies to secondary schools than to primary schools ( Jäger 2012: 209). Scaffolding helps learners to master complex CLIL topics (ibid.) and, as the term suggests, supports students accessing the ivory tower of literature. As a teaching strategy it presents a valuable resource: teachers can deploy it to strive at creating a “zone of proximal development” for the students (Vygotsky 1978: 85). 12 As this zone changes with the learning progress, however, we can infer that the use of scaffolding techniques is just a step to eventually “create autonomy” (Grimm et al. 2015: 87). In regards to literary discourse, scaffolding can be understood as a “building of utterances on those of the native speaker” (Larsen-Freeman/ Long 1992: 70), who - in the German ELT classroom - of course, is mostly replaced by the non-mother-tongue teacher as a language model. And even though we should take for granted that budding teachers possess a native-like command of both written and spoken English, acquiring the competence of scaffolding literary discourse poses an extra challenge which prompts help to meet: for the larger part they can be used as passepartout patterns and thus are comparatively easy to implement. 13 95 Prompts as a Means of Scaffolding Literary Discourse 14 If we look at the morpheme level: from pro ‘forward’ + emere ‘to take’. 15 In addition to verbal prompts, Alberto and Troutman also mention ‘Physical’, ‘Model’, ‘Gestural’, ‘Visual’, and ‘Positional’ (2003: 5-15), which goes beyond the focus of this treatise and seems to be questionable in so far as the label ‘Visual’ seems to - at least for the larger part - include physical, as well as gestural. Concerning the tremendous psychological significance of gestures and facial expressions, see Flammer (1997: 27ff.). In regards to their significance for teaching and learning in the classroom refer to Baier (2017). 16 Those who use prompts “as an umbrella term” and explicitly identify subcategories also occasionally use the term ‘cue’ to signify what this treatise considers a ‘prompt’. On the one hand, the latter seems justifiable if we focus on the ‘cue’s’ function as a trigger. On the other hand, the term differs in the way that a ‘cue’ is a line of speech produced by another person that requires a reaction instead of a continuation. For a similar approach, compare ABA for Educators (2007): “Prompts [are] also known as cues, hints, scaffolding, hand over hand”. Other scholars like Salimi et al. (2011) or Ellis (2003) have tried to narrow down the term ‘prompt’ in a different way by claiming it was “the repetition of a learner’s erroneous utterance while highlighting the error with changes in intonation and extra-stress that leads to a learner’s self-repair” (Salimi et al 2011: 1382). At the backdrop of the etymology and cultural history of the term ‘prompt’, this labelling approach has to be rejected as well as the approach as such because the teacher’s, and thus the language model’s reproduction of an erroneous statement might stick. Following this idea and at the backdrop of the theatrical meaning of “[as‐ sisting] a speaker with lines”, which was first recorded in the early 15 th century (Collins English Dictionary) as well as the original Latin meaning of promptus, the past participle of promere  14 , “to bring forth”, this article sets the focus on the verbal channel and understands prompts as key words or half-sentences which are first repeated by the addressee, then continued and thus elaborated on. 15 This follows the definition of prompts underlying Davis’s treatise on “Prompts in Scaffolding” (2000: 819-837) and the general understanding of the term as a discourse category in conversational psychology: […] Prompts werden in Form einer vollständigen oder teilweisen Darbietung der zu lernenden Response, unmittelbar, bevor die Gelegenheit für eine overt response gegeben wird (Darbietung des Stimulus), angeboten. (Arnold et al. 1974: 851) Consistently, the use of the label ‘prompts’ as an umbrella term embracing basically any type of impulse has to be rejected. Lyster and Izquierdo, for instance, go so far as to include clarification requests, repetition of learner errors, metalinguistic clues, or elicitation moves (2009: 455). The vague argumentation of Ammar and Spada even adjoins simple, common place questions (2006: 572). 16 That the various alternative definitions have hitherto remained almost completely unrelated to each other hints at how little effort scholars have put into operationalizing and systemizing literary discourse in FLT. 96 Jochen Baier / Emily Brehm 17 Incomplete scaffolding thus automatically balances out the dichotomy between deter‐ mination and self-learning, which Bredella depicts: “Wir handeln immer in einer Situation, über die wir nicht voll verfügen und in der uns nur bestimmte Entscheidungs‐ möglichkeiten offen stehen. Aber diese Beschränkung macht Handeln überhaupt erst möglich“ (Bredella/ Burwitz-Melzer 2004: 16). 18 These challenge the students to elaborate on an utterance and use their hitherto unused potential. This is what Nissen originally called “Rückverweis […] ins Potential” (1992: 161). In general, the beneficial effects of prompts address all the major challenges to literary discourse. First, they focus on a small aspect and thus reduce the fear of speaking we assessed earlier (Kraft 2016: 63). The concentration on a single aspect by scaffolding thus “[reduces] frustration and risk” (Van der Stuyf 2002: 3). At the same time they leave a Unbestimmtheitsstelle, such as explained with regard to Response Theory (Iser 1975: 241) and thus give room for, if not create, individual interpretations as well as emotions, which help to motivate language production (Larsen-Freeman 2010: 130). This counters Nesbit’s claim that the major barrier to learning in typical instructional settings is that the scaffolding provided for knowledge construction is incomplete (Nesbit et al. 2019: 100). 17 In specific, i.e. based on the understanding of literary discourse as an attempt to embrace - to a certain extent even unite or at least reconcile - the extremes of New Criticism and Response Theory, it seems promising to categorize the potential functions of prompts by looking at the phase models depicted above. Dwelling on, and, at the same time, furthering Nissen and his successors’ ideas, prompts could be used for triggering, focusing, as well as reframing: ‘trigger prompts’ for the open beginning-phase (alternatively known as ‘activity prompts’, see Davis 2000: 821), ‘focus prompts’ for directing and nucleating, ‘capacity prompts’ for going into depth, and ‘individualizing prompts’ for ‘over-to-you’, even though none of these categories is confined to a single phase only. 18 If we apply this system of prompt categories to the practical example of Kate Chopin’s “The Story of an Hour”, our classroom discourse could take the following form: at the beginning the teacher would aim at inviting the students to take the floor by using a ‘trigger prompt’ such as: “The most special thing about the story is that….”. This, on the one hand, insinuates that the text is worth talking about and, on the other hand, gives the students the chance to freely utter their impressions. On the basis of the students’ reactions the teacher may now attempt to identify the class’ topical preference and accordingly direct the discussion in order to stimulate a focused and thus fruitful discourse. Assuming, for instance, that the students’ contributions have largely dealt with the oppression of women depicted by Chopin (the most obvious leitmotif of the story), a corresponding ‘focus prompt’ could be: “In the story the unpleasant 97 Prompts as a Means of Scaffolding Literary Discourse situation of women is shown by …”. In a perfect world, the students would now, needless to say, critically and competently analyze the text body and also refer to the connection between form and content as well as relate all of this to their personal situation. However, if this does not happen the teacher could first deploy ‘capacity prompts’ to facilitate in-depth elaboration on a specific aspect and say something like: “The text conveys the motif (of oppression) by…”. The students will automatically be drawn into to an analytical process New Criticism would call for. Second, the teacher may use ‘individualization prompts’ to establish a connection to the students’ world and create a notion of relevance. A typical formulation of a corresponding prompt would be: “The story parallels with my life because…”. This establishes an over-to-you phase that concurs with the final part of Nissen’s classroom discourse. Prompt Category Examples 1 Trigger Prompts “The most special thing about the story is that….” “What touches me most about the story is….” “It is an impressive short story because…” 2 Focus prompts “In the story the unpleasant situation of women is shown by …” “Chauvinism is obvious in….” “The worst impact of social pressure is …” 3 Capacity prompts “The text conveys the motif (of oppression) by…” “To give an example of this, I would like to say that…” “Form and content play perfectly well together when…” 4 Individualizing prompts “The story parallels with my life because…” “I can identify with Mrs. Mallard because…” “This is my favourite short story because…” Tab. 1: System of Prompts (Developed at the Backdrop of Nissen’s Classroom Discourse and its Contextualization) Going beyond Nissen’s model we can addionally draw on recent approaches to intercultural learning and add the category of ‘perspective prompts’ to our list. To this type of prompts we can predominantly ascribe the function of inducing a change of viewpoint. For example, the student obtains the opposite perspective or another cultural position. Applied to “The Story of an Hour”, such an impulse could for instance relate to historical gender roles: “A white American male from when the story was written would say….”. In line with Delanoy’s model of “working with texts”, the student is faced with the challenge to place himself on the axis “Verstehen/ Widerstehen”, i.e. adopting or rejecting a (cultural) 98 Jochen Baier / Emily Brehm 19 Self-monitoring prompts, or to be more precise and if we want to include the feedback function: “(self-)monitoring prompts”, which can also replace recasts which have - according to Lyster and Izquierdo (2009: 255) - proven to be less effective. For the latter type also see Mikita and Rogers’ concept of “enhancing prompts” that basically target an altered, in the best case: improved repetiton of a speficic part of the discourse for example by “prompting for (so far) neglected sources of information […]” (2019: 748). position or attitude presented (Müller-Hartmann/ Schocker-von Ditfurth 2014: 126). The deployment of ‘perspective prompts’, if orchestrated wisely, resembles an intercultural encounter (see Volkmann 2010: 21) that becomes internalized. The student is triggered to obtain alternative cultural roles. “Die Reibung am anderen”, as Nissen (1992: 161) puts it, takes place within as soon as the student is confronted with the corresponding impulse. Finally, we need to add ‘awareness prompts’ which are suitable to reach a meta level. They offer feedback as well as a chance to create an under‐ standing of literary discourse as a process. These we can alternatively shape as ‘self-monitoring prompts’, aiming at self-correction or self-assessment and thereby re-construction on part of the student. 19 Such a prompt could point at weaknesses or strengths of the classroom talk and, for example, take the following form: “Our discourse of today shows that our analytical competences have improved because….”. This prompt addresses and creates an increased awareness concerning the learning process as such - however, it is debatable if meta level talk like this has to be defined as mandatory such as some approaches to TBLL suggest (see Müller-Hartmann/ Schocker-von Ditfurth 2014). Prompt Category Examples 5 Perspective prompts “A white American male from when the story was written would say…” “I dislike the text because…” “Mr. Mallard will never feel guilty because…” 6 Awareness prompts “Our discourse of today shows that our analytical competences have improved because….” “In order to express our basic thoughts using the appro‐ priate technical terms, I can say that…” “A grammar expert would say that….” Tab. 2: Additional Categories of Prompts (Developed at the Backdrop of related Teaching Models (Intercultural Learning and Self-Learning) and their Contextualization) In regard to the application of the above system of prompts (the ‘What’) teachers also need to pay attention to the ‘How’. Whereas in the theatre, prompts aim at being camouflaged impulses for the actors on stage, prompts in the 99 Prompts as a Means of Scaffolding Literary Discourse classroom are variable in regards to how openly the teacher produces them as an intervention. Teacher talk in classroom demonstrates certain adjustments to suit objectives and effectively involving participants such as exaggerating pronunciation, repeating self, pausing […]. (Al-Smadi/ Ab Rashid 2017: 165). It is left to the person hosting the discussion in how far his/ her manner of using the prompts turns them into something demanding and thus makes a hierarchy between teacher and student visible. Even though there is an imminent danger of disrupting the “flow of communication” (Salimi et al. 2011: 1382), the deployment of this means can also be ascribed the positive attributes of a ritualized pattern: the individual perceives open but standardized interventions as part of a safe environment and most members of the group feel compelled to contribute. If the students are used to the pattern, the flow is preserved - even furthered - by the swiftness of the impulses. For good or ill, in most interviews with students who took part in an exemplary classroom discourse about Kate Chopin’s “The Story of an Hour”, a demanding and thus hierarchical production of prompts was highly appreciated. In this specific case, the appealing character of the prompt, the urge to fill the gap of indeterminacy, was emphasized by the verbalization of the punctuation. It was the well paused and exaggerated representation of the punctuation most students remembered as positive and motivating: “Mrs. Mallard feels like a …DOT, DOT, DOT.” The effect apparently was enhanced by the teacher pointing his finger at different participants when uttering each of the ‘DOTs’. We can conclude that just like the formulation of the prompts as such, their production is both a challenge and a chance, especially to budding teachers. It seems advisable to develop a set repertoire of passepartout prompts and practice them because it simplifies “aligning theory and practice” (Maybin/ Mercer/ Stierer 1992: 23) on part of the teacher and could potentially turn the usage of prompts into a ritual for the students, who would then feel secure and motivated to take part in the mutual construction process. A system of prompts, as presented here, may help prospective EFL teachers to facilitate the orchestration of literary classroom discourse. 100 Jochen Baier / Emily Brehm Bibliography Arnold, Wilhelm/ Eysenck, Hans Jürgen/ Meili, Richard (1974). Lexikon der Psychologie. Freiburg: Herder. Al-Smadi, Omar Ali/ Ab Rashid, Radzuwan (2017). “A Theoretical Review of Classroom Discourse.” International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development 6: 3, 164-173. Alberto, Paul/ Troutman, Anne C. (2013). Applied Behavior Analysis for Teachers. 9 th ed. Boston: Pearson. Ammar, Ahlem/ Spada, Nina (2006). “ONE SIZE FITS ALL? : Recasts, Prompts, and L2 Learning.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 4, 543-574. Baier, Jochen, (2017). “Verfahren der Vokabelpräsentation im Fremdsprachenunterricht Englisch.” PH Schwäbisch Gmünd. Online. URL: www.koerpersprache-baier.de/ inde x.html (last accessed: 29.07.2021) Bredella, Lothar/ Burwitz-Melzer, Eva-Marie (2004). Rezeptionsästhetische Literaturdi‐ daktik. Mit Beispielen aus dem Fremdsprachenunterricht Englisch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Bredella, Lothar (2000). “Interaktion in literaturdidaktischen Modellen.” In: Bausch, Karl-Richard et al. (Eds.), Interaktion im Kontext des Lehrens und Lernens fremder Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr, 51-58. Bredella, Lothar (1991). “Literaturwissenschaft.” In: Bausch, Karl-Richard et al. (Eds.), Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht. 2 nd ed. Tübingen et al.: Francke UTB, 46-54. Brusch, Wilfried/ Caspari, Daniela (1998). “Verfahren der Textbegegnung: Literarische und andere Texte.” In: Timm, Johannes-P. (Ed.), Englisch lernen und lehren: Didaktik des Englischunterrichts. Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag, 168-177. Clark, Christina/ Teravainen-Goff, Anne (2020). Children and Young People’s Reading in 2019: Findings from Our Annual Literacy Survey. London: National Literacy Trust. Davis, Elizabeth A. (2000). “Scaffolding Students’ Knowledge Integration: Prompts for Reflection in KIE”. International Journal of Science Education 22: 8, 819-837. Eisenmann, Maria (2019). Teaching English. Differentiation and Individualisation. Pader‐ born: Ferdinand Schöningh. Feinbier, Robert J. (2015). Psycholinguistik in der Gesprächsführung. Theorie und Praxis einer psycholinguistischen Sprechaktanalyse. Wiesbaden: Springer. Flammer, August (1997). Einführung in die Gesprächspsychologie. Bern: Huber. Grimm, Nancy/ Meyer, Michael/ Volkmann, Laurenz (2015). Teaching English. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto. Havener, Thorsten (2017). Ich weiß, was du denkst. Das Geheimnis, Gedanken zu lesen. 25. Auflage, Originalausgabe. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag. 101 Prompts as a Means of Scaffolding Literary Discourse Hermes, Ursula (1997). “Fremdsein als Motiv in zeitgenössischen englischen und ameri‐ kanischen Short Stories.” In: Jarfe, Günther (Ed.), Literaturdidaktik - konkret: Theorie und Praxis des fremdsprachlichen Literaturunterrichts. Heidelberg: Winter, 119-136. Iser, Wolfgang (1975). “Die Appellstruktur der Texte.” In: Warning, Rainer (Ed.), Rezep‐ tionsästhetik: Theorie und Praxis. München: Fink, 228-252. Jäger, Astrid (2012). “Scaffolding: Gerüste für den Englischunterricht.” In: Böttger, Heiner (Ed.), Englisch - Didaktik für die Grundschule. Berlin: Cornelsen, 209-216. Kraft, Hans (2016). Rhetorik und Gesprächsführung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Larsen-Freeman, Diane (2010). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. 2 nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, Diane/ Long, Michael H. (1992). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Routledge. Lyster, Roy/ Izquierdo, Jesús (2009). “Prompts Versus Recasts in Dyadic Interaction.” Language Learning 59: 2, 453-498. Maybin, Janet/ Mercer, Neil/ Stierer, Barry (1992). “‘Scaffolding’ Learning in the Classroom.” In: Norman, Kate (Ed.), Thinking Voices. The Work of the National Oracy Project. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 745-749. Mikita, Clara/ Rodgers, Emily/ Berenbon, Rebecca/ Winkler, Christa (2019). “Targeting Prompts When Scaffolding Word Solving During Guided Reading.” Read Teach 72: 6, 745-749. Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg (Ed.) (2016). Bildungs‐ plan des Gymnasiums. Englisch als erste Fremdsprache. Villingen-Schwenningen: Neckar-Verlag GmbH. Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Weiterbildung Rheinland-Pfalz, (1998). Lehrplan Englisch. Mainz: Grin. Müller-Hartmann, Andreas/ Schocker-von Ditfurth, Marita (2014). Introduction to English Language Teaching. 12 th ed. Stuttgart: Klett. Nesbit, John/ Niu, Hui/ Liu, Quing (2019). “Cognitive Tools for Scaffolding Argumen‐ tation.” In: Adesope, Olusola O./ Rud, A. G. (Eds.), Contemporary Technologies in Education. Maximizing Student Engagement, Motivation, and Learning. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 97-117. Nissen, Rudolf (1982). “Phasen und Formen des textverarbeitenden Lerngespräches im Englischunterricht.” Neusprachliche Mitteilungen aus Wissenschaft und Praxis 35: 2, 114-125. Nissen, Rudolf (1992). “Rezeptionsgespräche als Lerngespräch.” In: Multhaup, Uwe/ Wolff, Dieter (Eds.), Prozessorientierung in der Fremdsprachendidaktik. Kolloquium, Wuppertal, 26-27 Oktober 1990. Frankfurt: Moritz Diesterweg, 157-172. Nissen, Rudolf (1998). “Lerngespräche.” In: Timm, Johannes-P. (Ed.), Englisch lernen und lehren: Didaktik des Englischunterrichts. Berlin: Cornelsen, 158-167. 102 Jochen Baier / Emily Brehm Nissen, Rudolf (2002). “Textauswahl und Lerngespräch.” In: Legutke, Michael K./ Richter, Annette/ Ulrich, Stefan (Eds.), Arbeitsfelder der Literaturdidaktik. Bilanz und Perspek‐ tiven. Lothar Bredella zum 65. Geburtstag. Unter Mitarbeit von Lothar Bredella. Tü‐ bingen: Narr. 19-36. Nünning, Ansgar/ Surkamp, Carola (2016). Englische Literatur unterrichten. 4. aktual. Aufl. Seelze-Velber: Klett/ Kallmeyer. Nuthall, Graham (1997). “Understanding Student Thinking and Learning in the Class‐ room.” In: Biddle, B.J./ Good, T.L./ Goodson, I.F. (Eds.), International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching. Dordrecht: Springer, 681-768. Olaussen, Bodil Stokke (2016). “Classroom Discourse: The Role of Teachers’ Instructional Practice for Promoting Student Dialogues in the Early Years Literacy Program (EYLP).” Universal Journal of Educational Research 4: 11, 2595-2605. Piepho, Hans-Eberhard (1974). Kommunikative Kompetenz als übergeordnetes Lernziel im Englischunterricht. Dornburg-Frickhofen: Frankonius-Verlag. “Prompt.” Collins English Dictionary - Complete and Unabridged. 12 th ed.. 2014. Online. URL: www.the freedictionary.com/ prompt (last accessed: 29.07.2021). “Prompting and Fading.” (2007). ABA for Educators. ErinoakKids: Centre for Treatment and Development. Online. URL: spart6sped.weebly.com/ uploads/ 6/ 5/ 2/ 7/ 65274011/ prompting_and_ fadingtguide.pdf (last accessed: 29.07.2021). Rathgeb, Thomas/ Schmid, Thomas (2019). JIM 2019 Jugend, Information, Medien. Ba‐ sisuntersuchung zum Medienumgang 12bis 19-Jähriger in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Medienpädag. Forschungsverbund Südwest. Salimi, Asghar/ Delju, Nahid/ Asadollahfam, Hassan (2011). “Teachers’ Intentions and Learners’ Perceptions about Recasts, Prompts and Models.” Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 29, 1380-1389. Trujillo, Fernando/ Ortega, José Luis (2006). “Discourse Competence.” In: McLaren, Neil/ Madrid, Daniel/ Bueno, Antonio (Eds.), TEFL in Secondary Education. Granada: Universidad de Granada. 515-545. Thomson, Katrin (2019). “Text-T@lk Fiction im Englischunterricht.” Praxis Fremdspra‐ chenunterricht Englisch 16: 1, 12-17. Twenge, Jean M./ Martin, Gabrielle N./ Spitzberg, Brian H. (2019). “Trends in U.S. Adoles‐ cents’ Media Use, 1976-2016: The Rise of Digital Media, the Decline of TV, and the (Near) Demise of Print.” Psychology of Popular Media Culture 8: 4, 329-345. Van Der Stuyf, Rachel R. (2002). “Scaffolding as a Teaching Strategy.” Unpublished Paper. Online. URL: www.semanticscholar.org/ paper/ Scaffolding-as-a-Teaching-Strategy-S tuyf/ 59e6466c1360b0a8b3f53535 668ea3ab2cf35081 (last accessed: 29.07.2021). Volkmann, Laurenz (2010). Fachdidaktik Englisch: Kultur und Sprache. Tübingen: Narr. Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich (1978). Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psycholog‐ ical Processes. Reprint. Cambridge: Harvard UP. 103 Prompts as a Means of Scaffolding Literary Discourse Werlich, Egon (1976). A Text Grammar of English. Heidelberg: UTB, Quelle und Meier. Werlich, Egon (1988). Student’s Guide to Text Production. Berlin: Cornelsen. Werlich, Egon (1989). Praktische Methodik des Fremdsprachenunterrichts mit authenti‐ schen Texten. Berlin: Cornelsen. Yule, George (2016). The Study of Language. 6 th edition. Cambridge: CUP. 104 Jochen Baier / Emily Brehm L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education A Classroom Discourse Perspective on a Neglected Issue Katrin Thomson Permeating all classrooms and school subjects, classroom management (CM) is generally seen as an interdisciplinary, subject-independent pedagogic concept. Deeply rooted in the field of general education and pedagogy, CM has received much attention in research and theorization since the 1960s. Considering the field’s principal focus on behaviorial issues (such as learner discipline, disruptive conduct and classroom order), it may seem plausible that CM has not played a significant role in the context of foreign language (teacher) education to this day. However, the conceptualization of what constitutes CM has undergone substantial changes, which in turn has opened up promising avenues for genuinely ‘inter-disciplinary’, i.e. integrative approaches to CM that also take subject-specific characteristics of CM into account. In this theoretical chapter, I will briefly delineate the current role of CM in teacher education in general and in EFL teacher education in particular (section 1), elaborate on the conceptual changes of CM (section 2) and discuss the distinct characteristics of CM in ELT (section 3) in order to stress the need for a subject-specific approach to CM in pre-service teacher education. Against this backdrop, I will then turn to the construct of teachers’ professional knowledge and argue that EFL teachers’ CM competence is informed not solely by general pedagogic knowledge but rather shaped by a complex interplay of different, also domain-specific types of knowledge and competences (section 4). It therefore requires specialized training at pre-service stage. In the concluding paragraphs, I will refer to two recent research projects on CM in TEFL (section 5) and briefly address some of the issues that deserve further exploration - both theoretically and empirically - in the context of EFL teacher education (section 6). 1 In Australia, for instance, CM competence is a key component in the country’s National Professional Standards for Teachers and has been classified as a “priority are[a] for initial teacher programs” (Egeberg et al. 2016: 11, 13). In Germany’s KMK Standards for Teacher Education, CM (competence) is not explicitly mentioned - neither in the Standards für die Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften (2004/ 2019) nor in the Ländergemeinsame inhaltliche Anforderungen für die Fachwissenschaften und Fachdidaktiken in der Lehrerbildung (2008/ 2019). 1 Classroom Management and (EFL) Teacher Education Empirical findings have shown that classroom management (CM) is particularly problematic for novice teachers (cf. Hellermann et al. 2015: 98, Wubbels 2011: 113). Although effective CM has long been identified as the key factor to high student achievement (cf. Helmke 2007: 44, Marzano/ Marzano 2003: 12), its vital importance is not reflected at the pre-service stage as these findings are indicative of the generally “neglected role of classroom management in teacher education”. It “is very often ignored in teacher education programs across the globe” (van Tartwijk/ Hammerness 2011: 109). While CM is a prominent area in empirical research - considering the number of publications -, it is apparently perceived as ill-suited for practical implementation into pre-service teacher ed‐ ucation programs due to its seemingly ‘atheoretical nature’ and ‘unteachability’ (cf. Buchanan/ Timmis 2019: 319, Nix/ Wollmann 2016: 34). Referring specifically to the German context, Helmke (cf. 2017: 175) notes that the topic of CM has always been on the sidelines both in empirical research and practical teacher education. In contrast to other countries 1 , CM has, he states, almost completely been ignored in Germany (ibid.). University seminars on CM are offered, if at all, only sporadically in the departments of (educational) psychology or general education and pedagogy (see Stough 2006 for findings in the U.S.). Little is known about whether at all or in what ways student teachers encounter ‘classroom management’ in the course of their university studies, and, if they do, how this may affect the development of their professional competence. In light of CM’s Cinderella-like existence in teacher education in general, it does not come as a surprise that the situation is no different for foreign language teacher education programs. Within the context of foreign language research and teacher education, CM has not played a significant role. Considering CM’s strong link to general education and pedagogy as well as the field’s initial research focus on behavioral issues in classroom settings (such as learner discipline, disruptive learner conduct and classroom (dis-)order), it may even seem plausible that the relationship between CM and foreign language (teacher) education is still not a very close one. After all, so the argument goes, behavioral 106 Katrin Thomson 2 A renewed interest in CM especially in recent years can also be attributed to the publication of Hattie’s research findings in Visible Learning (2009, and its German translation in 2013). Hattie identifies a clear correlation between effective CM and learner achievement (cf. also Lotz/ Lipowsky 2015). problems with disruptive students are not construed as being within the remit of language teacher education. Although this is true to some extent, it should not be ignored that the conceptualization of CM has fundamentally changed, that it can no longer “be seen as synonymous with classroom discipline” (Macías/ Sánchez 2015: 83), and that it “is so much more than just rules, rewards and consequences” (Egeberg et al. 2016: 13). The now much broader view of CM (section 2) necessitates approaches to CM in teacher education that go beyond the mainly pedagogical perspective. 2 The Conceptualization of Classroom Management The large amount of publications on CM, especially in the field of educational psychology, general education and pedagogy, is both a reflection and the result of the concept’s theoretical ‘evolution’. 2 Accordingly, the question of what CM is and how it is conceptualized can be answered in various ways - depending on the time period and approach one is referring to. The historical dimension of CM has been given much scholarly attention (e.g. Brophy 2006, Egeberg et al. 2016, Emmer/ Sarbonie 2015, Haag/ Streber 2 2020, Zein 2018). In a much condensed (and therefore incomplete) account, only the main aspects will be addressed here. This section aims to delineate the substantial changes which CM has undergone since the mid-20 th century in order to illustrate that these reconceptualizations have actually opened up promising avenues for both interdisciplinary, i.e. pedagogy-informed and subject-specific approaches to CM in teacher education. The initial focus in CM research and theorization used to be rather narrow as scholars were exclusively concerned with behavioral issues such as desirable learner behavior, learner discipline, disruptive learner conduct and classroom (dis-)order. By studying and observing the (mis-)behavior of individual learners, the main objective pursued in the so-called behavioral approach throughout the 1960s and 1970s was to identify suitable classroom techniques and practices which would support teachers in preventing misconduct but, first and foremost, help them in modifying undesired learner behavior once it occured (e.g. through positive reinforcement, praises, rewards, negative reinforcement, punishments). Although the heydays of the behavioral CM approach have faded and its theoretical underpinnings are considered quite dated by recent standards (cf. 107 L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education Helmke 2017: 173), empirical CM research along these traditional behaviorist lines still persists (cf. Haag/ Streber 2 2020: 65). Its strong reverberations might be partially accountable for the continuing neglect of (the by now much more broadly defined concept of) CM in the field of language teaching and teacher education, since social conduct in general and behavioral problems with disruptive students in particular are not considered to fall within the purview of foreign language education (cf. Böttger 3 2020: 149). With a shift in focus from individual learner behavior to the “characteristics of different classroom settings” and their effect on learning (Zein 2018: 156), the so-called ecological approach to CM developed in the 1960s/ 70s and peaked in the 1980s. Within this research tradition, classrooms are seen as ‘learning environments’ and ‘environmental settings (ecologies)’, and the main objective is to identify those factors which are conducive to learning, help create positive environments for learner groups and are effective in preventing disruptive be‐ havior. Classroom organizational elements (such as the physical characteristics of classrooms, the resources available in classrooms, seating arrangements, time management etc.) and structural elements (such as social forms to structure learning activities, smooth transitions between activities and lesson phases etc.) are considered to be crucial factors in the interplay between learner group, situational context, learner engagement and learner achievement. While the behavioral approach is primarily concerned with ‘behavior management’, i.e. how teachers react to misconduct and undesired behavior, the ecological approach focuses on teachers’ ‘instructional management’, i.e. the strategies and tactics teachers use in planning, creating and maintaining positive classroom environments in which, ideally, learning takes place and undesirable behavior would not occur in the first place (cf. Egeberg et al. 2016: 5). Thus, the focus shifted to teachers’ strategic competence in CM, their awareness of its complexity and their ability to develop techniques and personal characteristics along the lines of Kounin’s oft-quoted dimensions of CM: withitness, overlapping, momentum, smoothness, group focus, transition management, sensitivity to mock participation (cf., for instance, Emmer/ Stough 2001: 104, Helmke 2017: 178f., Zein 2018: 156 and in more detail Haag/ Streber 2 2020: 66-74). Although Kounin’s publications of the 1970s are deemed ‘rather dusty’ (cf. ibid.: 74) from today’s point of view, his influential pioneer work on effective CM is still valued today. It was he who “highlighted the importance of group management[,] [of activity management] and of organizing and maintaining the classroom environment” (Emmer/ Sarbonie 2015: 4). With regard to modern foreign language education, which heavily draws on the didactic principles of CLT, task-supported language learning and the use of cooperative 108 Katrin Thomson 3 See Wubbels et al. (2015) for a detailed discussion of “Teacher-Student-Relationships and Classroom Management”. forms, this conceptual expansion of CM is of vital importance. I will return to this aspect in section 3. In a similar way, the process-product approach of the 1970s/ 80s placed partic‐ ular emphasis on the aspect of learner achievement. Its focus, however, was not primarily on the classroom as environmental setting but rather on the qualities and characteristics of ‘good classroom managers’. “[R]esearchers in the process-product tradition,” Emmer/ Sarbonie explain, “sought to identify predic‐ tors of teacher effectiveness” (2015: 4) and examined those managerial charac‐ teristics of teachers which seemed to have a positive effect on achievement gains. Among other findings, these studies showed that learner achievements were higher and disruptions decreased when teachers were able to provide clear instructions and explanations, communicate clear expectations, made smooth transitions between activities and lesson phases, developed routines, established rules, maintained the lesson flow, kept students engaged and monitored their work, gave feedback and created a caring climate (cf. Emmer/ Stough 2001: 105). Not only did “[t]his body of research le[a]d to greater understanding of the complex set of teacher strategies needed to establish and maintain a productive classroom” (Emmer/ Sarbonie 2015: 4), but it also showed that effective CM and achievement gains are directly connected to effective teacher talk and teachers’ classroom discourse competence: what teachers say in managerial contexts and how they say it is obviously crucial for effective CM. As trivial as this may seem at first glance, in foreign language classrooms, where teachers and students interact with each other in a language that is usually not their L1, this certainly matters, as I will explain in more detail below. Since the 1990s, CM research and theorization has seen further developments, two of which are particularly relevant within the scope of this paper: The social and emotional competence (SEC) approach to CM is concerned with the dimensions of well-being and care in classroom settings and “highlights the emotional and interpersonal aspects of classroom life” (Wright 2005: 127 f.). Within this affective domain of CM, major importance is attached to the quality of teacher-student-relationships (T-S-relationships) and class climate. 3 Marzano/ Marzano (2003), referring to empirical findings, state that high-quality, supportive T-S-relationships “provide an essential foundation for effective class‐ room management” (12). They are, in fact, “the keystone for all other aspects of classroom management” (6). The development of that kind of T-S-relationship that is characterized by mutual trust, respect and support calls for teachers with 109 L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education 4 For a detailed elaboration on the distinct characteristics of socially and emotionally competent teachers see Jennings/ Greenberg (2009: 492, 495 f.). a high level of social and emotional competence (SEC) (cf. Jennings/ Greenberg 2009) as well as professional competence in the ‘management discourse of care’ (cf. Wright 2005: 115, 130). This is defined as teachers’ discourse compe‐ tences and interactional skills which enable them to “us[e] their emotional expressions and verbal support to promote enthusiasm and enjoyment of learning”, to “set the tone of the classroom by developing supportive and encouraging relationships with their learners” and to “ac[t] as […] role model[s] for respectful and appropriate communication” ( Jennings/ Greenberg 2009: 493, 492). Furthermore, socially and emotionally competent teachers 4 understand and realize “how their emotional expressions affect their interaction with others” (ibid.: 495). This implies that teachers require high self-awareness, social awareness as well as anticipatory and reflective competences with regard to the language they use in class. What has become clear is that (a) teachers’ ‘classroom management discourse of care’ is inextricably intertwined with sociolinguistic and sociopragmatic aspects of classroom discourse and that (b) teachers require special training in this area of professional CM competence. This holds true especially for (prospective) language teachers as it can neither be taken for granted that they simply “have the requisite SEC to create warm and nurturing learning environments, be emotionally responsive to students [or] form supportive and collaborative relationships” (ibid.). Nor is it a given that they are able to automatically display SEC on the sociolinguistic and sociopragmatic level of L2 classroom discourse in the same way they might be able to in other teaching contexts where the students’ and teacher’s L1 is used. Thus, “explicit preservice or in-service training” (ibid.) would be required particularly in the context of (E)FL teacher education, classroom discourse and CM competence development. However, neither the affective dimension of language teaching and learning has been in the focus of EFL teacher education programs nor have the “affective aspects of classroom talk […] received much attention from researchers” (Wright 2005: 180). Being closely connected to the SEC approach described above, another tradition in CM research and theorization focuses on the importance of teacher personality in CM contexts. Although learner-centered, participatory approaches to CM have received more attention in recent years - a development largely influenced by recent discussions about learner autonomy and autonomous learning (cf. Bohl 2010) - there is general consensus about teachers’ undiminished responsibility in CM issues and the importance of teachers’ personality for effective CM (cf. 110 Katrin Thomson Müller-Hartmann/ Schocker 2018: 4, Helmke/ Helmke 2014: 11). Researchers in this domain are particularly interested in intra-personal aspects, teachers’ CM styles (e.g. authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, egalitarian, cf. Egeberg et al. 2016) as well as teacher cognitions (i.e. teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, value commitments, preconceptions and subjective theories and the effects of these factors on teachers’ CM actions). One field of inquiry, for instance, aims for a deeper understanding of how teachers’ (un)conscious gender or cultural biases might affect their CM decisions and actions with regard to speaker nomination and learner involvement (cf. Morine-Dershimer 2006: 146). Thus, whether learners are given or deprived of opportunities to participate in classroom discourse and activities, might (also) depend on teachers’ attitudes, beliefs or preconceptions. Teacher authority and power, therefore, are relevant issues to consider in this context. But while their impact on classroom discourse in general has been examined to some extent from an Applied Linguistics perspective (cf. Buzzelli/ Johnston 2001, Walsh 2011: 4f.), this topic has not often been addressed specifically in connection with CM issues, let alone in practical EFL teacher education contexts. However, taking into account that teacher authority and power materialize especially in CM scenarios and that teachers’ CM styles also, if not primarily, find expression in the way they speak and interact in the L2, it becomes clear that more attention needs to be paid to this dimension of CM. Against the backdrop of this overview, it is apparent that the concept of CM can no longer be limited to the behavioral domain or be equated with the notion of classroom order and discipline. It clearly needs to be understood as a more complex concept comprising at least the managerial domain (e.g. teachers’ didactic competence to plan, create, structure and maintain opportunities for learning), the cognitive domain (e.g. teachers’ professional knowledge), the affective inter-personal domain (e.g. T-S-relationships, class climate), and the affective intra-personal domain (e.g. teachers’ social and emotional competence, beliefs, attitudes, subjective theories). Each of these domains is highly complex in itself. Despite the issue’s complexity and thus difficulty “to encapsulate the diversity of classroom management components within a single succinct definition” (Emmer/ Sarbonie 2015: 7 f.) of CM, the one proposed by Evertson/ Weinstein has become widely accepted: ‘classroom management’ refers to “the actions teachers take to create an environment that supports and facilitates both academic and social-emotional learning. […] It not only seeks to establish and sustain an orderly environment so students can engage in meaningful academic learning, it also aims to enhance students’ social and moral growth.” (2006: 4, italics KT). This definition does not only reconfirm the key role of teachers in CM matters 111 L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education 5 See, for instance, Byo/ Sims (2015) on CM in music education, Cothran/ Kulinna (2015) on CM in Physical Education or Fricke (2016) on CM in physics education. 6 The question of whether CM as a pedadogic concept bears any relevance to foreign language teaching/ learning has been addressed from a German as a Foreign Language perspective (cf. Rozenberg 2015, 2016a, 2016b, 2018). (hence the emphasis above), but it also implies that fostering CM competence at the pre-service stage of teacher education requires an approach that takes account of CM’s multidimensional and interdisciplinary nature. The cognitive and managerial domains of CM, for instance, cannot be linked exclusively to a general pedagogy perspective because they also tap into other areas of EFL teachers’ professional competence. Thus, CM competence training cannot solely draw on general pedagogy but must also take into account the distinctness of individual subject areas. 3 Classroom Management in English Language Teaching Similar to recent developments in other disciplines involved in teaching and teacher education, 5 the academic field of foreign language education has become somewhat interested in the concept of CM as well. A small, albeit growing number of publications is indicative of CM’s increasing relevance for (E)FL (teacher) education - both on an international scale (e.g. Buchanan/ Timmis 2019, Macías/ Sánchez 2015, Macías 2018, Scrivener 2012, Wright 2005, Zein 2018) and, to a much lesser extent, also within the German-speaking TEFL discourse where, however, only selected discrete aspects of CM are addressed in few publications: e.g classroom discourse and classroom phrases (Böttger 3 2020), aspects of lesson planning (Grimm/ Meyer/ Volkmann 2015), learner participation and processes of teaching/ learning (Müller-Hartmann/ Schocker 2018) and learner discipline (Thaler 2012). With a particular focus on young learners of English, some attention has also been paid to CM in relation to EFL primary classrooms: e.g. Böttger ( 3 2020), Krüger-Heiringhoff ( 6 2020) and, on an international scale, also Zein (2018). Considering these developments, the question, thus, should perhaps no longer be if but rather how CM needs to be approached from a language education perspective. 6 Yet, the concept’s traditionally strong tie to general pedagogy still seems to necessitate further legitimization for such an approach - despite the general notion that “foreign language instruction is quite distinct from the teaching of science or visual arts” (Klippel 2003: 62), which, quite logically, also affects CM practices, and although CM has been identified as one of the major ‘subject-specific challenges’ in ELT (Prusse-Hess/ Prusse 2018: 217). 112 Katrin Thomson For further progress along these lines, CM conceptualization and research in TEFL need to be concerned with identifying those distinctive characteristics that indeed do call for a subject-specific approach to CM. First steps into that direction have been taken, for instance, by Macías who “believe[s] that there are particular or unique features of the foreign language teaching profession that may have an impact on classroom management” (2018: 158). Although the publications by Macías (2018) on ELT in general and Krüger-Heiringhoff ( 6 2020: 237-240) on EFL primary classrooms in particular provide valuable insights, this area requires further systematic and deeper exploration. That said, the following three sections aim to shed some light on the distinctness of CM in EFL classrooms. 3.1 Classroom Management and Classroom Discourse Evertson/ Weinstein (2006), let us recall, define CM as “the actions teachers take to create an environment that supports and facilitates both academic and social-emotional learning” (4, italics KT). Not only does this definition, as pointed out in section 2, emphasize the vital role of teachers in CM matters, but it also draws attention to the fact that for CM to be effective, it is the teachers who need to take certain ‘actions’. In CM research literature, these ‘teacher actions’ are defined as strategies and techniques which were found to be conducive to effective CM. In a detailed and comprehensive list, Wubbels (2011: 125 f.) has compiled a multitude of “specific teacher actions” (ibid.: 124) which also draw on the CM approaches (behavioral, ecological etc.) as presented above (section 2). Among many others, the list includes the following actions: giving feedback without causing humiliation, providing constructive feedback, explaining goals and purposes of activities explicitly, providing smooth transitions, marking lesson transitions clearly, employing clear desists, repeating and reminding students of important tasks and instructions, building caring relationships, showing respect, showing humour, using communication patterns and participation structures that promote inclusion of students who exhibit communicative differences etc. (cf. ibid.). What might not be much more than a side note to teachers teaching school subjects in their L1, such a list of actions bears considerable relevance for foreign language teachers because all actions relating to the various domains of CM (i.e. managerial, cognitive, affective, behavioral etc.), one way or another, eventually materialize in teachers’ verbal actions (including non-verbal and para-linguistic aspects) and their interactions with students. In contrast to subject areas taught in the teacher’s and students’ L1 (such as biology, history, music or PE - setting aside CLIL here), (E)FL teachers need to manage their classrooms (i.e. ‘take actions’) in a language 113 L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education 7 Morine-Dershimer’s chapter on “Classroom Management and Classroom Discourse” (2006) does approach this relationship - but from a general, subject-independent perspective. Nonetheless, her exploration of the topic offers valuable insights which can inform an ELT-specific approach to CM. Being among those who address this issue from a FL education-specific perspective, Wright (2005), in his seminal mono‐ graph on Classroom Management in Language Education, dedicates an entire chapter (221-255) to “Patterns of Participation: Managing Classroom Talk” which aims to “provide a framework with which to understand the linguistic dimensions of order and opportunity modes of classroom management” (223). However, Wright essentially only discusses various linguistic phenomena of classroom discourse (such as IRF, turn-taking, teachers’ questions and repair) from an Applied Linguistics perspective and shows in what ways these might be conducive to teachers’ effective “management of classroom discourse” (226), not effective classroom management discourse though. that students are only just about to learn. And for the majority of EFL teachers (at least in Germany), that language is a foreign language too. Without a doubt, evidence-based knowledge about the effectiveness of such actions and techniques has helped to broaden our understanding of what constitutes effective CM, and it is beyond question that prospective teachers need to acquire professional knowledge about these aspects. However, while it is one thing to know about effective strategies and techniques in general, it is another to actually turn them into concrete classroom actions in the EFL classroom. For instance, advising TEFL student teachers to ‘give feedback without causing humiliation’, ‘mark lesson transitions clearly’ or ‘build caring relationships’ is of little value if TEFL teacher educators do not also provide opportunities for their trainees to explore what these actions actually entail and, equally important, how the use of such strategies/ techniques may ‘translate’ into teachers’ (non-/ para-)verbal actions in the FL classroom. Referring to the most salient characteristics of ELT, Klippel states that “[t]he main difference between English teachers and their colleagues teaching other subjects lies in the fact that language teachers have to try and do all these things in the foreign language” and emphasizes that “[t]hat is no small feat” (2003: 62). (Prospective) Language teachers, thus, face a double challenge in managing language class‐ rooms: not only do they require expert understanding of the implications of specific CM teacher tasks, but they also need to develop professional discourse competences in performing these actions in the L2 while at the same time taking their learners’ lower language proficiency levels and the situational classroom context into consideration (see section 4 for further exploration of this point). L2 classroom management, hence, is closely intertwined with L2 classroom discourse and teacher talk. As trivial as this may seem, this relationship has not been addressed extensively or systematically in the context of FL (teacher) education. 7 In Applied Linguistics, however, verbal representations of CM issues 114 Katrin Thomson In Böttger’s ( 3 2020) monograph Englisch lernen in der Grundschule (‘Learning English at Primary School‘), a sub-chapter on “Classroom management & discourse” (149-151) does emphasize the connection between ‘classroom management’ and ‘classroom discourse’, but CM discourse in this specific instructional setting is limited to the teachers’ use of ‘simple and concise classroom phrases’ (150) for praising students’ work, organizing and implementing social forms of working together, correcting mistakes and providing constructive feedback and encouragement. Wulf (2001: 62 f.), in his monograph Communicative Teacher Talk, also sees a connection between classroom discourse and CM, but only elaborates on the aspect of teachers’ L1/ L2 use (i.e. code-switching) when dealing with CM issues (“Klassengeschäfte”). have been identified to form a distinct type of classroom discourse: there is general consensus that CM issues are dealt with on a discourse level that is different from, yet inextricably linked to, the main, i.e. contentand topic-fo‐ cused level of classroom discourse. Bernstein (1996), for instance, refers to CM discourse as regulative discourse and Seedhouse (2004) calls it the procedural context of classroom interaction. Walsh (2006) uses the term managerial mode for a variety of CM teacher tasks (or ‘actions’), such as “organiz[ing] the physical conditions for learning to take place” or “introduc[ing] or conclud[ing] an activity” (66). Walsh has also specified the linguistic features that typically occur in teachers’ verbal realizations of these tasks (such as transition markers, confirmation checks or explanations). Such a discourse analytical approach to CM would enable pre-service teachers to understand the importance of effective and competent CM in language education, but in light of CM’s generally neglected role this promising avenue is hardly ever taken in the context of foreign language teacher education. It does, however, deserve much more attention because CM in ELT is not an end in itself but provides valuable opportunities for students’ language acquisition. Considering the L2’s dual function as a medium of communication and an ‘object’ of study, any use of the foreign language can potentially promote language learning (cf. also Reber 2018, Klippel 2003). Provided that the language used for CM issues is indeed English, the ‘value’ of classroom management for learners differs significantly from that in subjects taught in the students’ L1. In foreign language learning contexts, I would argue, CM does not merely set the stage for the ‘actual teaching and learning activities’ (cf. Helmke 2017: 173, italics KT), but potentially presents a learning situation in itself. Within the German-speaking context, Hilbert Meyer’s oft-quoted notion of ‘creating an optimum of echte Lernzeit’ (i.e. the time-on-task within a lesson that students actively use for learning) as one of the quality markers of ‘good teaching’ has been very influential ( 8 2011: 39 ff.). From his general pedagogy perspective, Meyer argues that the amount of this time can be increased, for 115 L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education instance, when teachers deal with ‘organizational stuff ’ (ibid.: 40) before or after lessons. ‘Organizational tasks’ (such as ‘receiving/ accepting apologies from/ of late students’ or ‘providing material for learners who forgot to bring theirs’), he insists, do not enhance or contribute to students’ learning (ibid.: 41, 45). While this might be true for other subjects, it does not in the same way apply to language classrooms because dealing with organizational or managerial issues creates classroom situations in which the L2 primarily serves as a medium of genuine communication and interaction (see, for instance, the transcript of such an incident in Timm 5 2013: 202; also Reber 2018: 158). Considering the conceptual complexity of CM and its various domains, it becomes apparent that it is especially in CM situations - planned and unexpected ones - that authentic teacher-student interaction can take place, that rich input can be provided, that meaning can be negotiated and that language teachers can serve and be perceived as competent language and role models. Perhaps more than in any other subject area, L2 classroom management needs to be approached from a classroom discourse-informed perspective. 3.2 Classroom Management and ELT Methodology From a teaching/ learning and methodological perspective, subjects such as biology, maths, music or EFL are taught in substantially different ways. Thus, the individual approaches to teaching these subjects also affect the ways of how these classroom contexts are managed. CM is, as Buchanan/ Timmis (2019: 322) emphasize, “sensitive to methodology”, and with regard to language education these authors argue that CM may even be “particularly challenging” taking into account the complex didactic principles which inform Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) - the teaching approach widely accepted and followed in language education in Western contexts (cf. Zein 2018: 159). CLT’s didactic principles such as student-orientation/ -activation, task-, ac‐ tion-/ product-orientation and cooperation, to name but a few, are conceptually rooted in second language acquisition theories which stress the importance of social interaction, active language use and authentic communication for effective and successful language learning. Their practical implementation in language classrooms serves to promote students’ communicative competence which has been defined as “the ability to interact in meaningful ways and to express one’s intentions in a socially appropriate form in specific situations as well as within the framework of cultural norms” (Grimm/ Meyer/ Volkmann 2015: 66). For effective implementation of CLT principles, language teachers need to provide a variety of learning environments which foster and support communicative language learning. The use of different forms of interaction 116 Katrin Thomson (e.g. individual work, pair work, group work), micro-methods which promote cooperative learning and peer interaction (e.g. fish bowl, hot seat, double circle, jigsaw puzzle etc.) and seating arrangements (e.g. islands, restaurant, horseshoe, (semi-)circle etc.) is especially characteristic of foreign language classrooms. Asking students to form a double circle or to rearrange the tables into a restaurant layout are CM teacher tasks which are less likely to be found in biology, history or maths classrooms. Drawing on Borg’s (2006: 24) empirical inquiry into the distinctive characteristics of language teaching, it can be argued that language teaching methodology, by comparison, “is more diverse” as it “aim[s] at creating contexts for communication”. Such communicative learning environments are, however, not required in the same way in other subjects or classroom contexts. CM in language classrooms, therefore, presents subject-specific challenges that pre-service teachers need to be sensitized and prepared for. For effective CM in language classrooms teachers require not only CM discourse competence but also subject-specific method competence and knowledge (i.e. fachdidaktisches Wissen/ pedagogic content knowledge, see section 4) which enables them to put CLT’s underlying theoretical principles into practice. 3.3 Classroom Management and Teachers’ Cultural Awareness Taking into account the widely accepted premise that language and culture are inseparably linked (cf. Grimm/ Meyer/ Volkmann 2015: 153 f.), then foreign language classrooms - as settings in which at least two languages are ‘present’ - are per se ‘inter-cultural’ learning spaces. It is through (mostly) the teacher’s use of the foreign language that aspects of the target culture or a speaker’s cultural attitudes are explicitly or implicitly (i.e. in the subtext of utterances) expressed. Thus, unlike most of their teacher colleagues, language teachers “automatically have a further dimension” as they serve as “cultural mediators” (Klippel 2003: 59). In CM contexts, this cultural dimension of language-in-use transpires to be of particular relevance: CM in foreign language classrooms is (inter-/ socio-)culturally ‘charged’, as the following examples intend to illustrate. Compared to instructions and reprimands given by non-native speakerteachers of English, native speaker-teachers tend to be less direct (as in Would you like to read this out to us, Martin? and Would you please lower your voice? ) or appear as less commanding despite the use of imperative forms (as in Please copy this table into your exercise books. and Please raise your hand if you want to say something.) In a similar vein, praising (as in Fantastic! , Excellent! ) and student encouragement (as in Yeah, you almost got it right. Have another go! ) tend to be more pronounced and occur more frequently in anglophone teaching contexts than in German classrooms (cf. Klippel 2003: 59). When non-native EFL 117 L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education teachers adopt these sociocultural and sociolinguistic conventions of politeness, face-saving, appreciation and supportiveness in classroom management discourse too, they can potentially create opportunities for (implicit) cultural learning and may foster students’ cultural awareness. As Böttger ( 3 2020: 149) argues, this can even positively influence students’ sociolinguistic behavior in their L1 use. Fur‐ thermore, teachers’ CM discourse with this “kind of cultural flavour” (Klippel 2003: 59) is likely to have a positive effect on class climate and T-S-relationships, since discourse markers of politeness, respect and friendliness are closely intertwined with the affective domain and the CM discourse of care. Thus, perhaps more than in any other subject domain or teaching context, CM in foreign language classrooms has the potential to provide possibilities for cultural learning, to establish a warm and supportive classroom atmosphere and at the same time positively affect students’ attitudes toward language, culture and the subject itself. It can, however, not be assumed that TEFL student teachers are able to realize and unlock this potential without professional education and training. In section 3, the discussion of CM’s distinctive characteristics in language teaching has shown that (a) the realization of teachers’ CM tasks is inextricably intertwined with L2 classroom discourse and teacher talk, as the majority of CM-related issues materialize in teachers’ verbal actions (including nonand para-linguistic aspects). It has also been shown that (b) teachers’ CM practices draw on the methodological and didactic principles of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and are, therefore, to some degree subject-dependent. Finally, I have argued that (c) CM scenarios can serve as important opportunities for language acquisition and cultural learning when EFL teachers are sensitized to or aware of this potential. In light of this, it is rather obvious that EFL teachers’ CM competence cannot be solely built on pedagogic knowledge but is informed by other types of knowledge and competences as well. This will be further explored below. 4 Classroom Management and its Relation to EFL Teachers’ Professional Knowledge CM is commonly described as a pedagogic concept. To a certain extent, CM’s strong ties to general pedagogy can be traced back to Shulman’s (1987) distinc‐ tion between different types of teachers’ professional knowledge. In his con‐ ceptualization, Shulman explicitly ascribes CM to the category of general peda‐ gogical knowledge (GPK, generisches pädagogisches Wissen) which, according to him, specifically refers “to those broad principles and strategies of classroom management and organization that appear to transcend subject matter” (ibid.: 8). 118 Katrin Thomson Shulman distinguishes between further categories, two of which have become particularly relevant within the ‘professional knowledge-discourse’ in Germany (e.g. Baumert/ Kunter 2006, Roters et al. 2011, Roters et al. 2013): content knowl‐ edge (CK, fachwissenschaftliches Wissen) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK, fachdidaktisches Wissen). These two types, however, are usually not associated with CM issues. Still relatively little is currently known about the specific structure of these types of knowledge or the relationships between them (cf. König et al. 2018: 1, Roters et al. 2013: 158). But theoretical-conceptual models of teachers’ professional knowledge do suggest that interrelations between them are likely to exist and that they inform and influence teachers’ decision-making and classroom practices (e.g. Baumert/ Kunter 2006: 482). In empirical research, this line of inquiry has also received attention in recent years (cf. König et al. 2018: 4, 10), but within the “area of foreign language teaching and learning” it is still rather “limited” (cf. Roters et al. 2013: 155). Studies on (prospective) English teachers’ professional knowledge have, for instance, begun to investigate the relationship between GPK and English PCK (e.g. König et al. 2018). While in these studies CM is ‘used’ as a GPK-dimension, for instance, in order to test TEFL student teachers’ GPK, the concept itself is not the focus of research. Based on Shulman’s (1987) and Baumert/ Kunter’s (2006) work, CM is, as a matter of course, always and exclusively linked to GPK (e.g. Königs et al. 2018: 16, Praetorius et al. 2016: 195). From an ELT perspective, this is somewhat problematic as it is simply assumed that CM (and teachers’ CM competence) is void of any subject-specificity. As has been shown in section 3, this however is not likely to be the case in foreign language teaching contexts. Furthermore, conceptual limitations of CM to “discipline problems” (Prae‐ torius et al. 2016: 197) and the “effective prevention of and intervention in disruptions and disciplinary conflicts” (193) are perhaps less suitable for empir‐ ical assessment when the aim is to investigate “the subject-specificity of teaching quality [in terms of classroom management]” (191, 195). With such a strong emphasis on behavioral issues (cf. 197), it is little surprising that the researchers found hardly any evidence for CM’s subject-specificity. They concluded that “this practice [i.e. that teacher training programs usually do not distinguish between subjects when covering classroom management issues] is justified” (204). However, equating CM with classroom disruptions and learner discipline will inevitably always link it with the general education/ pedagogy perspective. It will thus disregard potentially relevant relations to subject-specific aspects of CM as well as teachers’ subject-specific CM knowledge and competence. In fact, it could be argued that further empirical research on the subject-specificity 119 L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education 8 The original passage reads: “Während Aspekte der Klassenführung als relative fächerü‐ bergreifende Herausforderungen des Unterrichts betrachtet […] und somit auch ohne fachliche Konkretisierung gedacht werden können […].“ (König et al. 2018: 7, italics KT). Interestingly, the notion that apparently only certain aspects of CM (and not the concept as such) can be considered ‘cross-disciplinary’ implies that others can not and therefore do require subject-specific conceptualizations. What these aspects are is a question that still needs to be answered. of CM would have to draw on broader conceptualizations of CM. Moreover, for further research on this issue in ELT contexts it seems advisable (and perhaps necessary) to question/ challenge the widespread assumption that CM solely “depends on teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge” (195). Following König et al.’s (2018: 7) conclusion that apparently only certain ‘aspects of CM can be considered as cross-disciplinary challenges of teaching and, therefore, do not require subject-specific conceptualizations’ 8 (while others, consequently, do), it seems rather obvious that at least to a certain extent subject-specific conceptualizations of CM are needed and that, apart from teachers’ GPK, other types of knowledge might be involved as well. This applies, I would argue, especially to foreign language education. In contrast to other subject domains, the theoretical construct of (E)FL teachers’ professional knowledge needs to include a further type of knowledge which was not explicitly considered in Shulman’s generic model: teachers’ foreign language competence (cf. Roters et al. 2013: 157) or, as Königs (2002: 32) puts it, “sprachpraktisch[e] Kompetenz”. Within the scope of this paper and volume, however, a further distinction is made between teachers’ general L2 proficiency on the one hand and teachers’ L2 classroom discourse competence on the other hand (see Fig. 1 below). While the former refers to teachers’ general communicative competence (as, for instance, conceptualized by Hymes or Canale/ Swain), the latter relates to the learning/ teaching, pedagogic and contextual dimensions of teachers’ professional FL use to promote student learning (see Thomson’s chapter “Conceptualizing CDC” in this volume). As a concept informed by teachers’ pedagogic, instructional and methodo‐ logical decisions, CM, thus, is directly linked to teachers’ L2 classroom discourse competence because, essentially, the vast majority of CM decisions do materi‐ alize through and in teachers’ verbal realizations on the level of classroom discourse. While this process of linguistic/ discoursal ‘materialization’ might be somewhat easier in subjects taught in the teacher’s L1 - which is why teachers’ L1 ‘discourse competences’ are usually not mentioned in generic competence models (cf. Hallet 2006: 127) -, it is likely to be considerably more challenging in the L2. For example, having acquired knowledge about cooperative forms of 120 Katrin Thomson learning, different techniques of group formation or various types of seating arrangements does not imply that language teachers are automatically able to transform this kind of knowledge into adequate and appropriate L2 instructions. For effective CM, language teachers do not only require CM knowledge but also a high level of L2 classroom discourse competence which enables them to respond to the subject-specific challenges of CM in their classrooms. None‐ theless, a high level of L2 classroom discourse competence does not per se guarantee effective CM if the teacher lacks CM knowledge (GPK and PCK). Thus, investigations into teachers’ CM in the context of foreign language education ought to take into consideration the complex knowledge base which informs language teachers’ L2 CM competence (Fig. 1): 121 L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education Fig. 1: Foreign Language Teachers’ L2 CM Competence (integrated into Thomson’s revised model of (E)FL Teacher’s Professional Competence, this volume) 122 Katrin Thomson On the level of classroom discourse, deficiencies in or the lack of L2 CM competence can be observed, for instance, in teachers’ code-switching, linguistically incorrect L2 utterances, the repetitive use of only few classroom phrases or a restricted, linguis‐ tically oversimplified teacherese (e.g. Klippel 2003, Schröder 2010). Furthermore, a lower level of L2 CM competence may also find expression in teachers’ poor transition management, a lack of clarity in lesson structure and task instructions or in socio-culturally/ socio-pragmatically inappropriate utterances in CM contexts. The vital importance of teachers’ L2 classroom discourse competence for CM as well as its neglected role in EFL teacher education have been stressed time and again (e.g. Didaktilus 1990, Dines 2001, Schröder 2010), but more empirical research is needed - also with regard to the ‘foreign language proficiency of prospective EFL teachers and its significance for their professional knowledge’ (Roters et al. 2013: 172). Very recently, this particular issue has become the focus of inquiry in a small body of empirical studies in TEFL. 5 L2 CM Competence: Recent Research Avenues in TEFL In her interview study on teacher talk in EFL primary classrooms, Deters-Philipp (2018), for instance, addresses CM issues as one among many other discourse phenomena (such as small talk and storytelling). With a particular focus on teachers’ L1/ L2 code-switching in CM contexts, the study explores which of the two languages - German or English - her interviewees (N=18, in-service teachers with different qualifications and levels of professional expertise) tend to use for the following CM tasks: maintaining discipline, organizing, orienting, opening and ending a lesson (376f.). Her findings indicate that teachers ‘who feel prepared for any linguistic challenges tend to use the L2’ whereas teachers ‘who feel less secure’ prefer the use of L1 in CM situations (cf. ibid.: 425). While EFL teachers’ general retrospective self-reflections about language choice/ use in CM and its motivation are certainly important to consider, they do not reveal much about the cause/ source of their insecurity or about what exactly teachers - to put it simply - do/ would say or are able to say in specific CM situations when code-switching is not an available option. Thus, more concrete and objective assessments of (student) teachers’ actual L2 use in controlled settings of CM are needed as well. With a particular focus on verbal realizations of CM tasks, Thomson’s empirical study (work in progress) with advanced student teachers of TEFL enrolled in primary and secondary teacher education programs (N=60) intends to approach this issue. The research design, based on method triangulation, involves a comprehensive paper-and-pencil test (five parts consisting of closed and semi-open items) which has been developed to assess student teachers’ 123 L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education discourse competence with regard to concrete CM scenarios and utterances typically encountered in EFL classrooms. The test items, differing in linguistic and conceptual complexity, relate to various domains of CM (e.g. managerial, interpersonal) and reflect a variety of concrete teacher tasks (e.g. giving instruc‐ tions, closing a lesson, giving homework, organizing and preparing the classroom, working with material, social and emotional caring, asking students to participate in room management etc.). Elicited language data is analyzed and evaluated by means of complex and multi-layered processes. Complementarily, the test persons were asked to provide short introspective vignettes for all items (with regard to linguistic and/ or conceptual aspects they may find challenging) and to rate their level of language competence with regard to the test items in each part. This multi-perspective approach is expected to not only yield insights into the linguistic quality of student teachers’ ‘CM talk’ (in terms of accuracy, appropriacy etc.) but also to disclose detailed information regarding the specific linguistic/ conceptual difficulties they may have encountered with CM. The re‐ sults of this study, though not representative, may carry important implications for approaches to CM in EFL pre-service teacher education programs. 6 Conclusion This chapter has approached the concept of classroom management (CM) from a foreign language education perspective and emphasized the need for an ELT-specific approach to CM in the context of pre-service teacher education. I have argued that EFL teachers’ CM competence is not solely built upon general pedagogic knowledge but rather develops through the complex interplay of various, also domain-specific types of professional knowledge and competences. Thus, a solely pedagogical approach to CM in teacher education is not likely to sufficiently prepare prospective foreign language teachers for the distinct CM tasks in their classrooms. Rather, it needs to be expanded and adapted to fit both the specific conditions of language education and the challenges of teachers’ CM tasks in foreign language classrooms. An integrative, interdisciplinary approach to CM, in which general pedagogic and subject-specific perspectives merge, would not only sensitize student teachers to the complexity and scope of building up L2 CM competence but also increase the coherence between the academic disciplines involved in teacher education. It has also been shown that teachers’ L2 classroom discourse competence is of crucial importance as the majority of teachers’ CM decisions eventually materialize on the level of classroom discourse and teacher talk, respectively. Thus, the strong ties between CM, classroom discourse and language learning 124 Katrin Thomson 9 The original passage reads: “In der Lehrerbildung der ersten Phase scheint das Thema classroom management zu wenig unter fachdidaktischer Perspektive berücksichtigt zu werden.” ought to be given more attention in TEFL teacher education programs. L2 CM competence, it has been stressed, is highly complex and therefore requires systematic and specialized, i.e. also subject-specific, training within suitable educational contexts at pre-service stage in order to sensitize student teachers to the multitude of CM tasks and the responsibilities attached to these. Considering CM’s generally neglected role in EFL teacher education, a great amount of work still needs to be done - in terms of theoretical conceptualiza‐ tions, empirical research and practical implementation at pre-service stage. For instance, practical implementations of genuinely ‘inter-disciplinary’ approaches to CM competence development at university level presuppose researchand theory-based solutions to issues such as: designing suitable formats, training modules and teaching concepts; establishing structural and curricular coherence within such interdisciplinary approaches; professionalizing (TEFL) teacher educators with regard to CM, to name but a few. However, in spite of these challenging tasks, Müller-Hartmann/ Schocker’s observation - ‘In pre-service teacher education, classroom management does not seem to be taken into account adequately from a subject-specific perspective.’ (2018: 7, translation KT) 9 - can or perhaps should be read as an indirect, yet urgent request to tackle them nonetheless. Bibliography Baumert, Jürgen/ Kunter, Mareike (2006). “Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften.” Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 9: 4, 469-520. Bernstein, Basil (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Cri‐ tique. Rev. ed. Oxford/ New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Blömeke, Sigrid et al. (2015). “Beyond Dichotomies: Competence Viewed as a Con‐ tinuum.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie 223: 1, 3-13. Bohl, Thorsten (2010). “Forschung für den Unterricht: Zwischen selbstbestimmtem Lernen und Classroom-Management.“ In: Ibid. (Ed.), Selbstbestimmung und Class‐ room-Management: Empirische Befunde und Entwicklungsstrategien zum guten Unter‐ richt. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, 15-30. Borg, Simon (2006). “The Distinctive Characteristics of Foreign Language Teachers.” Language Teaching Research 10: 1, 3-31. Böttger, Heiner ( 3 2020). Englisch lernen in der Grundschule: Eine kindgerechte Fachdi‐ daktik. 3 rd , completely rev. ed. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. 125 L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education Brophy, Jere. “History of Research on Classroom Management.” In: Evertson, Carolyn M./ Weinstein, Carol S. (Eds.), 17-43. Byo, James L./ Sims, Wendy L. (2015). “Classroom Management in Music Education.” In: Emmer, Edmund T./ Sabornie, Edward J. (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management. London/ New York: Routledge, 220-238. Buchanan, Heather/ Timmis, Ivor (2019). “Classroom Management: Art, Craft or Sci‐ ence? ” In: Walsh, Steve/ Mann, Steve (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher Education. London/ New York: Routledge, 319-334. Buzzelli, Cary/ Johnston, Bill (2001). “Authority, Power, and Morality in Classroom Discourse.” Teacher and Teacher Education 17, 873-884. Cothran, Donetta/ Kulinna, Pamela (2015). “Classroom Management in Physical Educa‐ tion.” In: Emmer, Edmund T./ Sabornie, Edward J. (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management. London/ New York: Routledge, 239-260. Deters-Philipp, Ann-Cathrin (2018). Lehrersprache im Englischunterricht an deutschen Grundschulen. Eine Interviewstudie mit Lehrkräften. Münster: Waxmann. Didaktilus (1990). “Classroom Discourse - und mehr als nur den.” Neusprachliche Mitteilungen aus Wissenschaft und Praxis 43, 25-26. Dines, Peter (2001). “Was heißt ‘Tafeldienst’ auf Englisch? , oder: Die Rolle von Classroom English im englischen Anfangsunterricht.” Fremdsprachenunterricht 45: 4, 263-265. Egeberg, Helen et al. (2016). “Classroom Management and National Professional Stand‐ ards for Teachers: A Review of the Literature on Theory and Practice.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 41: 7, online. URL: ro.ecu.edu.au/ ajte/ vol41/ iss7/ 1/ (last accessed: 12.09.2021). Emmer, Edmund T./ Sabornie, Edward J. (2015). “Introduction to the Second Edition.” In: Ibid. (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management. 2nd ed. London/ New York: Routledge, 3-12. Emmer, Edmund T./ Stough, Laura M. (2001). “Classroom Management: A Critical Part of Educational Psychology, with Implications for Teacher Education.” Educational Psychologist 36: 2, 103-112. Evertson, Carolyn M./ Weinstein, Carol S. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of Classroom Manage‐ ment: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3-15. Evertson, Carolyn M./ Weinstein, Carol S. (2006). “Classroom Management as a Field of Inquiry.” In: Ibid. (Eds.), 3-15. Fricke, Katharina (2016). Classroom Management and its Impact on Lesson Outcomes in Physics. A Multi-Perspective Comparison of Teaching Practices in Primary and Secondary Schools. Berlin: Logos. Grimm, Nancy/ Meyer, Michael/ Volkmann, Laurenz (2015). Teaching English. Tübingen: Narr. 126 Katrin Thomson Haag, Ludwig/ Streber, Doris ( 2 2020). Klassenführung: Erfolgreich unterrichten mit Class‐ room Management. 2 nd ed. Weinheim/ Basel: Beltz. Hallet, Wolfgang. Didaktische Kompetenzen: Lehr- und Lernprozesse erfolgreich gestalten. Stuttgart: Klett, 2006. Hellermann, Christina et al. (2015). “Förderung von Klassenführungsfähigkeiten im Leh‐ ramtsstudium.” Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie 47: 2, 97-109. Helmke, Andreas (2007). “Aktive Lernzeit optimieren: Was wissen wir über effiziente Klassenführung? ” Pädagogik 59, 44-48. Helmke, Andreas (2017). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität: Diagnose, Evalu‐ ation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts. 7 th ed. Seelze-Velber: Klett Kallmeyer. Helmke, Andreas/ Helmke, Tuyet (2014). “Wie wirksam ist gute Klassenführung? “ Ler‐ nende Schule 65, 9-12. Jennings, Patricia A./ Greenberg, Mark T. (2009). “The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence in Relation to Student and Classroom Outcomes.” Review of Educational Research 79: 1, 491-525. Klippel, Friederike (2003). “Teaching in English - Teacher Language in Primary School.” In: Hermes, Liesel/ Klippel, Friederike (Eds.), Früher oder später? - Englisch in der Grundschule und Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht. Berlin: Langenscheidt, 53-68. KMK (2008/ 2019). Ländergemeinsame inhaltliche Anforderungen für die Fachwissenschaften und Fachdidaktiken in der Lehrerbildung. Online. www.kmk.org/ fileadmin/ Dateien/ veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/ 2008/ 2008_10_16-Fachprofile-Lehrerbildu ng.pdf (last accessed: 11.10.2021). KMK (2004/ 2019). Standards für die Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften. Online. URL: https: / / www.kmk.org/ fileadmin/ Dateien/ veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/ 2004/ 2004_12_16-Standards-Lehrerbildung-Bildungswissenschaften.pdf (last accessed: 11.10.2021). König, Johannes et al. (2018). “Pädagogisches Wissen versus fachdidaktisches Wissen. Struktur des professionellen Wissens bei angehenden Deutsch-, Englisch- und Mathe‐ matiklehrkräften im Studium.“ Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaften 21: 3, 1-38. Königs, Frank G. (2002). “Sackgasse oder Verkehrsplanung? Perspektiven für die Ausbil‐ dung von Fremdsprachenlehrern.” Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 31, 22-41. Krüger-Heiringhoff, Oliver ( 6 2020). “Classroom Management: Zeiten und Räume man‐ agen.“ In: Böttger, Heiner (Ed.), Englisch - Didaktik für die Grundschule. 6 th , completely rev. ed. Berlin: Cornelsen, 231-240. Lotz, Miriam/ Lipowsky, Frank (2015). “Die Hattie-Studie und ihre Bedeutung für den Unterricht. Ein Blick auf ausgewählte Aspekte der Lehrer-Schüler-Interaktion.“ In: Mehlhorn, Grit et al. (Eds.), Begabungen entwickeln & Kreativität fördern. München: kopaed, 97-136. 127 L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education Macías, Diego F. (2018). “Classroom Management in Foreign Language Education: An Exploratory Review.” Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development 20: 1, 153-166. Macías, Diego F./ Sánchez, Jesús A. (2015). “Classroom Management: A Persistent Challenge for Pre-Service Foreign Language Teachers.” Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development 17: 2, 81-99. Marzano, Robert J./ Marzano, Jana S. (2003). “The Key to Classroom Management.” Educational Leadership 61: 3, 6-13. Meyer, Hilbert ( 8 2011). Was ist guter Unterricht? Berlin: Cornelsen. Morine-Dershimer, Greta (2006). “Classroom Management and Classroom Discourse.” In: Evertson, Carolyn M./ Weinstein, Carol S. (Eds.), 127-156. Müller-Hartmann, Andreas/ Schocker, Marita (2018). “Classroom Management: Lernpro‐ zesse organisieren und begleiten, Lernbeziehungen gestalten.” Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch 154, 2-7. [Issue on Classroom Management, Eds. Müller-Hart‐ mann/ Schocker]. Nix, Frank/ Wollmann, Jens (2016). “Klassenführung lernen - Was ist im Referendariat möglich? ” Pädagogik 68: 1, 34-37. Praetorius, Anna-Katharina et al. (2016). “The Same in German as in English? - Investigating the Subject-Specificity of Teaching Quality.” Zeitschrift für Erziehungs‐ wissenschaft 19: 1, 191-209. Prusse-Hess, Barbara/ Prusse, Michael C. (2018). “Wirksamer Englischunterricht - Ein Fazit.” In: Ibid. (Eds.), Wirksamer Englischunterricht. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren, 213-224. Reber, Brigitte (2018). “Die Doppelrolle des Englischen als Unterrichtssprache und Lern‐ gegenstand: Vielfältige Möglichkeiten wahrnehmen und nutzen.” In: Prusse-Hess, Barbara/ Prusse, Michael C. (Eds.), Wirksamer Englischunterricht. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren, 157-166. Roters, Bianca et al. (2011). “Professionelles Wissen von Studierenden des Lehramts Englisch.” In: Blömeke, Sigrid et al. (Eds.), Kompetenzen von Lehramtsstudierenden in gering strukturierten Domänen. Erste Ergebnisse aus TEDS-LT. Münster: Waxmann, 77-99. Roters, Bianca et al. (2013). “Fachdidaktisches Wissen angehender Englischlehrkräfte - Theoretischer Rahmen und empirische Ergebnisse zur Struktur eines Testinstru‐ ments.” Lehrerbildung auf dem Prüfstand 6: 2, 155-177. Rozenberg, Madgalena (2015). “Classroom Management: Klassenführung.” Orbis Lin‐ guarum 43, 257-277. Rozenberg, Magdalena (2016a). “Die Schnittstelle zwischen Fremdsprachendidaktik und Erziehungswissenschaft: Pädagogische Konzepte für den Fremdsprachenunterricht.” In: Jarząbek, Alina D. (Ed.), Anfang: Sprach-didaktische Implikationen für ein neues Lernparadigma. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 37-47. 128 Katrin Thomson Rozenberg, Magdalena (2016b). “Klassenmanagement - zur Gestaltung eines Rahmens für fremdsprachliche Lehr- und Lernprozesse.” Brünner Hefte zu Deutsch als Fremdspr‐ ache 9: 1, 28-41. Rozenberg, Magdalena (2018). “Zwei Akzente im Classroom Management: Professio‐ nalität und Raum. Perspektiven für den Fremdsprachenunterricht.” Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 23: 2, 37-55. Schröder, Konrad (2010). “Problematischer Input: Der Classroom Discourse wird im Englischunterricht häufig vernachlässigt.” Praxis Englisch 2, 46-48. Scrivener, Jim (2012). Classroom Management Techniques. Cambridge: CUP. [=Cambridge Handbooks for Language Teachers]. Seedhouse, Paul (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Shulman, Lee S. (1987). “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform.” Harvard Educational Review 57: 1, 1-22. Stough, Laura (2006). “The Place of Classroom Management and Standards in Teacher Education.” In: Evertson, Carolyn M./ Weinstein, Carol S. (Eds.), 909-923. Thaler, Engelbert (2012). Englisch unterrichten. Grundlagen, Konzepte, Methoden. Berlin: Cornelsen. Thomson, Katrin (this volume). “Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC): A Key Competence in Foreign Language Teaching.” In: Ibid. (Ed.), Classroom Discourse Competence: Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education. Tübingen: Narr. Timm, Johannes-Peter ( 5 2013). “Schüleräußerungen und Lehrerfeedback im Unterrichts‐ gespräch.” In: Bach, Gerhard/ Timm, Johannes-Peter (Eds.), Englischunterricht. Grund‐ lagen und Methoden einer handlungsorientierten Unterrichtspraxis. 5 th ed. Tübingen/ Basel: A. Francke, 199-229. van Tartwijk, Jan/ Hammerness, Karen (2011). “The Neglected Role of Classroom Man‐ agement in Teacher Education.” Teaching Education 22: 2, 109-112. Walsh, Steve (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London/ New York: Routledge. Walsh, Steve (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. London/ New York: Routledge. Wright, Tony (2005). Classroom Management in Language Education. Basingstoke: Pal‐ grave Macmillan. Wubbels, Theo (2011). “An International Perspective on Classroom Management: What Should Prospective Teachers Learn? ” Teaching Education 22: 2, 113-131. Wubbels, Theo et al. (2015). “Teacher-Student Relationships and Classroom Manage‐ ment.” In: Emmer, Edmund T./ Sabornie, Edward J. (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management. 2 nd ed. London/ New York: Routledge, 363-386. 129 L2 Classroom Management Competence in Pre-Service EFL Teacher Education Wulf, Herwig (2001). Communicative Teacher Talk: Vorschläge zu einer effektiven Unter‐ richtssprache. Ismaning: Max Hueber. Zein, Subhan (2018). “Classroom Management for Teaching English to Young Learners.” In: Garton, Sue/ Copland, Fiona (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Teaching English to Young Learners. New York: Routledge, 154-168. 130 Katrin Thomson 1 For general introductions to CLIL see for instance Bonnet/ Breidbach (2004), Cas‐ pari/ Hallet/ Wegner/ Zydatiß (2007), Coyle/ Hood/ Marsh (2010), Doff (2010), Hallet/ Kö‐ nigs (2013), Mehisto/ Marsh/ Frigols (2012), Wolff/ Marsh (2007). Teacher Discourse Competence in CLIL Charlott Falkenhagen / Sieglinde Spath In CLIL classrooms, teachers’ discourse competences are considered among the crucial skills to stimulate meaningful communication and learning. The specifics of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) 1 scenarios require professional skills, which partly overlap but also differ from regular EFL teachers’ competences. However, in CLIL pedagogy, discourse competence is mostly seen as a learning objective for students but rarely as a professional teaching skill. Accordingly, conceptualizations of discourse competence often rely on empirical research on learning outcomes and language samples of CLIL learners. This article summarizes central CLIL research strands before discussing specific characteristics of teacher discourse competences (TDC). Examples from CLIL English/ music modules are presented, illustrating the usage and functionality of TDC aspects such as teacher talking time (TTT), IRE patterns and code-switching techniques. All three approaches will be outlined below including their contribution to an understanding of teacher discourse competence. 1 Introduction: Teacher Discourse Competence in CLIL Contexts 1.1 Normative Educational Approach: Discourse Competence as Learning Goal The first perspective on discourse competence as a central learning goal for CLIL students is apparent in empirical studies such as the DEZIBEL project (Zydatiß 2007) and other CLIL classroom research (Dalton-Puffer/ Smit 2007). Here discourse competences are defined as subject-related but transferrable lan‐ guage skills (transferfähige fächerübergreifende Diskurskompetenzen) (Zydatiß 2013: 132 ff.). These general academic discourse competences are an attractive interdisciplinary learning goal, because they are acquired within one subject, but have the potential to be transferred to another subject. The idea of transferrable discourse competences is related to the language across the curriculum (LAC) movement in Anglophone countries (Vollmer 2009, Dalton-Puffer 2013), which promotes academic language proficiency in all subjects, i.e. enabling students to use appropriate academic language across disciplinary or subject boundaries. Regarding teachers, it aims at an increased awareness of academic language in all school subjects and, consequently, requires any subject teacher to put language skills as a goal on their teaching agenda (Dalton-Puffer 2007b: 9f.). The differentiation between everyday language and academic language is most evident in the comparison of BICS vs. CALP (Cummins 2008) - a differentiation also relevant for the understanding of discourse competence in CLIL contexts, because it highlights the notion of two language registers used in the classroom. Students, being taught in their L1, acquire a subset of new, subject-specific terminology (sometimes altering every-day meanings of words) together with conceptual specifications. They add a new language register to the existing command of their mother tongue (L1). CLIL students, on the other hand, have to cross a so-called double language threshold (doppelte Sprachschwelle) (Zydatiß 2012: 67ff.) in order to become competent in an academic discourse: one being the reconceptualization of everyday cognitive concepts into academic ones, the other transgressing from L2 BICS to L2 CALP. In this respect, discourse competence involves challenging cognitive learning processes, both language and content-wise. CLIL students step into another knowledge dimension (that of the subject being taught) and into another language continuum (that of the L2). Together, terminological and conceptual learning constitute the foundation of discourse competence in CLIL. Consequently, in order to enhance both, CLIL teachers have to possess equivalent content-related and linguistic as well as pedagogical and methodological competences. 1.2 Descriptive Linguistic Approach: Discourse Competence as Linguistic Patterns and Language Functions in the Classroom Besides normative approaches, establishing general academic discourse com‐ petence in CLIL as the central learning goal, there have been studies on the actual linguistic form of classroom communication, mostly focusing on the patterns of spoken discourse among participants (Dalton-Puffer 2007b). This structural-functional research is particularly interesting, because here the teachers and their linguistic impact come into focus. Numerous studies on the linguistic features of CLIL classroom discourse, including teachers’ verbal contributions or interactions, have been conducted in recent years (cf. 132 Charlott Falkenhagen / Sieglinde Spath 2 For an overview of major academic language functions see Dalton-Puffer (2007b: 127-130). Nikula/ Dalton-Puffer/ García 2013). Nikula et al. suggest a categorization of these studies according to three different perspectives: a. CLIL classroom discourse and language use b. CLIL classroom discourse and knowledge construction in the L2 c. CLIL classroom discourse and language learning While language use (a) and language learning (c) are common for TEFL and SLA research, the use of a foreign or second language (L2) for knowledge construction (b) is a distinguishing feature of CLIL scenarios. In linguistic ap‐ proaches classroom communication is seen as a sequence of speech acts, which can be categorized according to their intentional purpose(s). Those utterances directly aimed at content learning are called ‘academic language functions’ or ‘discourse functions’ and relate to those thinking skills that are considered crucial for knowledge construction and academic success (Vollmer 2010). 2 CLIL has been claimed to be a major way of fostering the acquisition of these language functions and, in general, aiding the acquisition of English for academic purposes (EAP) (cf. Dalton-Puffer 2007a). Early compilations of academic discourse func‐ tions include describing, explaining, concluding and evaluating (Wildhage/ Otten 2003: 40) as minimal cognitive and verbal prerequisites necessary for working on subject-specific tasks. In the above-mentioned comprehensive research conducted by Zydatiß three broad categories for general discourse functions are established: describing, explaining, evaluating (Zydatiß 2013: 134). However, these three or four major categories usually include further subdivisions, so that one may come up with eight (Vollmer 2009: 171) or even as many as 20 distinguishable discourse functions (Dalton-Puffer 2013: 139f.). Identifying academic discourse functions and describing their manifestations on lexical, morphological and syntactic levels is one of the major concerns of the descriptive linguistic approach. Quantifying these structural patterns of verbal interaction in actual CLIL classrooms helps to specify essential aspects of teacher discourse competence or a lack thereof (Dalton-Puffer 2007b: 168-171). Based on empirical data from CLIL lessons in Austria, Dalton-Puffer comes to the somewhat disillusioning conclusion that fully formed academic language functions are rare in CLIL classroom discourse (ibid). Even though teachers have mastered them in their own L2, few of them “are consciously aware of the existence of these as identifiable and describable academic language skills and functions” (Dalton-Puffer 2007b: 171). Since few teachers actively pursue the explicit teaching of academic discourse functions, professional CLIL training 133 Teacher Discourse Competence in CLIL 3 For a discussion of alterity and (inter-)culturality in TEFL see Volkmann (2010: 129-142). 4 See Hallet (2004: 141-144) and Volkmann (2010: 35-71) for a summary of cultural concepts. 5 For transcultural competence in TEFL see Volkmann (2010: 22 ff.). has to raise awareness of the interlacing of language and thought, thinking and speaking in content-focused and, at the same time, language-sensitive teaching scenarios (Dalton-Puffer 2013: 142ff.). Consequently, explicit knowledge and conscious implementation of academic discourse functions in CLIL classroom communication are two important aspects of TDC. 1.3 Meta-Reflective Cultural Approach: Discourse Competence as Reflection on the Nature of (Academic) Discourses and the CLIL Classroom Adding a meta-reflective layer to the normative and descriptive perspective on discourse competence, a third approach can be distinguished evolving around the notion of the CLIL classroom as a hybrid, transcultural discourse space (Hallet 2004: 141-152). Many teachers involved in CLIL are familiar with the idea of CLIL lessons contributing to an increased understanding of the ‘other’ or target culture represented by the foreign language in the classroom. Culture in this sense is often associated with national cultures and nations as geographical and political entities. In CLIL pedagogy, however, these concepts of (inter)culturality, alterity and otherness 3 - a foreign culture in opposition to one’s own culture - are extended to include the confrontation of students with a subject-specific and/ or general educational culture of academic discourses (Bonnet 2000, Breidbach 2004, Hallet 2004: 144-147). Alterity in this context describes the intercultural experience of getting into contact with another (academic) culture that is different from everyday concepts and communication. 4 Familiarity with the communicative culture of an academic discipline provides an insight into its way of making sense of the world and/ or interpreting aspects of human experience in a somewhat consistent scientific manner (“wissenschaftliche und fachdisziplinäre Weisen des Weltzugriffs”, Hallet 2004: 141). Because subject-specific discourse cultures reach beyond and cannot always be attributed to national cultures, academic discourses are conceptualized as transcultural and not so much as intercultural discourses (Hallet 2004: 146). 5 The meta-reflective approach has important implications for learning goals in CLIL scenarios: students should not only be enabled to partake; they should critically reflect on the structural function of discourse cultures in establishing the boundaries of academic disciplines as well as their authoritative function 134 Charlott Falkenhagen / Sieglinde Spath in shaping the way content is communicated. This reflective insight is based on the comparison of two discourses (L1 and L2) within the boundaries of one academic discipline, e.g. discourses in German, English or French regarding crucial historical events such as WWI and WWII. The CLIL classroom is said to be particularly well suited for simulating these processes of knowledge construction and distribution in scientific communities (Breidbach 2004). Dieses Konzept von Unterricht als einem Raum (inter-)aktiver, diskursiver Re-Kon‐ struktionen von Wissen in der Fremdsprache kann die realen Aushandlungs- und die sozialen und wissenschaftlichen Konstruktionsprozesse in ihrer Konstruktivität, Diskursivität und Kulturalität am besten modellieren. (Hallet 2004: 151) This leads to a multi-layered understanding of discourse competence in CLIL: After gaining an insight into the discourse culture of a particular subject, students (and teachers) realize that all discourses are themselves cultural artefacts. This also entails relativization: conceptualizations of the world may vary from one cultural setting to another, e.g. historical events may be concep‐ tualized differently depending on the social, ethnical or national perspective, on disciplinary discourse conventions in history, geography or philosophy lessons and on a common vs. academic perspectivation. According to the meta-reflective approach outlined above, TDC incorporates these aspects: a. (re-)conceptualiziation of culture including subject-specific discourse cul‐ tures b. familiarity with the academic L1/ L2 discourse cultures of the subject c. epistemological awareness of the discursive, constructive and cultural constitution of knowledge accumulated within academic disciplines 2 Selected Characteristics of Teacher Discourse Competence in CLIL Settings After outlining general features of TDC it is important to acknowledge that classroom discourse also varies due to different combinations of CLIL subjects. The examples below are taken from an empirical study focusing on the subject-specific verbal behavior of teachers in CLIL English/ Music modules (Falkenhagen 2014). Features of teacher talk such as code-switching, teacher talking time (TTT) and IRE patterns are prominent not only in regular English lessons but also in CLIL. The discussion of these aspects illustrating TDC in CLIL is contrasted with respective EFL research. 135 Teacher Discourse Competence in CLIL 6 ‘Teacherese’ denotes a particular way of speaking which uses language appropriate for the target learner group according to Krashen’s comprehensible input theory (Grimm et al. 2015: 238). 2.1 Teacher Talking Time (TTT) Research on classroom discourse stresses the fact that in EFL lessons teacher talk dominates approximately 2/ 3 of the time (Chaudron 1988, Lindner 2011). According to Lindner (2011), a teacher asks a question every 37 seconds within one lesson and more than 800 questions in the course of three days. In contrast, a student asks a question every three days (ibid.: 49). A high frequency of teacher talk mainly occurs at EFL beginner level, when classroom discourse is shaped by teacherese  6 , repetitions and set phrases, the use of teacher-centered methods as well as deductive approaches to language learning (Hitotuzi 2005, Grimm/ Meyer/ Volkmann 2015). Besides different levels of learner language, educational objectives also play a role in evaluating TTT: “[W]hether or not it is considered a good thing for teachers to spend 70 or 80 per cent of class time talking will depend on the objectives of a lesson and where it fits into the overall scheme of the course or programme.” (Nunan 1991: 190). Are these findings on TTT also applicable if the course programme is of a bilingual nature or do content-oriented lessons demand more or less teacher talk than regular TEFL? Generally, CLIL supporters emphasize the importance of increasing student talking time (STT) and reducing teacher talking time (TTT), especially as learners progress through a CLIL stream (Bentley 2010: 17). Older studies carried out among CLIL beginner learners show a clear dominance of TTT, matching results found in EFL research (summarized in Chaudron 1988: 51-58). Later studies are concerned with methods and strategies of CLIL teachers to increase STT (Bentley 2007, Dalton-Puffer 2007b), among them integrating visual tools, using L1 scaffolding, creating a language rich environment or adapting approaches such as TBLT from the EFL classroom. In recent years the focus on TTT in research was dropped in favor of more qualitative investigations into students’ discourse competences (Dalton-Puffer 2007a, 2007b, Zydatiß 2007). Considering teacher talk as one aspect of teacher discourse competence, the following parameters influence its frequency in CLIL: the bilingual subject partner, i.e. TTT varies in science, social studies or music lesson; the overall aims of a particular lesson; the purpose of one sequence within a lesson, e.g. phases of specific verbal actions such as instructing, questioning, clarifying, explaining, scaffolding; or the age of learners. One example, taken from Falkenhagen (2014), will be elaborated in terms of TTT in CLIL music modules according to these four aspects. If the subjects 136 Charlott Falkenhagen / Sieglinde Spath involved in CLIL are English and music, subject-specific methods such as rehearsing songs and/ or music pieces are at the core of almost every lesson. Here the teacher functions as the leader or conductor and rehearses a new music piece using content-specific vocabulary and phrases. Students follow the instructions and show understanding by putting the commands into musical actions. Later on, it is the students’ turn to take over parts of the practice session, e.g. by accompanying patterns with their peers. One of the main subject-related goals in music is improving students’ practical music-making skills. This entails the ability to play musical instruments and sing songs as well as the application of theoretical knowledge to their aesthetic experiences, for example when discussing musical pieces. Theory-practice links like these are of considerable value in music lessons. Furthermore, typical rehearsal sequences in music lessons are usually teacher-centered and account for a high amount of TTT. The following excerpt from a music lesson (see Transcript 1) illustrates such a rehearsal situation, which is strictly structured into: call (teacher) and response (students). Here, teacher talk is determined by commands and repetitions. The overall objective for students is to imitate the musical structure of the worksong. Nevertheless, students are also actively using the foreign language when singing and repeating the English lyrics. They reproduce new language items with the correct pronunciation, sung by the teacher, and internalize musical features of the worksong, such as tempo, structure, melody and rhythmic elements. Transcript 1 CLIL-MUSIC MODULE Jazz - Roots and Styles, video sequence nr. 24 (20102228144444), recorded grade: 9, date/ time of recording: 16.11.2010 / [13: 45-14: 32] Commentary: Staying within the key of the work song and using its musical material (pentatonic over d), the teacher improvises short melodies over a continuous bassline that the students are supposed to repeat spontaneously. During the first round of call and response in this application, the students do not participate. During the second response, however, they sing with much more confidence. Difficulties seem to arise with quick changes from call to response. 01 T: [sings] Doo, doo. SSS: ---? ? ? 02 L: Quicker - [singing] doo, doo. 03 SSS: Doo, doo. 04 T: Jawoll. 137 Teacher Discourse Competence in CLIL 05 T: [sings syllables: doo, bah, dey da, bap, dubi, class repeats = freely impro- 06 vised call & response]. 07 T: [bassline continues] Ok, now we look at the song. The SONG is played 08 in the same concept. So, it’s an ECHO! ! CONCEPT! . We call this in 09 English Call&Response. So, I sing the call and you respond with exactly 10 the same words and exactly the same melody and you could read along 11 This ol´ hammer. 12 [class sings This ol´ hammer] 13 T: [speaks while playing piano] Ok, there is one line, second line 14 but this ol´ hammer I sing for you again [sings] but this ol´ hammer (.) 15 but this ol´ [speaks] so you have to react right away, ja? So, I sing [sings] 16 but this ol´ hammer 17 SSS: [students react singing: But this ol´ hammer] 18 T: [singing] won’t kill me. 19 SSS: [singing] won’t kill me. 20 T: [speaks while playing piano] I do the solo, you do the response. [class singing: T sings call, students sing response.] In CLIL music lessons, larger portions of teacher talk are predominantly found in rehearsal situations as they are subject-specific teaching phases, in which the expert has to take the lead to introduce and practice melodies, lyrics or musical patterns. Here it does not matter if students are beginners of EFL or beginners of CLIL music (as in the example above). Only in advanced EFL classes, after having established a set of rehearsal phrases, e.g. Let’s play bar 3 again. Repeat the first line. Watch the quarter rest in bar 5. Sing the chorus. Repeat the second verse, is it possible to shift the lead to one student or a group of students. This would be one way of reducing TTT and increasing STT even in rehearsal phases. 2.2 IRE Pattern Besides research on the amount of teacher talk, there are several studies showing the most common exchange pattern in EFL classrooms to follow an IRE structure: Initiation, Response and Evaluation (Long/ Sato 1983, Creese 2006). The 138 Charlott Falkenhagen / Sieglinde Spath 7 IRE and IRF are used interchangeably in various studies; IRF: initiation - response - feedback. IRE/ IRF pattern 7 consists of an act initiated by the teacher (usually a question), a response act by one of the students (usually the answer to a question), and an act of evaluation by the teacher (a comment on the quality of the response). Research also focuses on the role of IRE patterns in CLIL contexts (Dalton-Puffer 2007b, Nikula 2007, Smit 2010). On the one hand, this dialogic pattern is seen as an activator of students’ “existing reservoir of knowledge” (Dalton-Puffer 2007b: 18), which triggers learning through connecting new information with pre-knowledge. On the other hand, IRE patterns are analyzed for their potential to provide space for more complex verbal interactions between students and teachers: IRF exchanges in CLIL are generally less tightly packed in that students’ responses tend to be longer than in EFL settings, as well as inviting from teachers’ reasons and further explanations rather than them just acknowledging the correctness of students’ responses. As the follow-up move serves a wider range of functions in the CLIL lessons, it also occasionally allows students to occupy it, frequently resulting in a chain of follow-up comments developing a theme, while in EFL lessons the follow-up moves are typically by teachers only, often leading to a quick move into the next IRF cycle. (Nikula et al. 2013: 83f.) The following transcript (see Transcript 2, Falkenhagen 2014) of an IRE sequence outlines a student-teacher interaction that focuses on repeating knowledge of the previous lesson, initiated by the teacher via typical wh-questions. Since the focus is simply on recalling five important facts concerning the birth of Jazz, unlike Nikula et al. quoted above, students’ answers are quite short. Transcript 2 CLIL-MUSIC MODULE Jazz - Roots and Styles, video sequence nr. 23 (20100930103114_1) Recorded grade: 9, date/ time of recording: 30.09.2010 / [10: 31-11: 19] 01 T: So, let’s come back to my question. Focus. Try to concentrate. 02 Remember the pictures and the stuff we talked about last week. 03 Who is involved in creating the new music style Jazz, who? (--) 04 [a few students raise their hands] 139 Teacher Discourse Competence in CLIL 05 T: We had pictures. [T gestures a square like a framed picture.] We 06 listened to something. [T points to her ears, imitating a gesture of listening.] 07 (--) [more students raise their hands] 08 T: Iren [S1]. 09 S1: Mh, slaves? 10 T: Ja. They belong to what kind of culture? 11 S1: Mh (--) keine Ahnung. 12 T: Where did they come from? 13 S1: Achso, ähm. Afrika. 14 T: In English 15 S1: Africa? From Africa? 16 T: They came from Africa. So, they carried the African culture or 17 the Black culture. Alright, first part. (-) There’s another culture involved 18 here, (--) pretty easy. [multiple students raise their hands] 19 T: Just think of what you know. Isabell [S2]. 20 S2: Ähm, the white culture from the American [inhabitants? ]. 21 T: [nods] Okay, and the you…We have our next question [points to 22 blackboard]. Where did the birth of Jazz take place? Where did it take 23 place? (-) [multiple students raise their hands] 24 T: Where did everything happen? Johannes [S3]. 25 S3: On the plantation? [mumbling] 26 T: Yeah, can you tell me the country? Today’s country is? 27 S3: USA? 28 T: The USA, the territory of today’s United States. Right, okay. What becomes obvious is the fact that the learners seem to struggle with expressing their thoughts in English. This invites the teacher to explain in more detail, to rephrase and gesture (e.g. ll. 5-7) and to simplify questions (e.g. ll. 10-12), helping the students to (re-)phrase their answers. 140 Charlott Falkenhagen / Sieglinde Spath 8 CLIL modules are limited in time, frequency and content, e.g. only some lessons are taught bilingually focusing on one topic in one subject. 9 Schools with bilingual streams or strands teach certain subjects (mainly history, social studies or biology) over several years. They offer a bilingual certificate and prepare students with extra foreign language lessons in grade 5 and 6 before they enter the bilingual or CLIL course. Extended analysis of CLIL music modules (Falkenhagen 2014) shows the use of IRE patterns to be dependent on the phase of teaching (e.g. repetition, clarification, explanation, follow-up), the content conveyed (e.g. recall of facts vs. discussion of topics leading to follow-up involvement) and the CLIL format (e.g. modules 8 or bilingual streams 9 ). The example above is taken from a CLIL module for beginners. Therefore, longer content-bound utterances or discussions are expected to be scarce. However, via closed questions and short, simple answers the IRE format enables students to convey content knowledge and subject-specific terminology. Overall, the IRE structure appears to be a communicative pattern suitable for initiating student talk within a fixed dialogic structure. It can help CLIL students to become more comfortable using the foreign language in both beginner EFL or CLIL classes in the long run. Since the IRE pattern does not resemble authentic communication as it would occur outside the classroom it has the negative potential to deskill students and prevent them from becoming competent speakers in the L2. It has been argued that in CLIL settings the negotiation of meaning, practical activities and collaborative forms of interaction between students lead to less IRE-dominated student-student-talk (Nikula et al. 2013: 84). Contrary to that, teacher-led whole-class discussions have been shown to present the most common type of verbal interaction - even more dominant in CLIL than in regular lessons (Badertscher/ Bieri 2009). These findings are supported by the observation of whole-class interaction often proceeding in loops of IRE sequences (Dalton-Puffer 2007b). Music lessons, whether the regular or CLIL format, include numerous practical activities, but the impact of these activities on learners’ language production differs according to the degree of difficulty of the musical content matter. Another vitally important part of music lessons, in addition to singing and making music, is listening to music. Speaking about the listening experience, e.g. analyzing it, putting it into a (historical) context and evaluating functions and effects on the audience, represents the classical follow-up scenario. These in-class-discussions are typical teacher-led activities. Nevertheless, communi‐ cation about the music piece can also be initiated by more open forms of IRE, e.g. 141 Teacher Discourse Competence in CLIL polarity profils, rubrics, adjective grids or fist of five, rather than merely questions (Falkenhagen/ Noppeney 2020: 12 ff.). 2.3 Code-Switching The use of two or more languages by both teachers and learners for commu‐ nicative purposes is described as code-switching or translanguaging. It occurs when a speaker alternates between different languages in the context of a single conversation: “Translanguaging is the act performed by bilinguals of accessing different linguistic features or various modes of what are described as autonomous languages, in order to maximize communicative potential.” (García 2009: 140). In CLIL contexts, speakers’ shared L1 is not only referred to for translation purposes; it serves to clarify content and build subjectspecific discourse competence in the L1 as well. One can differentiate between spontaneous and unplanned random code-switching and planned responsible code-switching - the latter being usually only pre-planned by the teacher. Especially in bilingual classrooms, frequent and unreflected code-switching is critically looked upon as language hopping (García 2009: 296). Considering the different participants in classroom discourse, students use their L1 and L2 interchangebly ‘on task’ and ‘off task’, whereas teachers stick to the target language most of the time (Bentley 2007: 130). Falkenhagen (2014) also looked partly at teacher talk and code-switching in rehearsal situations characteristic of music lessons. 24 recorded video sequences were analyzed for code-switching in teacher talk and its effects on the success of the rehearsal. In total, there were 690 instructing tasks in English in contrast to 203 German ones used by the teacher throughout the recorded rehearsal phases (ibid.: 386). In all sequences code-switching was not pre-planned but spontaneous. Reasons for switching to L1 (German) can be summarized in three categories (see table 1 below): language-bound, music-bound and external reasons (ibid.: 388-395). Languagebound reasons • explanation and translation of core vocabulary concerning rehearsal operators (e.g. Play the pattern… Start again in bar 5… Accompany your singing… Watch out for the rest… Repeat the chorus… Let’s sing second verse… wipe with the brushes on the snare drum on beat 2 and 4.) • explanation of false friends (e.g. chorus in German is ‘Refrain’ and not choir) Music-bound reasons • content-specific problems: too difficult musical phenomena for the students to master (e.g. playing a Swing pattern on the drum set with ternary 8 th notes together with the piano accompaniment) 142 Charlott Falkenhagen / Sieglinde Spath • students’ less highly developed musical motor skills (poor pre-knowledge of how to play e.g. the drums/ xylo‐ phones/ boomwhackers or perform body percussions) • explanation of playing techniques (e.g. rim click on snare drum with sticks) External reasons (classroom man‐ agement) • technical problems (light, shades, projector etc.) • problems with attention, discipline, noise, disruptions • handing out instruments (who plays what) Tab. 1: Reasons for code-switching in CLIL music contexts Most L1 utterances were motivated by external reasons, while languageand music-bound reasons were about equal in quantity of occurance (ibid.: 385-386). The following transcript (see Transcript 3) shows an excerpt from a rehearsal situation, in which music-bound problems result in unplanned, spontaneous code-switching. The students had severe difficulties keeping a steady beat while playing a ternary Swing pattern. On top of that, they had seldom played a drum set (snare, cymbals, hi-hat) before, so they also lacked the necessary motor skills to fulfill the task. In an attempt to facilitate understanding and to keep students’ frustration level low, the language barrier was lowered by the teacher, switching to L1 (German) more often than had been the case in other lessons in that class before (ibid.: 390 f.). Transcript 3 CLIL-MUSIC MODULE Jazz - Roots and Styles, video sequence nr. 5 (20110531093246_1) Recorded grade: 8, date/ time of recording: 31.05.2011 / [09: 30-10: 14] 01 T: Okay, Swing is very important. [Goes to cymbal and plays 8 th 02 notes] Here we don’t have binary rhythms, wir haben nichts Binares, son- 03 dern wir teilen ihn ternär. D.h. drei Schläge auf eine Zählzeit. (--) Ich 04 mach mal einmal vor. [Takes pen to demonstrate on the lid of the piano] 05 T: So, I start right here, okay. One, two, three, four. [Counts 4 th notes 06 and plays 8 th notes, plays 8 th triplets once and counts: one, two, three, 07 one…] 08 T: Join in. One, two, three, four. [Counts 4 th notes again. Students 143 Teacher Discourse Competence in CLIL 09 enter correctly. Then everything starts to get mixed up, the triplets get 10 faster and faster.] 11 T: One, two, three, four and stop. (2.0) [Students murmur. Starting 12 here, T often switches between languages] 13 T: Ein bisschen schnell? (2.0) 14 T: Jetzt gucken wir uns den hier an [refering to ternary swing pat- 15 tern]. That is the one that we are going to play on the ride cymbal. Das 16 ist das Ride Becken, den spiel’n wir mal. Ich spiel vor. (2.0) 17 T: Ich mache Viertel, quarter notes first. One, two three four. Last 18 bar [meaning the ternary rhythm]. AND: One, two, three, four… The selected examples show how content and language learning are integrated in a CLIL-typical way: IRE patterns as well as code-switching and various other methods are employed to emphasize and support the cognitive understanding of musical concepts such as the characteristics of Jazz music. These techniques do not only facilitate comprehension; they give feedback, improve and develop learners’ language and content abilities in the CLIL subjects. 3 Conclusion CLIL shares several principles and conventionalized forms of interaction with other institutionalized educational settings, including teachers and students being familiar with the specific culture of classroom discourse. In this respect, teacher discourse competence entails pragmatic knowledge concerning, for example, participation structures, turn-taking procedures, ascribed roles of the participants, socially and verbally accepted forms of interaction, typical content of communication, the educational purpose etc. It is also true that discourse in CLIL classrooms exhibits specific features, which are mainly due to the double focus on content and language learning, also leading to “considerable contextual variation caused by the co-presence of content pedagogy.” (Nikula et al. 2013: 81). Since content learning in the non-language subject is often a more prominent goal for CLIL teachers, they employ a range of verbal and non-verbal techniques to ensure it. This includes the use of subject-specific terminology and strategies such as scaffolding and code-switching, especially when subject content is perceived as difficult for the 144 Charlott Falkenhagen / Sieglinde Spath students. Knowing and applying these techniques have to be implemented in the curricula of teacher education for subject and language teacher students respectively. Furthermore, future CLIL teachers have to be familiar with the discourse conventions of their academic subjects in the target language, which can be achieved either by studying abroad or using course books or learning material in the target language. Returning to the three approaches on discourse competence, outlined in the beginning, the analysis of CLIL-TDC yielded the following results: CLIL class‐ rooms are complex educational settings, therefore, teachers require professional training to successfully combine language and content teaching. The normative approach establishes discourse competence as a central learning goal for students, but this entails TDC on part of the teachers as a prior felicity condition. The results of linguistic approaches, also illustrated by our examples, provide the theoretical basis for teacher education concerning TDC in CLIL contexts. In particular, this has to include systematic knowledge of general academic and subject-specific discourse functions and cultures. Besides awareness-raising activities for future CLIL teachers it is advisable to implement practical training phases in order to reduce TTT, find alternatives to the overusage of IRE patterns, and to arrive at a balanced approach to code-switching in suitable lesson phases. Overall, the focus on TDC in CLIL teacher training is a prerequisite for successful acquisition of discourse competences by the students. Language awareness in combination with content teaching (Fachsprache im Unterricht) has been a developing research field in many academic subjects over the last two decades. This could provide beneficial starting points for future CLIL TDC research. Bibliography Badertscher, Hans/ Bieri, Thomas (2009). Wissenserwerb im Content and Language Inte‐ grated Learning: Empirische Befunde und Interpretationen. Bernet al.: Haupt. Bentley, Kay (2007). “STT: Student Talking Time: How Can Teachers Develop Learners’ Communication Skills in a Secondary School CLIL Programme? ” Revista española de lingüística aplicada 1, 129-140. Bentley, Kay (2010). CLIL Module: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cam‐ bridge/ Stuttgart: CUP & Klett. Bonnet, Andreas (2000). “Naturwissenschaften im bilingualen Sachfachunterricht: Border Crossings? ” In: Abendroth-Timmer, Dagmar/ Breidbach, Stephan (Eds.), Hand‐ lungsorientierung und Mehrsprachigkeit: Fremd- und mehrsprachliches Handeln in interkulturellen Kontexten. Frankfurt/ Main: Lang, 149-160. 145 Teacher Discourse Competence in CLIL Bonnet, Andreas/ Breidbach, Stephan (Eds.) (2004). Didaktiken im Dialog: Konzepte des Lehrens und Wege des Lernens im bilingualen Sachfachunterricht. Frankfurt/ Main: Lang. Breidbach, Stephan (2004). “Bildung, Kultur, Wissenschaft: Grundzüge einer reflex‐ iven Wissenschaftsdidaktik für den bilingualen Sachfachunterricht.” In: Bonnet, Andreas/ Breidbach, Stephan (Eds.), 153-164. Caspari, Daniela/ Hallet, Wolfgang/ Wegner, Anke/ Zydatiß, Wolfgang (Eds.) (2007). Bilin‐ gualer Unterricht macht Schule: Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung. Frankfurt/ Main: Lang. Chaudron, Craig (1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: CUP. Coyle, Do/ Hood, Philip/ Marsh, David (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: CUP. Creese, Angela (2006). “Supporting Talk? Partnership Teachers in Classroom Interaction.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9: 4, 434-453. Cummins, Jim (2008). “BICS and CALP: Empirical and Theoretical Status of the Distinc‐ tion.” In: Hornberger, Nancy H./ Street, Brian (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. New York: Springer, 71-83. Dalton-Puffer, Christiane (2007a). “Die Fremdsprache Englisch als Medium des Wis‐ senserwerbs: Definieren und Hypothesenbilden.” In: Caspari, Daniela/ Hallet, Wolf‐ gang/ Wegner, Anke/ Zydatiß, Wolfgang (Eds.), 67-79. Dalton-Puffer, Christiane (2007b). Discourse in CLIL Classrooms: Conclusions, Implications, Prospects. 20 th ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dalton-Puffer, Christiane (2013), “Diskursfunktionen und generische Ansätze.” In: Hallet, Wolfgang/ Königs, Frank G. (Eds.), 138-145. Dalton-Puffer, Christiane/ Smit, Ute (Eds.) (2007). Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Class‐ room Discourse. Doff, Sabine (Ed.) (2010). Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht in der Sekundarstufe: Eine Ein‐ führung. Tübingen: Narr. Falkenhagen, Charlott (2014): Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) im Musikunterricht: Eine Studie zu CLIL-Musikmodulen. Frankfurt/ M: Lang. Falkenhagen, C./ Noppeney, G. (Eds.) (2020). Bilingualer Musikunterricht. Praxisband. Helbling. García, Ofelia (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21 st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden et al.: Wiley-Blackwell. Grimm, Nancy/ Meyer, Michael/ Volkmann, Laurenz (2015): Teaching English. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto. Hallet, Wolfgang (2004). “Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht als interkultureller Diskurs‐ raum.” In: Bonnet, Andreas/ Breidbach, Stephan (Eds.), 141-152. 146 Charlott Falkenhagen / Sieglinde Spath Hallet, Wolfgang/ Königs, Frank G. (Eds.) (2013). Handbuch Bilingualer Unterricht: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Seelze: Klett-Kallmeyer. Hitotuzi, Nilton (2005). “Teacher Talking Time in the EFL Classroom.” Profile 6, 97-106. Lindner, Michael (2011). Gute Frage! : Lehrerfragen als pädagogische Schlüsselkompetenz. Marburg: Tectum-Verlag. Long, Michael H./ Sato, Charlene J. (1983). “Classroom Foreigner Talk Discourse: Forms and Functions of Teachers’ Questions.” In: Seliger, Herbert W./ Long, Michael H. (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House, 268-286. Mehisto, Peeter/ Marsh, David/ Frigols, María J. (2012). Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. 4 th ed. Oxford: Macmillan Education. Nikula, Tarja (2007). “The IRF Pattern and Space for Interaction: Observations on EFL and CLIL Classrooms.” In: Dalton-Puffer, Christiane/ Smit, Ute (Eds.), 179-204. Nikula, Tarja/ Dalton-Puffer, Christiane/ García, Ana L. (2013). “CLIL Classroom Dis‐ course: Research from Europe.” Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 1: 1, 70-100. Nunan, David (1991). Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. 5 th ed. New York: Prentice Hall. Smit, Ute (2010). “CLIL in an English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Classroom: On Ex‐ plaining Terms and Expressions Interactively.” In: Dalton-Puffer, Christiane/ Nikula, Tarja/ Smit, Ute (Eds.), Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 259-277. Volkmann, Laurenz (2010). Fachdidaktik Englisch: Kultur und Sprache. Tübingen: Narr. Vollmer, Helmut J. (2009). “Diskursfunktionen und fachliche Diskurskompetenz bei bilin‐ gualen und monolingualen Geografielernern.” In: Ditze, Stephan-Alexander/ Halbach, Ana (Eds.), Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht (CLIL) im Kontext von Sprache, Kultur und Multiliteralität. Frankfurt/ Main: Lang, 165-185. Vollmer, Helmut J. (2010). “Fachkompetenz als fachbasierte Diskursfähigkeit am Beispiel Geographie.” In: Doff, Sabine (Ed.), Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht in der Sekundarstufe: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr, 242-257. Wildhage, Manfred/ Otten, Edgar (Eds.) (2003): Praxis des bilingualen Unterrichts. Berlin: Cornelsen-Scriptor. Wolff, Dieter/ Marsh, David (Eds.) (2007). Diverse Contexts, Converging Goals: CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt/ Main: Lang. Zydatiß, Wolfgang (2007). Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL): Eine Evalua‐ tion des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts an Gymnasien. Kontext, Kompetenzen, Konse‐ quenzen. Frankfurt/ Main: Lang. 147 Teacher Discourse Competence in CLIL Zydatiß, Wolfgang (2012). “Zur doppelten Sprachschwelle im bilingualen Unterricht.” In: Bayrhuber, Horst et al. (Eds.), Formate fachdidaktischer Forschung: Empirische Projekte - historische Analysen - theoretische Grundlegungen. Münster: Waxmann, 67-83. Zydatiß, Wolfgang (2013). “Kompetenzerwerb im Bilingualen Unterricht.” In: Hallet, Wolfgang/ Königs, Frank G. (Eds.), 131-138. 148 Charlott Falkenhagen / Sieglinde Spath Teaching Pupils with Hearing Impairment in EFL Contexts Towards Inclusive Classroom Discourse Strategies Katalin Schober Hearing impairment issues are commonly associated with lower levels of language proficiency. Hence, inclusive classrooms have to address the special needs of pupils with hearing impairment, in particular in English language education. What is more, teacher training programmes need to prepare students, trainee teachers, or pre-service teachers alike in order to enable them to address the manifold challenges pertaining to inclusive classroom discourse. The aim of this paper is threefold: first of all, to enquire into the interplay between inclusion matters and classroom discourse; secondly, to delineate inclusive classroom discourse strategies, such as social, propositional, and expressive strategies; and finally, to propose the concept of a teacher’s reflective-interactional competence as part of a teacher education that pays attention to inclusive classroom discourse matters. 1 Introduction Imagine the following situation: you are listening to the radio or watching a film. Meanwhile, however, you are constantly disturbed by other sounds, noises, or chatter. The more you try to listen carefully to your programme, the more you feel exhausted, since it proves difficult to sort out the information that can be neglected. Or worse, you are wearing ear-plugs in addition, which make it even more complicated to pay attention to what is being said. This scenario might give you an idea of what it is like to be hearing-impaired. It is estimated that up to three percent of our learners belong to the group of hearing-impaired pupils with the degree of their deficits depending on the par‐ ticular kind of impairment (Leonhardt et al. 2018: 24). Generally speaking, they are associated with lower levels of language proficiency (Spencer/ Marschark 2010: 10). Their deficits concern all levels of language use, including phonetic and prosodic features, grammar, lexis, as well as the receptive (listening and reading) and productive skills (speaking and writing) (Leonhardt et al. 2018: 31). This holds true even if hearing-impaired learners are equipped with supportive technical devices. Consequently, if not adequately supported, hearing-impaired pupils may easily miss important information in the lessons, which, in turn, may lead to even more exhaustion, difficulties, and, consequently, lower self-esteem. Hence, inclusive classrooms have to address the special needs of pupils with hearing impairment, as classroom discourse certainly affects learning opportunities, to the better or worse. Furthermore, teacher training programmes need to prepare students, trainee teachers, and professional teachers alike in order to enable them to address the manifold challenges pertaining to inclusive classroom discourse (Spencer/ Marschark 2010: 10). However, the findings of a recent study conducted in one of the countries regarded as having a long tradition of inclusive teaching, namely Finland, seem rather alarming: only half of the teachers interviewed equip and support hearing-impaired pupils (Takala/ Sume 2018: 134-147). Hence, we may assume that many teachers lack a set of skills in order to handle typical classroom situations involving hearing-impaired pupils. Whilst it seems rather easy to create a suitable acoustic environment, and, for example, to use fitted carpets and curtains or covers on chairs (Thompson 2010: 100), the question of adjusted classroom discourse is more complex and necessitates more profound changes. According to Cazden (2001: 2), classroom discourse refers to the overall communication system between pupils and teachers as set up in the classroom. It stimulates and facilitates learning processes. Without it, obviously, pupils would neither be able to process new knowledge nor to develop skills or form an understanding of their own cognition. In this context, Cazden defines three functions of language use, namely social, propositional, and expressive (ibid.: 3). In the classroom, these functions surface as various kinds of routines, speech acts, and content-based talks, thereby shaping the educational success of the pupils therein involved. First of all, classroom discourse relates to social aspects of language use and guarantees, in this respect, the nurturing of relationships, which, in turn, stir further communication. What is more, it allows the exchange of propositional features; that is, in the English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom, the communication of speech acts, as well as of linguistic and textual content-based matters in the target language. Finally, it enables the speakers in the classroom to express and share their beliefs and attitudes. 150 Katalin Schober As communication is the starting point and the aim of all efforts undertaken by teachers and pupils alike in English language education, the case of classroom discourse is particularly acute in this context, the more so with regard to hearing-impaired learners. If they are not adequately supported, they will find it especially difficult to partake in social, propositional, or expressive aspects of language use. How can we help teachers, then, to anticipate, shape, and evaluate typical situations in special needs education in order to counterbalance the learners’ difficulties? This paper aims at delineating inclusive classroom discourse strategies with a focus on hearing-impaired learners. In analogy to Cazden’s definitions, it proposes three kinds of inclusive classroom discourse strategies: social, propositional, and expressive. They are neither exhaustive nor do they suggest a universal claim. To the contrary, each inclusive classroom is unique and teachers will have to base their educational choices on the specific setting in which they teach. Nonetheless, the strategies proposed may heighten the educators’ awareness of the special needs of hearing-impaired learners in EFL contexts. Secondly, the aim of this paper is to enquire into the interplay between inclusion matters and teacher education. Therefore, the concept of a reflective-interactional competence will be introduced. 2 Inclusive Classroom Discourse Strategies 2.1 Social Strategies In analogy to Cazden’s definition of the social function of language (2001: 3), I use the term social strategies to refer to all measures aiming at establishing a silent and focused atmosphere in the classroom. They are meant to lay the groundwork for further communication so that teachers and pupils can work well with each other, in an undisturbed setting. These strategies concern what might be termed behaviour management in the first place. Secondly, they relate to teacher talk, that is to questions of graded language use and comprehensible input. The importance of clear rules for classroom communication is apparent, the more so in inclusive classrooms involving hearing-impaired pupils. It has been noted that hearing-impaired learners may find it particularly difficult to communicate and concentrate over longer periods of time (Leonhardt et al. 2018: 24). Consequently, before learning can take place, pupils must understand how they should interact with each other. This question entails, for example, the constant use of the pupils’ names as well as the need to face the hearing-impaired so that they can lip-read (Thompson 2010: 100). It may also be helpful to deal 151 Teaching Pupils with Hearing Impairment in EFL Contexts with the topic of hearing impairment openly so that the pupils can gain an understanding of and develop empathy for their hearing-impaired peers. In addition, it has been suggested to devise the rules for classroom communication together with the pupils and to use them as a guideline in class (Harmer 2015: 171). From the teacher’s point of view, behaviour management also pertains to rituals which structure the lessons, serve as signposts to pupils, and help to focus attention, such as actively welcoming the pupils or clearly opening and closing one’s lessons. It may also be useful to reinforce positive behaviour instead of discouraging negative one. Those pupils who are highly inattentive or show disruptive behaviour may benefit not only from clear rules, but also from constant reassurance once they have followed the instructions (Blumenthal et al. 2020: 53). In severe cases, allowing the pupils to calm down in a separate area may prove useful. Finally, it is advisable to talk to parents or to work together with the school’s psychological team. Moreover, in inclusive settings, teachers need to have recourse to highly graded language at times (Scrivener 2012: 68) in order to ensure that they are well understood by hearing-impaired pupils. Measures that belong to questions of teacher talk include, for example: speaking clearly, consciously modelling one’s intonation, emphasising important words, or using pauses and adequate facial expressions and gestures. These practices are particularly important when teachers talk exclusively to the hearing-impaired. In sequences in which educators address pupils without hearing-impairment, who are proficient in the target language, teachers might choose to have recourse to less graded language. To put it differently, the degree of graded language use depends on the particular addressee. Additionally, teachers might choose to repeat other pupils’ answers inten‐ tionally (Leonhardt et al. 2018: 171) or to switch between the target language and the pupils’ first language (Scrivener 2012: 69) in order to provide the hearing-impaired learners with comprehensible input. Even if echoing and code-switching have witnessed controversial debates in teacher education, they may serve as powerful tools in inclusive contexts, since they enable hearing-impaired pupils to counterbalance their lack of understanding. 2.2 Propositional Strategies Propositional strategies shall be defined as all those measures that are directed at the communication of speech acts, of linguistic, and of textual content-based matters. They precede communication in the classroom as such, since they are based on careful lesson planning. Also, they coincide with classroom discourse, 152 Katalin Schober as the teacher needs to be aware of all classroom activities while teaching so that adjustments can be put into place at once. What is more, educators need to be able to reflect upon their classroom behaviour after the lessons so that they can use their reflections for better educational choices in the upcoming lessons. In this respect, propositional strategies also result from classroom discourse. On the whole, these strategies pertain to questions of assessment, scaffolds, and differentiation. In inclusive EFL contexts, a transparent communication of goals and flexible criteria for evaluation are particularly important. As hearing-impaired learners are usually less proficient in the target language, other, more individual criteria may be allowed, which differ from the usual ones (Leonhardt et al. 2018: 176). Hearing-impaired pupils may find it difficult, for example, to perceive fricatives adequately due to their misperception of frication and transition cues (Pittman/ Stelmachowicz 2000: 1389−1401; Zeng/ Turner 1990: 440−449). It may therefore be useful to adjust listening tasks and allow subtitles or transcriptions. Their articulation might be impeded, too, as it builds upon their ability to hear and discriminate sounds properly. Besides, their reading and writing skills might be less developed as they are grounded in oral communication. Consequently, the teacher will have to allow a more individual assessment as well as special scaffolds (cf. below) in order to compensate for the hearing-impaired learners’ deficits. Finally, it is vital to give regular feedback which focuses on the pupils’ learning processes and their individual progress (Mitchell 2014: 183). Generally speaking, teachers will have to use inclusive scaffolds that aim at reducing linguistic or textual complexity. They include, for example, all means of visualisation which help to highlight lexical or grammatical aspects (Leonhardt et al. 2018: 175). Texts will have to comprise scaffolds, too; annotations or word banks, reduced textual material, or multimodal scaffolds, such as subtitles and transcriptions, belong to this group (Leonhardt et al. 2018: 176). Besides, educators might choose to disentangle their dual attention to meaning and form in some parts of the lessons (Cazden 2001: 97). In inclusive settings, it might be particularly helpful to separate the two, for example when teachers need to explain difficult linguistic or contextual parts to the hearing-impaired pupils, or when they want to highlight only one aspect at a time. Furthermore, educators will need to work with their pupils on strategies (Leonhardt et al. 2018: 171-174, 175), such as mind mapping and vocabulary building, as well as listening, speaking, reading, and writing strategies. They allow for more structured approaches by moving, for example, from the general to the particular or vice versa. Also, generic approaches may be put into practice which offer typical scripts or texts (oral and written) as models for the learners 153 Teaching Pupils with Hearing Impairment in EFL Contexts (Allwerman 2019: 2-8). Last but not least, educators will need to arrange some extra time for continual repetitions of crucial linguistic structures, such as the clear discrimination and articulation of fricatives. However, as inclusive classrooms usually consist of speakers of highly varied levels, educators will have to allow for more linguistic and textual complexity as well. Apart from inclusive scaffolds which aim at reducing complexity, they might add more challenging tasks, more intricate materials, or generally offer multi-level tasks and choices for proficient learners. In addition, teachers may combine individual, pair, and group work in order to arrange extra time in which the learners use the target language even more (Scrivener 2012: 179). 2.3 Expressive Strategies Due to the hearing-impaired learners’ lower level of language proficiency, experts in inclusion matters highlight the importance of empowering the learners and of improving their self-esteem (Leonhardt et al. 2018: 115). This holds true in particular when educators notice that their pupils are reluctant to express their attitudes and share their beliefs with others. All measures that aim at supporting the learners, in this respect, may be termed expressive strategies. They concern, amongst others, the careful choice of adequate materials and activities. Teachers should, for example, choose their teaching materials with care in order to encourage the learners to connect to them (Short 2011: 59, Sipe 2008: 39). Primary school children, for example, love to read fantasy literature, in which their heroes and heroines overcome the evil by means of the supernatural, such as in the well-known fairytales, myths, and children’s tales. These stories of empowerment include (Bland 2013), for example, novels by Roald Dahl, with Matilda (1988) being a prominent example of a young girl who outwits the characters who do not appreciate her. This novel proposes a hopeful message for its young readership. Another, recent example is the renowned collection of short biographies Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls by Elena Favilli and Francesca Cavallo (2017), which includes historical tales of prominent women - instead of fantastic stories. These short biographies aim at empowering young learners, too. Teenage learners, however, might be more intrigued by more complex stories involving characters that somehow feel alienated from the world they live in and that struggle to fit in (Crumpler/ Wedwick 2011: 67). With regard to inclusive settings, teachers might choose to openly deal with materials that focus on people with special needs. A suitable example in foreign language education is the French film La Famille Bélier (2014), in which a hearing teenage daughter is 154 Katalin Schober raised by deaf parents and discovers her talent for singing. Generally speaking, this film deals with the special needs of hearing-impaired people, and allows its viewers to develop awareness for this topic. By doing so, it comically stages the typical conflict of a daughter who wants to follow her personal dream, which challenges, in turn, her parents’ hopes for her. This clash addresses teenage learners in general and gives ample space for classroom discussions. In addition, the documentary Deaf Jam (2010) not only raises awareness for the special needs of hearing-impaired people, but it also proves highly empowering: it deals with a deaf teenage girl who learns to use sign language in her rap performances. Even if this circumstance might seem as a contradiction in itself, she develops a unique rap style which allows her to express herself and find her own voice within. This film might be used as a starting point for further classroom discussions in English language education at secondary levels. Whilst classroom discussions are vital instruments for raising awareness in general, further, more holistic approaches might be considered as well, such as drama pedagogy activities. They enable the learners to step into the characters’ shoes, to feel with them, and to enact certain scripts. In this respect, drama approaches are considered as highly effective means of developing empathy (Beach et al. 2016: 211). Also, with the materials carefully chosen (see above), they foster the hearing-impaired learners’ self-esteem and contribute to a confident, positive concept of themselves. Creative writing tasks may finally allow the learners to (co-)construct optimistic outcomes of the stories that have been dealt with in class. All in all, the aforementioned social, propositional, and expressive strategies are meant to encourage all learners in inclusive EFL contexts by offering individual help as well as tasks and materials that appeal to them. Social strategies, for example, facilitate communication between teachers and pupils and ensure a calm, undisturbed working atmosphere. Therefore, teachers need to consider aspects of behaviour management as well as of teacher talk. What is more, propositional strategies enable each learner to progress individually. These strategies comprise, amongst others, the use of individual scaffolds or other measures of differentiation. Finally, suitable materials and tasks encourage the learners to form a positive concept of themselves, and hence, to express their beliefs with confidence. These teaching choices belong to the group of expressive strategies. But how can we include these strategies in teacher education preceding the pre-service years of teacher training? How can we model a specific competence that pertains to questions of inclusive classroom discourse from the viewpoint of teacher education? 155 Teaching Pupils with Hearing Impairment in EFL Contexts 3 Inclusion Matters and Teacher Education As foreign language classrooms comprise speakers of highly varied levels of proficiency, in particular in inclusive contexts, teacher education has to prepare future teachers so that they can respond to the special needs of all learners. Consequently, it is vital to develop existing teaching programmes in order to guarantee that future teachers are introduced to declarative, procedural, and metacognitive sets of knowledge from the start, that is within tertiary education. With regard to inclusive settings, future teachers need to gain an under‐ standing of the aforementioned social, propositional, and expressive strategies which they can use to support learners with special needs. This declarative knowledge should be taught, for example, not only in pedagogic classes, but also in tertiary foreign language education. Otherwise, pre-service teachers will have difficulties in monitoring pupils with special needs and, consequently, in taking adequate supportive measures. As a result, they will have to rely on further teacher professional development in order to acquire the knowledge they need in inclusive settings. In addition to declarative knowledge, teacher education programmes have to enable future teachers to acquire procedural knowledge of their profession. To put it differently, future teachers need to train important teaching skills by practising their profession even before they work as pre-service teachers. Possible means of enacting entail, for example, the simulation of short teaching sequences and their subsequent evaluation in university courses, the use of learning and teaching labs, or the use of videography within tertiary education. These practices allow the students to build their teaching competences step by step by supplementing and preparing pre-service years of teacher training. Finally, in order to construct metacognitive knowledge, tertiary teacher education will have to include ample opportunities for critical reflection, for example by offering discussions or guided portfolio work. Only then can students and future pre-service teachers begin to develop the vital skill of critical reflection. This skill is based on and helps to expand the aforementioned declarative and procedural sets of knowledge by adding a reflective dimension. All in all, the ability to critically reflect upon one’s professional choices is the key to supporting all learners, with or without special needs, in the best possible way. In analogy to Walsh’s definition of a teacher’s interactional competence (2011: 158), I would like to propose the concept of a teacher’s reflective-interactional competence as an overall teaching skill: similar to Walsh’s concept, it pertains to questions of classroom discourse and comprises declarative and procedural 156 Katalin Schober sets of knowledge of the aforementioned social, propositional, and expressive classroom discourse strategies. In addition, I would like to think of it as a competence which includes metacognitive knowledge as well. In contrast to Walsh’s definition, which focuses on the teacher’s skills while teaching, I would like to add the dimension of reflection in this respect, which refers to the stages of prior lesson planning and subsequent evaluation (Kittel/ Rollett 2017: 47). Whilst I agree with Scrivener (2012: 71), who highlights the importance of a teacher’s flexibility while teaching, I would like to suggest that future teachers will only acquire a certain flexibility by frequently performing the overall cycles of prior lesson planning, enactment, and subsequent evaluation as part of their teacher education. To conclude, long-term research into inclusive classroom discourse strategies and, correspondingly, into a teacher’s reflective-interactional competence is needed so that evidence-based teaching choices can be made. Only then is it possible to meet the needs of pupils in inclusive settings and to prepare future teachers of foreign languages. Bibliography Allwermann, Barbara (2019). “Texte einfach schreiben.” Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht Französisch 157, 2-8. Beach, Richard/ Appleman, Deborah/ Fecho, Bob/ Simon, Rob (2016). Teaching Literature to Adolescents. 3 rd ed. New York/ London: Routledge. Bland, Janice (2013). Children’s Literature and Learner Empowerment. Children and Teenagers in English Language Education. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Blumenthal, Yvonne et al. (2020). Kinder mit Verhaltensauffälligkeiten und emotional-so‐ zialen Entwicklungsstörungen. Förderung in inklusiven Schulklassen. Stuttgart: Kohl‐ hammer. Cazden, Courtney B. (2001). Classroom Discourse. The Language of Teaching and Learning. 2 nd ed. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Crumpler, Thomas/ Wedwick, Linda (2011). “Readers, Texts, and Context in the Middle. Re-Imagining Literature Education for Young Adolescents.” In: Wolf, Shelby A./ Coats, Karen/ Enciso, Patricia/ Jenkins, Christine (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Children’s and Young Adult Literature. New York: Routledge, 63-75. Dahl, Roald (1988). Matilda. New York: Puffin. Deaf Jam (2010). Dir. by Judy Lieff. CINEPHIL. Favilli, Elena/ Cavallo, Francesca (2017). Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls. 100 Tales of Extraordinary Women. London: Particular Books. 157 Teaching Pupils with Hearing Impairment in EFL Contexts Harmer, Jeremy (2015). The Practice of English Language Teaching. 5 th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Kittel, Daniel/ Rollett, Wolfram (2017). “Entwickelt sich die professionelle Reflexions‐ kompetenz von Lehrkräften durch die Teilnahme an einem berufsbegleitenden Wei‐ terbildungsstudiengang? ” Zeitschrift Hochschule und Weiterbildung 2, 45-51. La Famille Bélier (2014). Dir. by Éric Lartigau. Mars Distribution/ Concorde Video. Leonhardt, Annette et al. (2018). Inklusion im Förderschwerpunkt Hören. Stuttgart: Kohl‐ hammer. Mitchell, David (2014). What Really Works in Special and Inclusive Education. Using Evidence-Based Teaching Strategies. 2 nd ed. London/ New York: Routledge. Pittman, Andrea L./ Stelmachowicz, Patricia G. (2000). “Perception of Voiceless Fricatives by Normal-hearing and Hearing-impaired Children and Adults.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 43: 6, 1389−1401. Scrivener, Jim (2012). Classroom Management Techniques. Cambridge: CUP. Short, Kathy (2011). “Reading Literature in Elementary Classrooms”. In: Wolf, Shelby A./ Coats, Karen/ Enciso, Patricia/ Jenkins, Christine (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Children’s and Young Adult Literature. New York: Routledge, 48-62. Sipe, Lawrence (2008). Storytime. Young Children’s Literary Understanding in the Class‐ room. New York/ London: Teachers College Press/ Columbia University. Spencer, Patricia Elizabeth/ Marschark, Marc (2010). Evidence-Based Practice in Educating Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. Oxford: OUP. Takala, Marjatta/ Sume, Helena (2018). “Hearing-Impaired Pupils in MainStream Educa‐ tion in Finland: Teachers’ Experiences of Inclusion and Support.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 33: 1, 134-147. Thompson, Jenny (2010). The Essential Guide to Understanding Special Needs Education. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Walsh, Steve (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse. Language in Action. New York/ London: Routledge. Zeng, Fan-Gang/ Turner, Christopher W. (1990). “Recognition of Voiceless Fricatives by Normal and Hearing-impaired Subjects.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 33: 3, 440−449. 158 Katalin Schober Part III - Practical Approaches to CDC Development in Pre-Service Teacher Education Video Enhanced Observation Enhancing Reflection, Pedagogy and Students’ Learning René Koglbauer / Jon Haines / Paul Seedhouse This chapter introduces the reader to the Video Enhanced Observation (VEO) app, which enables focused video recordings to be made of classroom interaction in a very flexible way. We explain how it may be used in teacher development and reflective practice with the aim of improving learning. The chapter starts with a review of relevant literature. It then provides an explanation of how the app works, its rationale and application to language teaching and teacher development. We then provide illustrations of ways it has been used in specific contexts. We illustrate the points made using data, photographs and statistics. Firstly, using a case study approach, we look at pre-initial teacher training in the UK context. We then consider use of the app from the Lesson Study point of view. Finally, we consider the possibilities for the app’s use in the context of Germany at various different levels and the pre-conditions which would need to be met for the innovation to have a positive impact. 1 Introduction Over the last two decades, reflective practice has become an integral part of (initial) teacher education and teacher development both in the state sector, including the Referendariat, and in private English language institutions in Ger‐ many, across Europe and beyond. Zwozdiak-Myers (2012: 5) defines reflective practice as a disposition to enquiry incorporating the process through which student, early career and experienced teachers structure or restructure actions, beliefs, knowledge and theories that inform teaching for the purpose of professional development. It is therefore essential to embed experential learning through school place‐ ments and practica into any (initial) teacher training/ development programmes. Reviewing the literature, Schädlich (2018) concludes that there is consensus amongst academics that practical application is an essential and developmental feature of such programmes. The aim of the initial school practica in developing aspiring trainee teachers in Germany is a reflection on their experience of the school as a workplace and the role of a teacher. However, equally important is their reflection on their personal aptitude of becoming a teacher (Imhof/ Schlag 2018, Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Unterricht und Kultus 2008). The guidance document for stakeholders by the Bavarian Ministry of Education and Culture includes further: An unsurprising aim is that students should be encouraged to engage proactively in their reflection on observed lessons and their own taught lessons (2008: 31). However, professional development, whilst focused on enhancing the individual trainee teacher’s or reflective practitioner’s professional practice, ultimately aims to improve the learning process of individual learners and/ or groups of learners. Regardless of which reflective tools or theoretical models one adopts, all have one aspect in common: the study of one’s own teaching, often by reflecting on one’s own experience, feelings and by taking into consideration the learners’ attitude, engagement, contribution and/ or outcomes. Observations of one’s teaching by more experi‐ enced colleagues, mentors or professional tutors or academic tutors from higher education institutions are regular occurrences in the initial phase of becoming a teacher. This ‘experienced’ voice in post-observation discussions can on the one hand be encouraging, raise pertinent questions to move one’s own reflections to the next level, but on the other hand can occasionally also be demotivating, even demoralising. Considering the various reviews of the literature, it becomes evident that video-recording an observation (video enhanced observation) ultimately enhances the professional dialogue taking place during the post-observation meetings and is increasingly a common occurrence as part of initial teacher training programmes in Europe and America (Hidson 2018). Batlle and Miller’s (2017) work suggests that video-recordings give the observer as well as the observed the opportunity to look back on ‘events’ that occurred in the lesson in preparation for, or as a follow-up of, the professional dialogue. In other words, the recording is a factual piece of evidence that can then be utilised for in-depth post-observation conversations. In reviewing the literature on how video-enhanced observation and post-observation conversations impact on professional learning, Fukkink et al. (2011) conclude that utilising video in professional development situations has a positive impact and contributes to the skills development of practitioners and consequently have a positive effect on the learners. Therefore, the Video Enhanced Observation (VEO) app, initially developed to enhance professional development of teachers, has recently been 162 René Koglbauer / Jon Haines / Paul Seedhouse developed further to be utilised by teachers and practitioners in the classroom as a tool to encourage learner engagement, monitor and assess learners’ progress. Following an introduction to the VEO app in section 2 of this chapter, section 3 will focus on its potential applications in the language classroom for teacher development and student learning. 2 Video Enhanced Observation - A Tool for Reflection and Pedagogical Development In its initial iteration, VEO (veo.co.uk) was created by a spinout company of Newcastle University to enhance the quality of teachers’ professional devel‐ opment, with a focus on supporting trainee teachers in their endeavour to engage more thoroughly with their own classroom practice and performance. To achieve this, it was essential that the app was a low-cost, user-friendly solution, available on a mobile device, such as an iPad, in order to maximise flexible application. 2.1 VEO and its Functionalities The freely downloadable app encourages language teachers to use any mobile device to record a lesson or an interaction between teacher and students or a student-only conversation. The video files are evaluated in real time or post-recording through tagging key moments. These key moments can then be revisited in a face-to-face post-lesson conversation or can be shared online with a peer/ mentor for an in-depth exploration of an identified pedagogical aspect. Tags can focus on micro-level skills, e.g. voice projection when giving instructions, clarity of instruction, nature of teacher-pupil engagement, type of questioning, and bigger picture interaction, such as the use of target language in teacher-student conversations. The main tag groups are typically colour-coded, i.e. teacher performance (red) and student performance (blue), with the posses‐ sion tags and the engagement slider recording additional data such as where the pupil focus lies and their level of engagement during the activity. Purple is for the ‘Quick Tag’ as it can be used for any other comment non-categorised elsewhere (see Fig. 1). 163 Video Enhanced Observation Fig. 1: Examples of VEO tags The teacher and learner/ student performance tags follow the same principle. Each tag group has sub-tags (as shown in Fig. 1 above for Teacher Talk) that help the observer to tag a key moment as a successful (+) or less successful (-) example of the sub-tag. Alternatively, the observer can click on the question mark (? ) to raise a question or make a comment about this specific sequence in the recording, which they would like the observed teacher to reflect upon. Whilst all follow the same principle, it is worth explaining the ‘management’ tag briefly as it captures much more than just behaviour management. It focuses on aspects such as behaviour, monitoring of learning, differentiation, organisation of learning, use of resource(s) and positioning of the teacher within the classroom. Incidentally, these tags and full tag-sets can be chosen from an existing collection or can be designed and created by the user. Behind the scene, the VEO app generates qualitative and quantitative data. Whilst the quantitative data gives a snapshot summary of the tags (see Fig. 2 to 4) the qualitative data presents the practitioner with additional comments written by the observer while tagging (see Fig. 5). 164 René Koglbauer / Jon Haines / Paul Seedhouse Fig. 2: Quantitative summary of ‘focus’ The ‘focus’ allows the observer to track the amount of time spent under each heading. In the example shown in Fig. 2, you can see how the vast majority of the lesson was spent with the teacher speaking in their first language, with little by way of target language use in either teacher or student. Furthermore, there is very little observed student dialogue. This overview can help create significant learning moments for both teacher and observer, and encourage productive conversation, further reflection and depth of thought. 165 Video Enhanced Observation Fig. 3: Summative data of positive/ negative tags Fig. 3 provides a summary of observed characteristics tagged as either ‘Positive’ or ‘Negative’, quickly highlighting areas of key strength and aspects of practice that might be improved. The detailed nature of the subtags can then be helpful when revealing specific characteristics leading to good and less good learning outcomes. Fig. 4: Summative overview of pupil engagement 166 René Koglbauer / Jon Haines / Paul Seedhouse Fig. 4 illustrates how the observer can track the level of student engagement throughout the lesson. Linking peaks and troughs with the actual activities underway at that time, allows us to reflect on the various specific factors influencing students’ engagement. This can help illustrate, for example, the importance of smooth transitions between activities or the adverse impact of a throwaway remark made just as the students were about to commence an activity. Fig. 5: Quantitative data set: comments Fig. 5 illustrates the detailed commentary that can be added by the observed, or the observer, to provide context, explanation and reflection on the tagged events. These notes can be responded to and form an online discussion if and when desired. This is particularly helpful when observations and debriefing take place either remotely or asynchronously. Subscribers to VEO will - for a very affordable annual subscription - in addition to the functionalities of the free apps, get secure cloud-storage space for their recorded lessons and the ability to tag and annotate videoed lessons retrospectively, and have access to voice recognition AI (artificial intelligence). This recently added AI feature can perform basic spoken-word analysis and create reports on the amount of time different people are speaking, and which words are used most frequently. The online portal allows the language teacher to create their own personal portfolio, a collection of videos, which can be easily accessed and searched. The recorded videos and associated data can then be shared, further annotated and discussed with either a chosen group of people (e.g. mentor, university tutor, peer) or a predefined group such as all teaching staff within a subscribing school. This 167 Video Enhanced Observation bank of local, relevant and real practice aims to support and inspire staff, develop their (language) pedagogy and student learning. 2.2 VEO Enhances Professional and Pedagogical Development VEO follows a simple three-step cycle: Observe (record; tag) - Communicate (share, discuss, explore questions, review) - Improve (identify areas of development, explore approaches to enhance one’s practice, etc.). Regardless of whether the observed is a novice (e.g. trainee teachers) or an expert (Dreyfus/ Dreyfus 2005), video enhanced observation will allow the novice and the expert to review the evidence of their performance to identify ways to develop their performance in the classroom. The VEO app addresses therefore the basis of ‘design of professional learning’, which according to Ellaway (2013: 190), is the “ability to support [language teachers] at different stages of their professional development”. As part of the Erasmus+ Key Action 2 project VEO Europa led by Newcastle University, the project team continued its focus on initial teacher training and courses such as the Post-Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) by developing a training programme and resources to support initial teacher trainees, their university tutors and their school-based mentors in maximising the novice’s progress through VEO. As shown in Fig. 6, the university-based tutors and the school-based mentors utilise the VEO app to observe the trainee teacher (remotely or by being physically present). Fig. 6: VEO Europa’s initial teacher education observation model (see also: veoeuropa.com/ briefing/ ) The tagged video-recording is shared with the trainee teacher before or at the post-observation feedback meeting. Should the feedback session not take place 168 René Koglbauer / Jon Haines / Paul Seedhouse immediately after the observed lesson was taught, the trainee teacher has got the chance to review the recording themselves by watching their taught lesson rather than having to rely on their memory, feelings and perceptions of how the lesson had gone. The obvious advantage for all involved is that at any stage of the reflection and feedback process the recording can be referred to as a piece of evidence. A joint viewing of a tagged key moment in the observed lesson will contribute to an in-depth discussion, which in its best form is led by the person observed. Having access to the evidence and being able to review one’s own teaching, puts the power in the trainee teacher’s hands to illustrate their own effective teaching and learning strategies and identify their own areas for development. 3 VEO for Professional Development and Language Learning This chapter explores different ways of how VEO could be utilised for profes‐ sional development and for language learning. 3.1 Case Study - Pre-Initial Teacher Training Module As part of the final year of undergraduate provision in the School of Modern Languages at Newcastle University, a group of students enrol annually in a whole-year module that gives students an opportunity to observe and gain experience of teaching languages in the secondary classroom through a 50-hour placement or internship. As part of this pre-initial teacher training module, the students are asked to submit a portfolio. The final portfolio task requires them to plan, deliver and reflect upon a short sequence of lesson. The lesson is to be video-recorded and the video clip to be viewed as part of the feedback dialogue with their subject mentor. The three examples below are extracts from students’ submissions focusing on the final part of the task where they are asked how the video-recording has helped them to reflect upon their practice. Recording my teaching sequence has proved useful for my reflection, as it has provided an alternative perspective on the episode - I am able to look at myself from a pupil’s point of view. This means that my movement, body language and overall classroom presence were easier to reflect upon. As with most presentations, it can be difficult to remember details of the sequence upon completion, so the video showed me with exactly what happened, further aiding my reflection. (Student 1’s submission) The video-recording has been extremely helpful when reflecting on my performance as it is a true reflection of what actually happened during my teaching sequence rather than what I thought happened. I was able to identify the strong aspects of my teaching sequence and recognise my own strengths, and I was also able to identify my 169 Video Enhanced Observation weaknesses which, in turn, has allowed me to think of ways that I could improve and create goals for my teaching in the future. I believe that the video-recording allowed me to self-evaluate and self-reflect more accurately as I was able to refer back to it at any point, and it also allowed me to see how effective my teaching sequence was from both a teacher and student perspective, which I would not have been able to do otherwise. (Student 2’s submission) The video-recording allowed me to analyse my strengths. For example, the teacher told me that I did not repeat certain phrases like “yeah” and I did not have any habits, which should be avoided when teaching, such as the “teacher echo”, where a teacher repeats what the pupils say back to them. This is something that an observer could point out to me but I could not remember or necessarily notice when I was teaching myself. I was able to watch the recording again to see if this was true and I was pleased that I seemed relaxed and did not noticeably repeat any words. Additionally, by watching the video-recording, I established areas for development for myself, shown by the questions the pupils had asked me, something that I had not remembered well. For example, one pupil asked me why people celebrate Carnival. This showed that the pupil was interested in my topic but I could have been clearer about the reasons for the celebration of Carnival. (Student 3’s submission) The three chosen extracts are representative of all students’ submissions in that they indicate that the video-recording has helped them to identify their areas of strength and for development. It is also not surprising that body language, voice and position in/ movement around the classroom are discussed as it is human nature to focus on these when first seeing yourself on video. Checking one’s memory or going over a sequence again to double-check what actually happened in light of the received feedback are positive features already alluded to previously in this chapter. Analysing the first two extracts, no reference has been made to subject-spe‐ cific aspects in their feedback - everything is generic. Towards the end of the third extract, the student takes into account a specific situation, in this case a question by a student about ‘Carneval’; whilst this does not make clear that it is a language lesson per se, it demonstrates a more thoroughly conducted analysis of the recorded lesson by focusing on pupil questions and the quality of instruction/ explanation by the intern. Therefore, it can be argued that whilst video-recording an observation with a more generic tagset is still beneficial, a bespoke set of tags, focusing on language-specific pedagogical features, would have helped these final year students and novices in their exploration of what makes a language lesson successful. Through modifying the tagset, focus could have been given to aspects such as target language (teacher talk/ 170 René Koglbauer / Jon Haines / Paul Seedhouse student talk or quality of instructions/ student understanding), skills (reading, speaking, listening, writing, translating) or even more specific tags such as pronunciation/ development of phonics. The interns’ feedback and our analysis resulted in developing a language learning and teaching tagset. These specific tagsets support the observer and the observed teacher in giving greater emphasis to the subject knowledge and pedagogical aspects. They also address the issue identified by Seidel and colleagues (2013) that a more structured approach to observation is required to focus the post-observation professional dialogue on those aspects that will help the observed teacher to develop their competences and strategies in the language classroom. The focus in this case study has been on Phase 1 (Higher Education Degree) of the Drahmann and Huber’s (2017) phases of teacher education (Phase 2: Preparation Phase, such as Referendariat, Phase 3: Continous Professional Development) and therefore on enhancing the novice teacher. Observations, feedback and reflection are obligatory elements in their developmental journey. Video enhanced observation, however, should be considered much more broadly and should be embedded in pro‐ fessional development throughout a teacher’s career. Such an observation approach can replace the intrusive formal lesson observations with teacher-led observations. A less judgemental approach, and a more professionally developmental one, will enhance individual and team performance. This will not just lead to ongoing professional development amongst language teachers, it will ultimately also have a favourable impact on their learners. 3.2 VEO in the Language Classroom - The Learner As part of the VEO Europa Erasmus+ Project, the team explored Lesson Study as an approach to research learning and teaching with the ultimate aim to improve the learning process and therefore the learners’ progress. Dudley (2019: 2) describes Lesson Study a form of collborative classroom action research by a group of teachers. They put usual practice under review, they search-out and consider alternatives or innovations, conducting studies of their pupils’ learning, adjusting and honing their approach. In this collaborative process, VEO offers a solution either as an interactive lesson observation tool or for self-recording with tagging taking place at a later stage. The vitally important step as a group is the discussion and comparison of each other’s findings by also considering (subject) pedagogical knowledge, approaches and strategies. The outcomes of the discussion, which embed praxis, reflection and knowledge and skills exchange, will result in re-planning subsequent lessons; through recordings of those lessons, progress over time can 171 Video Enhanced Observation be evidenced. Whilst the Lesson Study-approach puts the learner in the centre, as the action research aims to improve learners’ progress, the technology is still only utilised to underpin the professional conversations. VEO is however also a tool that helps teachers to capture learner activity for review and feedback in a visual form. This allows for impactful formative feedback. In a language classroom, learners are able to record and selfand/ or peer-assess - through a bespoke tagset - their presentations, role plays, spoken scenarios etc. On the one hand this would give learners an opportunity to reflect on their own spoken input and initially identify with the help of their peers why they met a particular success criterion but failed to fully address another; and on the other hand provides the teacher with the opportunity to tag key moments in the learners’ recordings as part of the formative feedback process. Through the video portal, teachers can share the videos with fellow language teachers for moderation purposes or ask for advice how to support a learner with an identified problem. In addition, teachers can build a bank of best practice examples that they can utilise in in-service training but also to model good answers to future cohorts of learners. This bank of good practice examples could be enhanced further by exemplar material recorded by more senior learners, language assistants or even the teachers themselves. Learners would then be able to watch and tag the video during lesson or in their own time. The focus of tagging depends on the task, but the tagset could be an adaptation of success criteria set out in the curriculum or exam specifications. This activity will give the learner not just access to some models but also give them the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the requirements. It also helps them to come prepared to class discussions. At the same time, the teacher is able to check each individual learner’s understanding by evaluating their summative data overview. 4 Conclusions This chapter explored the VEO app as an example of how technological inno‐ vation enhances or even revolutionises teacher education in all phases (Drah‐ mann/ Huber 2017). However, the technological innovation is not replacing the human interaction between the observed teacher and the observer. On the contrary, the professional development experience is enhanced through a more focused and/ or structured observation and a more informed professional dialogue, in which the observed teacher takes more ownership by not just relying on their memory of their teaching experience but by utilising the audio-visual recording as stimulus for discussion and reflection. 172 René Koglbauer / Jon Haines / Paul Seedhouse Looking ahead, the argument is made that such a technological innovation enables teachers to evidence progress (particularly in initial teacher training), best practice or to identify a particular issue in their practice or an emerging subject-specific challenge. This sharing of (good) practice may stay just between the mentor and the mentee, but might also be shared more widely across the school or beyond through the web portal. From a professional development point of view for language practitioners (with the correct ethics in place) a rich data set of video-recorded lesson, within a school, a group of schools, across a federal state or country-wide, would allow for an in-depth empirical analysis of approaches and practices to language teaching in Germany and beyond. This is conducted in the spirit of practice-informed, evidence-based professional development and the understanding of the teacher development as a process of lifelong learning. To maximise the VEO app’s use in the language teaching classroom, a discussion is needed as to how this technology could contribute positively to capturing the language learners’ linguistic development. This relates particularly to the spoken language, but also to their critical engagement with assessment criteria through selfand peer-reviews of their recordings. As with teacher observations, such video-recordings, with the appropriate ethical consent in place, could be shared for the purpose of moderation, or for evidencing good practice. Without doubt, there are implications for system leaders, both more cen‐ trally - local and federal governments, and at school level, headteachers/ prin‐ cipals/ head of subjects. Whilst the app is easily accessible, system leaders will have to establish the required conditions to make this work. Ethics and ethical considerations are important, but equally important is a cultural shift of allowing innovation, risk-taking and occasionally also ‘controlled’ failure and space for critical reflection, collaboration and challenge. This changed mindset and culture will ensure that schools continue their developmental journey as learning organisations, where lifelong learning starts (for their pupils) and continues (for their teachers, leaders and other stakeholders). Bibliography Batlle, J./ Miller, P. (2017). “Video Enhanced Observation and Teacher Development: Teachers’ Beliefs as Technology Users.” In: IATED Academy (Ed.), EDULEARN17 Proceedings: 9th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technolo‐ gies, Barcelona, Spain, July 3-5, 2017, 2352-2361. Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Unterricht und Kunst (2008). Organisation der Prak‐ tika für die Lehrämter an öffentlichen Schulen. Online. URL: www.km.bayern.de (last accessed: 25.08.2021). 173 Video Enhanced Observation Drahmann, M./ Huber, S.G. (2017). “Aktuelle Entwicklungen und Herausforderungen in der Lehrerbildung.” SchulVerwaltung Spezial 19: 5, 196-199. Dreyfus, H./ Dreyfus, S. (2005). “Peripheral Vision: Expertise in Real-World Contexts.” Organisation Studies 26: 5, 779-792. Dudley, P. (2019). Research Lesson Study: A Handbook. Online. URL: www.lessonstudy.co.uk (last accessed: 25.08.2021). Ellaway, R. H. (2013). “Activity Designs for Professional Learning.” In: Beetham, H./ Sharpe, R. (Eds.), Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age. Designing for 21 st Century Learning. 2 nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 188-203. Fukkink, R./ Kennedy, H./ Todd, L. (2011). “What is the Evidence that VIG is Effective? ” In: Kennedy, H./ Landor, M./ Todd, L. (Eds), Video Interaction Guidance. A Relation‐ ship-Based Intervention to Promote Attunement, Empathy and Well-being. London/ Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley, 82-104. Hidson, L. (2018). “Video-Enhanced Lesson Observation as a Source of Multiple Modes of Data for School Leadership: A Videographic Approach.” Management in Education 32: 1, 26-31. Imhof, M./ Schlag, M. (2018). “Herausforderungen im Lehramtsstudium: Beobachten und Reflektieren im vertrauten Terrain? ” In: Pilypaityte, L./ Siller, H.-S. (Eds.), Schulprak‐ tische Lehrerprofessionalisierung als Ort der Zusammenarbeit. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, 45-68. Schädlich, B. (2019). Fremdsprachendidaktische Reflexion als Interimsdidaktik. Eine Qual‐ itative Inhaltsanalyse zum Fachpraktikum Französisch. Wiesbaden: J.B. Metzler. Seidel, T./ Blomberg, G./ Renkl, A. (2013). “Instructional Strategies for Using Video in Teacher Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 34: 1, 56-65. Zwozdiak-Myers, P. (2012). The Teacher’s Reflective Practice Handbook. Becoming an Extended Professional through Capturing Evidence-Informed Practice. Abingdon: Rout‐ ledge. Webpages: www.veo.co.uk www.veoeuropa.com 174 René Koglbauer / Jon Haines / Paul Seedhouse Enhancing Pre-Service Teacher Training through Inquiry-Based Learning An Analytic-Reflective Classroom Videography Assignment in the English Teaching Practicum Karen Glaser This paper reports about the practicum module in the primary English teacher training program at University of Leipzig, which takes place during the trainees’ second of two language didactics modules and has a clear focus on the development and promotion of classroom discourse competence (CDC). The school practicum is accompanied by two seminars and features weekly (co-)teaching, lesson observation, and reflection. As a credit requirement, the students video-record (at least) one of their lessons and analyze it with regard to a classroom discourse phenomenon of their choice. The necessary background is provided in the accompanying seminars, both with regard to concepts of classroom interaction (e.g. teacher talk time, functional monolingualism and creating opportunities for learner output, teacher questions, IRE sequences etc.) and empirical research methods (e.g. transcription, qualitative vs. quantitative approaches, sequential analysis etc.). Combining the approaches of reflective practice and inquiry-based learning in language teacher education, this format asks the trainees to perform not only ‘reflection on action’ in their practicum, but also ‘reflection for action’ in their future teaching. The paper presents the module and illustrates the CDC research assignment by means of two student projects on the classroom discourse phenomena of instruction-giving and error correction. 1 Introduction A central objective in language teacher training is the development of the practitioners’ professional competences alongside their knowledge of linguistic, cultural, and methodological phenomena. In that regard, teacher education as well as academic research have come to recognize the vital importance of classroom discourse competence (CDC), i.e. the competence to plan, conduct and direct classroom interaction in such a way that it brings about a conducive classroom atmosphere, engenders learning, and creates rich opportunities for the learners’ acquisition of the target language (L2). Aided by the advancement of research methods such as Conversation Analysis (CA) and the growing availability of video recording devices, it is now widely possible to record, describe and analyze in detail verbal, non-verbal and multimodal phenomena of classroom interaction, including characteristic features and discourse patterns of teacher language and of teacher-student interaction. This is reflected in a growing body of research on L2 classroom interaction phenomena that aims to directly inform and enhance language teacher education (e.g. Kupetz/ Glaser/ You 2019, Lenz/ Frobenius/ Klattenberg 2020, Limberg/ Jäkel 2016, Sert 2019, Walsh 2013). The availability of classroom video documentation and analysis methods further holds a great potential for the promotion of reflective practices in teacher education, i.e. practices that aim at awareness-raising. Reflective practices on CDC seek to make teacher trainees aware of the central role of the teacher language in the planning and the delivery of language lessons through teaching observation and analytical procedures (cf. Thomson, this volume). A systematic reflection on CDC is particularly important in view of the fact that it is the teacher who, through and with their use of (the target) language, has a significant influence on the extent to which students are activated in their language lessons, and thus on the extent to which L2 understanding and learning processes are initiated and promoted - or prevented. An excellent target language proficiency on the part of the teacher combined with their re‐ flective discourse behavior therefore form the basic prerequisites for successful learner-oriented and outcome-oriented L2 lessons. In line with these tenets, this article reports about a good-practice example of actively promoting classroom discourse competence and CDC awareness in language teacher trainees during the practicum module of the Primary English Language Teaching (PELT) training program at University of Leipzig. Alongside enhancing the trainees’ lesson planning skills, knowledge of language teaching methodology, teaching techniques, media use and classroom management etc., the practicum places a focus on CDC through a credit requirement in the form of a reflective analysis of a lesson held during the practicum. The trainees are re‐ quired to video-record (at least) one of their own individually taught lessons and to analyze it with regard to a classroom interaction phenomenon of their choice. This evidence-based analysis is complemented by a pedagogical evaluation of the findings, including the suggestion of alternatives that will lead to an increase in the effectiveness of the language teaching (Hallet/ Königs 2013: 11, cf. also 176 Karen Glaser the concept of knowledge-based reasoning, Uličná 2017). The assignment thus combines the three facets of description, explanation, and prediction inherent in the concept of teachers’ professional vision (Seidel/ Stürmer 2014). Moreover, the assignment combines ‘reflection on action’ and ‘reflection for action’ (Schön 1983, Olteanou 2016), as the trainees are guided to perform not only reflection on the action they carried out during their practicum, but also reflection for their future action in their prospective language lessons. The analytic-reflective video assignment follows the approach of in‐ quiry-based learning, which advocates active learning through the students’ involvement in evidence-based research. According to Huber (2009), in‐ quiry-based learning is marked by the students’ (largely) independent develop‐ ment of research questions, collection and analysis of data, presentation of results, and reflection on the outcomes. All of these characteristics are met by the assignment. The inquiry-based learning perspective was chosen with a view to sustainably fostering the trainees’ professional development, as “students are likely to gain most benefit from research, in terms of depth of learning and understanding, when they are also involved in research” (Healey 2005: 67). This article will present the practicum module and the assignment in more detail in chapter 2, followed by two examples of student projects on instruction-giving and corrective feedback in chapter 3. 2 The Practicum Module and the CDC Videography Assignment 2.1 Context and Structure of the Practicum Module Primary English Language Teaching (PELT) training at University of Leipzig is embedded in an eight-semester State Examination program during which all students study German, mathematics, science (Sachunterricht), and education (Bildungswissenschaften) alongside their major, English. The altogether two PELT modules are scheduled for the students’ fifth and sixth semesters, respec‐ tively, and follow modules on English linguistics, literature, cultural studies and language practice (Sprachpraxis). The practicum module described here is the second of these and thus scheduled for the students’ sixth semester. Fig. 1 illustrates the structure and contents of the two PELT modules. 177 Enhancing Pre-Service Teacher Training through Inquiry-Based Learning Lecture Introduction to Language Teaching in Primary School t Seminar Literature, Culture and Media in the Primary EFL Classroom Seminar Methods for the Communicative Language Classroom Seminar Understanding the Primary EFL Classroom Seminar Planning for the Primary EFL Classroom PELT Practicum PELT I (Introductory Module) Semester 5 PELT II (Practicum Module) Semester 6 Fig. 1: Structure and Contents of the PELT Modules As Fig. 1 shows, the PELT practicum is preceded in the first module by an introductory lecture, a seminar on communicative teaching methods, and a seminar on language lesson planning. While the lecture mainly serves to introduce theoretical-conceptual background knowledge on language teaching methodology and second language acquisition, the seminars target the skills involved in lesson planning such as the formulation of teaching aims, the selection of suitable activities and social forms, lesson sequencing, scaffolding, and classroom management etc. Here, the students are also introduced to the lesson plan template to be used during the practicum. In the second module, the practicum is accompanied by two further seminars, the first of which seeks to broaden the trainees’ repertoire and understanding of suitable formats to enrich their language lessons through literary and cultural learning and variation of media. The focus of the second seminar (Understanding the Primary EFL Classroom) lies on the documentation, description, analysis and explanation of classroom discourse phenomena. Apart from preparing the students for the videography assignment described below, it seeks to help them make sense of troublesome classroom interaction phenomena which they might experience during their practicum (discipline issues, time management problems, lesson aims not met etc.) and to provide a platform for sharing successful classroom moments, activities and techniques. The PELT practicum has a weekly format and is the fourth in a series of five school practicums the students are required to complete during their studies. It is preceded by two four-week block practicums and one other weekly practicum. These prior practicums may occasionally include English lessons, but the majority of our students gather their first English language teaching 178 Karen Glaser experience during our practicum module. The PELT practicum takes place in small groups of four to six students, each of which is supervised by the class’s English teacher and a university advisor. The students are responsible for the weekly (co-)teaching and/ or classroom observation of two lessons, which are discussed in a reflection session directly after the lessons. The students collect two kinds of credits in this module: credits for completing the practicum as such, and credits for their CDC research project. The CDC project is described in more detail in the following chapter. 2.2 Contents, Requirements and Structure of the CDC Videography Assignment For each student, the CDC research project centers around the analysis of (at least) one of their individually taught, video-taped practicum lessons. Video-recording and transcription equipment (headsets, footswitch, transcrip‐ tion software f4) can be loaned from our department; moreover, we assist in obtaining the necessary consents in bulk for each practicum group at the beginning of the semester. Ultimately, the research project is to be documented in the form of a module paper (wissenschaftliche Hausarbeit) with the following basic structure: ■ Front Matter (title page, TOC, list of tables/ figures/ abbreviations) ■ 1 Introduction ■ 2 Literature Review ■ 3 Methodology (including research questions) ■ 4 Results and Discussion ■ 5 Pedagogical Reflection ■ 6 Conclusion ■ References ■ Appendix (lesson plan, transcripts etc.) The students are informed of these and any other formal requirements in the Understanding seminar, including information on transcription conventions and the grading rubric that will be used by every instructor involved in marking the papers. Although the students are free to choose the research phenomenon they want to investigate, they are supplied with topic suggestions. By the time they are asked to choose their topics in the final third of the semester, they have become familiar with the viewing of classroom videos and the use of transcripts, as the 179 Enhancing Pre-Service Teacher Training through Inquiry-Based Learning 1 Examples of these are the video/ transcript-supported exploration of L1/ L2 use in the introductory lecture, of scaffolding strategies in the Planning seminar, of teacher questions and IRE sequences in the Understanding seminar or of storytelling techniques in the Literature, Culture, Media class. courses in both PELT modules regularly feature video segments and/ or transcript excerpts to illustrate concepts and to train the students’ observation skills. 1 Besides providing information on the project requirements, the Under‐ standing seminar places a major focus on classroom interaction phenomena such as teacher language (including the (non-)use of the first language), the relationship of teacher talk time and student talk time, instruction-giving, teacher questions (including IRE sequences), and (corrective) feedback. The students are familiarized with relevant concepts and empirical studies on these phenomena, which not only serves to impart knowledge on the topics as such but also to provide them with models for their own research project by showing how such phenomena have been approached empirically in the past. Both quantitative and qualitative studies are covered, including an introduction to (very basic) CA and the notion of sequential analysis. In order to assist the students in deciding on suitable research questions and data analysis methods, the final two sessions in both PELT II seminars are reserved for Project Briefs. These are five-minute presentations in which the students provide a short outlook on their project and receive feedback from their peers and instructors. Every student is required to (a) state the classroom phenomenon they are planning to analyze, (b) provide some background including the review of (at least) two relevant studies, (c) list their research questions, (d) inform about the data they will be working with, including the showing of a brief relevant video sequence and/ or transcript excerpts of relevant passages, and (e) preview how they are planning to analyze the data. In our experience, these Project Briefs have proven immensely helpful for the students to start their project work in a focused fashion early on, and to receive valuable assistance in finalizing their research questions and data analysis methods and categories. For the majority of them, this is the first time that they are asked to conduct such an empirical investigation, and they are usually very appreciative of this support. The overarching goal of the project is to enhance the trainees’ classroom discourse competence by fostering their awareness of and reflection skills on classroom interaction phenomena. It thus aims to shape their professional vision by honing their abilities to adequately describe, explain, and suggest alternatives for the classroom procedures and discourse patterns they observe in the data. The following chapter illustrates this by means of two select student projects on the phenomena of instruction-giving and corrective feedback, respectively. 180 Karen Glaser 3 Exemplifying the Assignment: Two Sample Projects 3.1 Project 1: Instruction-Giving (IG) Instruction-giving (IG) refers to the directives and explanations a teacher gives to their students to make them understand what they are supposed to do. Instructions are therefore what makes a lesson come into existence as students can only carry out the intended activities and comply with the teacher’s expectations after they have been instructed to do so. As the literature has shown, instruction-giving is one of the most decisive factors in successful classroom management (Solmecke 1998), with poor instruction-giving leading to confusion, disruptive and non-cooperative behavior and ultimately discipline issues (Glaser 2020). Instruction-giving is thus a topic that is given explicit attention in both of our PELT modules (mostly in the Planning and the Understanding seminars) and which is among the most frequently chosen topics for the CDC research projects. In the seminars, the students are introduced to theoretical literature that expounds effective and ineffective IG strategies (e.g. Sowell 2017, Wright n.d.) as well as to empirical classroom research on how (trainee) teachers actually carry out their IG in class and the discursive trajectories that ensue (e.g. Liruso/ de Debat 2002, Seedhouse 2009, Solmecke 1998). The students’ CDC projects on instruction-giving usually synthesize and build upon those strategies and criteria discussed in class, as does the project presented here. The sample project presented here revolves around a lesson that did not proceed as planned, which prompted the trainee to look for potential causes of this in her instruction-giving as one crucial aspect of her classroom discourse competence. The lesson was held in a third grade at the end of the school year, i.e. with young beginning learners aged nine to ten who had learned EFL for about ten months with two lessons per week. The lesson reviewed previously introduced lexis for means of transport and introduced new vocabulary for public buildings and places. While the lesson plan featured activities in plenary style, group and pair work, some of these could not be carried out due to timing issues as the setting up of preceding activities took much longer than anticipated. This, in turn, was caused by the learners’ non-comprehension of teacher instructions and the ensuing negation loops and discipline issues. This prompted the trainee to investigate the following two research questions in her project: RQ 1: Which instruction-giving strategies did the teacher apply? RQ 2: What were reasons for the students’ inability to follow instructions? 181 Enhancing Pre-Service Teacher Training through Inquiry-Based Learning Applying the IG strategies presented in the seminar and in the literature, the student found for RQ 1 that she had in fact employed a number of effective strategies in her lesson, such as the use of oral and written scaffolds on the blackboard and on the worksheet, supporting gestures, and the modelling of expected student output (cf. Liruso/ de Debat 2002, Sowell 2017). In addition, she noticed that she succeeded in conducting the entire lesson in English, thus sidestepping the risk of resorting to L1 use to resolve IG non-comprehension (cf. Glaser 2020, Solmecke 1998). In working with the video and transcript documentation, she further realized that the first half of the lesson had, in fact, gone rather well and that her recollection of this had been entirely superseded by the less successful lesson ending. In terms of reflection skills and professional vision, this provided two important benefits. First, it made her notice the subjectivity of personal recollections of classroom events and the value of video documentation in professional teacher development. Second, she realized that despite the lesson’s more unsuccessful discourse episodes, she verifiably possesses a basic repertoire of effective classroom strategies to build upon. Both benefits clearly support the aim of raising teacher awareness of classroom interaction phenomena. In terms of RQ 2, the student identified five major sources of her problematic instruction-giving and the ensuing time and discipline issues: a) failure to secure students’ attention prior to instruction-giving (cf. Liruso/ de Debat 2002), b) failure to establish pedagogical focus (cf. Seedhouse 2009), in this case clarifying whether the focus was on content or accuracy, c) failure to include comprehension check questions (cf. Sowell 2017), d) failure to use appropriate speech modification (cf. Liruso/ de Debat 2002), and e) failure to plan the IG in sufficient detail (cf. Glaser 2020). In her analysis and pedagogical reflection, the final three of these transpired as the most crucial factors contributing to the classroom problems, and also the ones this trainee would like to focus on improving most in the future. With regard to the non-use of comprehension check questions, she noted quite astutely that without comprehension checks, the teacher “can never be sure what the students actually understood and whether their inability to answer and act comes from them not understanding or from something else.” With regard to insufficient speech modification, she observed a lack of adequate simplification of her teacher language, both in terms of lexis and structural complexity. She noticed that rather than rephrasing her instructions, she merely repeated them, embellishing them with many fillers and hesitation markers along the way (cf. Solmecke 1998). She was able to trace this problem back to the final issue, namely insufficient planning of instructions: The instructions were not planned out in a way that the students would have been able to understand them. They were too abstract, and [the teacher trainee …] was not 182 Karen Glaser able to explain the exercises in easy words or cut out words altogether through more demonstration and modelling, which might have helped better. In addition, the trainee recognized the importance of prior planning for many other facets of successful instruction-giving, such as the setting of clear expect‐ ations (she admitted to noticing at two points during the lesson that she did not know herself what the specific outcome was supposed to be), and careful sequencing, i.e. the breaking down of the activity into manageable, logical steps (cf. Glaser 2020). Although these aspects had been covered in the PELT modules multiple times, it was the analysis of her own lesson that made her fully realize their relevance for successful classroom management and lesson delivery. Her didactic reflection is indicative of the extent to which the project helped foster this aspect of CDC: “All in all I realized that I have to invest a lot more time into my planning and thinking about what I want to say and what I want to do.” 3.2 Project 2: Corrective Feedback (CF) Corrective feedback (CF) refers to the ways in which language teachers respond when a learner has produced an error. The term is usually used with regard to linguistic rather than content errors, i.e. it denotes “an indication to a learner that his or her use of the target language is incorrect” (Lightbown/ Spada 2013: 216). The theoretical input the trainees receive in the Understanding seminar spans the interactional trajectories from learner error production via the (non-)provision of corrective feedback to the (non-)occurrence of learner uptake and (un)successful repair (self or other). Immediate vs. delayed corrective feedback are discussed as well, as are general pros and cons of correcting learner errors. By means of transcripts, students are introduced to recognizing and classifying student errors as well as teacher (non-)reactions to those errors. The latter mainly centers around Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) six CF categories of recast, elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction, and repetition, and also takes the relationship between CF type and learner uptake (repair, needs repair, no uptake) into account. The sample project applied a selection of those criteria to the analysis of two lessons, one recorded in a third grade on the topic ‘My family’, the other in a fourth grade on the topic ‘A trip to London’. The trainee decided to analyze the lessons with regard to Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) six feedback types, including the frequency with which each CF type led to learner uptake. In this case, the research focus did not result from the trainee’s dissatisfaction with her own teaching but rather from a genuine heuristic interest to see how the discourse phenomena she had learned about in the seminar occurred (or did not occur) in her own classroom. Her research questions were: 183 Enhancing Pre-Service Teacher Training through Inquiry-Based Learning RQ 1: How does the teacher react to errors, and which kinds of CF are given? RQ 2: How do the learners react to the corrective feedback? In terms of RQ 1, she found that she reacted to 37 out of 38 incorrect student utterances, with three of these referring to content rather than language errors. Her strategy use in the remaining 34 CF instances echoes the major result of most CF studies, namely that recast is the most frequently employed strategy by far (Brown 2016). 22 of the 34 CF instances were recasts, which roughly corresponds to two thirds (65 %). Only three other strategies were used, viz. explicit correction (n=6), elicitation (n=4) and metalinguistic feedback (n=2); clarification requests and repetition did not occur. The trainee displayed a certain amount of surprise at the high number of recasts, which suggests that she might have been somewhat doubtful of the research presented in class and thought that she would treat errors differently in her own teaching. As above, this illustrates how the project helps students see that their personal impressions of a lesson and an evidence-based analysis of classroom events may sometimes diverge, and how video documentation can provide a more objective basis for the reflection on classroom practices. The second part of the analysis (RQ2) revealed that the recasts resulted in the lowest rate of uptake. Only six of the 22 recasts were acknowledged by the learners (27 %), whereas five of the six explicit corrections as well as all of the altogether six instances of elicitation and metalinguistic feedback resulted in uptake. The limited sample size notwithstanding, this reflects a further well-documented pattern, viz. that recasts generally generate low learner uptake (Lyster/ Ranta 1997). This prompted her to reflect further upon her (then largely subconscious) CF choice, which she traced back “first to insufficient knowledge of CF use and second to the little experience of teaching English to young learners”. The sequential analysis of her data showed her that recasts may trigger so few uptake responses because it is a turn format that does not necessitate a student reaction, especially if the teacher moves on right away without any wait-time, which is what she observed herself do in the majority of cases: In most cases, after giving CF in form of recast, the teacher continued the lesson without providing an opportunity to react to the feedback. That means she did not ask the students to repeat the reformulated utterances. Creating a larger uptake rate could be reached, for example, through repetition requests. This illustrates how the evidence-based analysis of the classroom discourse pat‐ terns helped the trainee recognize her intuitive, non-reflected use of corrective feedback and move towards a more conscious and deliberate employment of CF strategies. Her suggested alternative to use repetition prompts mirrors related 184 Karen Glaser findings on classroom management and language teacher training. For instance, Clandfield and Foord (2018 para. 7) state: “There is little point correcting learners if they don’t have a fairly immediate opportunity to redo whatever they were doing and get it right”. Similarly, Limberg (2017) showed for the primary English classroom that CF which included a repair prompt reached an uptake rate of 70 %. In addition, Brown’s (2016) meta-analysis of CF studies showed that teachers who were made aware of CF research subsequently reduced their use of pure recasting in favor of other, more explicit feedback strategies that occasion active learner responses. As the sample project has shown, the trainee’s reflection of her own CF patterns coupled with the sequential analysis of learner responses was effective in raising the trainee’s awareness of such interaction patterns and thus in the promotion of classroom discourse competence. 4 Conclusion This article has presented a videography research project on classroom dis‐ course competence (CDC) which PELT trainees at University of Leipzig conduct in the framework of their practicum module. Building on contents and skills imparted in the preceding and accompanying lecture and seminars, the project asks the students to video-record, transcribe, and analyze one of their individ‐ ually taught practicum lessons with regard to a specific classroom interaction phenomenon, including a pedagogical reflection that asks the students to identify causes for the observed classroom events and to suggest alternatives aimed at the future optimization of their teaching. With students being largely independent in the choice of topic and data analysis methods, the project is situated within the framework of inquiry-based learning, which draws on the benefits of inductive discovery for learning and competence development, affording learners with “opportunities to notice patterns, discover underlying causalities, and learn in ways that are seemingly more robust” (Alfieri/ Brooks/ Aldrich/ Tenenbaum 2011: 1). This CDC videography project has been an integral part of our PELT training for the past five years. Over this period, experience has shown that despite (or, perhaps, because of) the large degree of freedom and independence inherent in the project, it is vital to provide the trainees with clear instructions and information about the expected outcome as well as with continuous guidance along the way. This starts with the provision of topic suggestions, transcription guidelines, the grading rubric, and the stipulation of the basic paper structure. While the latter might seem as a rather rigid measure limiting student freedom, it has transpired to be an effective and appreciated instrument that provides 185 Enhancing Pre-Service Teacher Training through Inquiry-Based Learning structural guidance and frees resources (time and cognitive energy) which the students can invest into the research project itself. The Project Briefs have further emerged as a very helpful tool, both for the students to receive feedback on their proposed projects and for the instructors to gain an impression of the students’ progress and questions they may still have. The briefs serve as a fruitful arena of exchange in which students can see what their peers are working on, provide hints to each other, and gather inspiration for their own projects. The past experience has also shown that the students occasionally exhibit some initial resistance when first learning about the research requirements, as the project involves rather different work than traditional term papers (e.g. transcribing), and the video recordings add some logistical strain on the practicum groups. Once students have completed their projects, however, we usually receive a great deal of positive feedback, and students are grateful for the opportunity to watch and analyze themselves teach and for this hands-on assignment that links language teaching theory directly to practical classroom teaching. In addition, we keep noticing that group members become very adept at assisting each other with the recordings, e.g. by appointing a camera operator who is not teaching on that day, and (if applicable) a person in charge of ensuring that only children whose parents have given consent appear on film. While those aspects are not directly visible in the final project papers, they hold a pedagogical value nonetheless in that they improve group cohesion and team work abilities and increase students’ awareness of vital facets of empirical classroom research. As the two sample projects on instruction-giving and corrective feedback have illustrated, the project is well suited to raising the teacher trainees’ awareness of classroom discourse phenomena and thus to enhancing their classroom discourse competence. In general, we have experienced that the students’ motivation to increase their own CDC is rather high, and the project supports them in this endeavor by guiding them to actively and systematically reflect on their discourse practices and on how these impact their classroom management and lesson delivery. Prompting the students to describe, explain and predict classroom interaction phenomena and trajectories, the videography assignment is a suitable instrument to foster the teacher trainees’ reflective abilities, develop their profes‐ sional vision, and ultimately enhance their classroom discourse competence. As one of our students put it in the conclusion of their research paper: Such video-based evaluation is a powerful tool to review and optimise lesson quality during the university teacher-training programme and also beneficial for practicing teachers as part of our systematic professional training. 186 Karen Glaser Bibliography Alfieri, Louis/ Brooks, Patricia/ Aldrich, Naomi/ Tenenbaum, Harriet (2011). “Does Dis‐ covery-Based Instruction Enhance Learning? ” Journal of Educational Psychology 103: 1, 1-18. Brown, Dan (2016). “The Type and Linguistic Foci of Oral Corrective Feedback in the L2 Classroom: A Meta-Analysis.” Language Teaching Research 20: 4, 436-458. Clandfield, Lindsay/ Foord, Duncan (2018). “Classroom Management: The Role of Correction in English Teaching.” OneStopEnglish. Online. URL: www.onestopenglish.com/ methodology/ methodology/ classroom-managemen t/ classroom-management-the-role-of-correction-in-english-teaching/ 146448.article (last accessed: 25.08.2021). Glaser, Karen (2020). “Instruction-Giving in the Primary English Classroom - Cre‐ ating or Obstructing Learning Opportunities? ” In: Lenz, Friedrich/ Frobenius, Maxi‐ miliane/ Klattenberg, Revert (Eds.), 57-83. Hallet, Wolfgang/ Königs, Frank G. (2013). “Fremdsprachendidaktik als Theorie und Dis‐ ziplin.” In: Hallet, Wolfgang/ Königs, Frank G. (Eds.), Handbuch Fremdsprachendidaktik. Seelze: Klett Kallmeyer, 11-17. Healey, Mick (2005). “Linking Research and Teaching: Exploring Disciplinary Spaces and the Role of Inquiry-Based Learning.” In: Barnett, Ronald (Ed.), Reshaping the University: New Relationships between Research, Scholarship and Teaching. Maidenhead: MCGraw Hill, 67-78. Huber, Ludwig (2009). “Warum Forschendes Lernen nötig und möglich ist.” In: Huber, Ludwig/ Hellmer, Julia/ Schneider, Friederike (Eds.), Forschendes Lernen im Studium. Aktuelle Konzepte und Erfahrungen. Bielefeld: Universitätsverlag Webler, 9-35. Kupetz, Maxi/ Glaser, Karen/ You, Hie-Jung (2019). Embracing Social Interaction in the L2 Classroom: Perspectives for Language Teacher Education. Special Issue of Classroom Discourse 10: 1. Lenz, Friedrich/ Frobenius, Maximiliane/ Klattenberg, Revert (Eds.) (2020), Classroom Observation: Researching Interaction in English Language Teaching. Frankfurt/ M.: Peter Lang. Lightbown, Patsy/ Spada, Nina (2013). How Languages Are Learned. 4 th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Limberg, Holger (2017). Übergehen, korrigieren, Feedback geben: Der Umgang mit Fehlern im Englischunterricht der Grundschule. Poster presented at the 27th Conference of the DGFF (German Association for L2 Research). Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany. Limberg, Holger/ Jäkel, Olaf (Eds.) (2016). Unterrichtsforschung im Fach Englisch: Empiri‐ sche Erkenntnisse und praxisorientierte Anwendung. Frankfurt/ M.: Peter Lang. 187 Enhancing Pre-Service Teacher Training through Inquiry-Based Learning Liruso, Susana María/ de Debat, Elba Villanueva (2002). “Giving Oral Instructions to EFL Young Learners.” Encuentro: Revista de investigación e innovación en la clase de idiomas 13, 138-147. Lyster, Roy/ Ranta, Leila (1997). “Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 1, 37-66. Olteanu, Constanta (2016). “Reflection and the Object of Learning.” International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies 5: 1, 60-75. Schön, Donald A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Seedhouse, Paul (2009). “How Language Teachers Explain to Students What They Are Supposed to Do.” In: Spreckels, Janet (Ed.), Erklären im Kontext: Neue Perspektiven aus der Gesprächs- und Unterrichtsforschung. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verlag Hohen‐ gehren, 66-80. Seidel, Tina/ Stürmer, Kathleen (2014). “Modeling and Measuring the Structure of Profes‐ sional Vision in Preservice Teachers.” American Educational Research Journal 51: 4, 739-771. Sert, Olcay (2019). “Classroom Interaction and Language Teacher Education.” In: Walsh, Steve/ Mann, Steve (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher Education. New York: Routledge, 216-238. Solmecke, Gert (1998). “Aufgabenstellungen und Handlungsanweisungen im Englischun‐ terricht: Äußerst wichtig - wenig beachtet.” Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 45: 1, 32-44. Sowell, Jimalee (2017). “Good Instruction-Giving in the Second-Language Classroom.” English Teaching Forum 55: 3, 10-19. Thomson, Katrin (this volume). “Conceptualizing L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC): A Key Competence in Foreign Language Teaching.” In: Thomson, Katrin (Ed.), Classroom Discourse Competence. Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education. Tübingen: Narr. Uličná, Klára (2017). “Professional Vision of Future English Language Teachers: Sub‐ ject-Specific Noticing and Knowledge-Based Reasoning.” e-Pedagogium 11, 38-49. Walsh, Steve (2013). Classroom Discourse and Teacher Development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wright, Jim (n.d.). The Savvy Teacher’s Guide: Selected Ideas for Behavioral Intervention. Online. URL: www.jimwrightonline.com/ pdfdocs/ brouge/ behIntvIdeas.PDF (last ac‐ cessed: 25.08.2021). 188 Karen Glaser Classroom Corpora as Tools for Reflective Practice in Pre-Service Teacher Education Holger Limberg Classroom corpora are transcript collections of naturally occurring interactions recorded in instructed learning environments (cf. O’Keeffe/ McCarthy/ Carter 2007). They render the talk exchanges, and to some extent also the nonverbal actions, between teachers and learners during a lesson. Lesson transcripts offer unique insights into the classroom from an interactional perspective. This paper explores the idea of using transcripts from classroom corpora in the context of pre-service teacher education. University students who study to become a language teacher can work with transcript-based classroom data to analyze the interactional patterns of classroom discourse and to reflect on these for their own professional development. For pre-service teachers who want to teach English in primary school, the Primary English Classroom Corpus (PECC) offers a database of complete lesson transcripts. By examining specific features of classroom discourse in primary school English Language Teaching (ELT), pre-service teachers better understand how interactional choices during a lesson can affect learner comprehension and classroom participation. Two PECC excerpts, one focusing on repetitions and the other on prompting, are used to exemplify the transcript analysis and to discuss what pre-service teachers can learn from analyzing classroom discourse. 1 Introduction In this paper, the use of transcripts from classroom corpora in the context of Eng‐ lish language teacher education is discussed. A classroom corpus is a collection of transcripts which capture the interactions between teachers and their learners during a lesson (Limberg 2019). It is argued that by working with a classroom corpus in the context of didactic or applied linguistic seminars, specifically analyzing and discussing features of classroom discourse, pre-service teachers (i.e. university students) obtain valuable insights into the interactional practices of conducting English lessons (cf. Cullen 2001, Klippel 2016). At this first stage of teacher education, students’ pedagogic and content-specific teaching knowledge can be advanced by exploring the interactional patterns of authentic teaching practices (cf. O’Keeffe/ Farr 2003). Transcript analyses develop an awareness of the complex relationship between language, interaction and learning, and they promote future teachers’ conscious use of the target language in the classroom. This objective can be achieved by adopting a qualitative approach to class‐ room data. Through a context-sensitive and sequential analysis of lesson transcripts, pre-service teachers discover how principles and methods of foreign language teaching are discursively realized and how the interaction in the classroom can facilitate or limit opportunities for learning. Only very few corpora of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom discourse in Germany currently exist that are freely accessible and that display authentic, everyday teaching practices. One of these is the Primary English Classroom Corpus (PECC), a collection of transcripts from English classrooms in primary school (Limberg, 2019, online for download at www.uni-flensburg.de/ pecc). The tran‐ scripts of this corpus display the interactions of early foreign language teaching in Germany. University students who major in English as a Foreign Language for Primary School (EFL for PS) can work with transcript excerpts from the PECC to find out how the teaching of young learners is conducted through discourse. Classroom discourse consists of teacher talk as well as learner talk. These talks are not discrete discourse entities, but must be viewed as coordinated social practices in a specific educational domain. Classroom interaction is characterized by the joint enterprise of teachers and learners in constructing a “discourse for learning” (Watson/ Young 1986). A classroom corpus reproduces the interactions of teaching activities and classroom management practices. Its transcripts display in written form how teachers “teach through discourse with our learners” (O’Keeffe/ McCarthy/ Carter 2007: 222, emphasis in original). Pre-service teachers can learn more about teaching as a specific form of discourse by exploring the interactions in the classroom. Reflecting upon how teachers and learners use their linguistic and interactional resources in the classroom helps to understand how these can promote, or restrict, active involvement and engaged learning. In the following sections, we first take a look at classroom corpora in general to outline what is currently available when studying the interactions of primary and secondary school EFL classrooms. Among these, the Primary English Classroom Corpus (PECC) is briefly introduced and the benefits of using transcripts as one form of classroom data are discussed. This also includes how transcripts can serve as a tool for pre-service teachers’ development of class‐ 190 Holger Limberg 1 See O’Keeffe/ McCarthy/ Carter (2007: 284-296) for a list of general and specific corpora with specifications on their size and type. room interactional competence. To demonstrate such an analysis, two sample transcripts from the PECC are taken to show what they reveal about primary school classroom discourse and what pre-service teachers can learn about the patterns of classroom language use. The two patterns discussed are ‘repetition’ and ‘prompting’. Finally, the most important arguments are summarized and further aspects of classroom discourse are suggested. Pre-service teachers can search for these features in a classroom corpus and analyze them more closely in the context of their studies. 2 Classroom Corpora A classroom corpus consists of electronically stored transcripts that are based on audio or video recordings of a lesson or parts of it (e.g. a teaching phase, a task, or an activity). It is usually available as a file, but a classroom corpus can also come in a printed version for the university library and text archives. In the stock of all electronic corpora, a classroom corpus is not only a relatively new type, but, compared to language corpora in general, it is also specialized in terms of its size, the type of data it includes, and its context of use. These features will be explained in the following. A classroom corpus is generally small-scale compared to multi-million word corpora such as the British National Corpus (BNC) or the Cambridge Inter‐ national Corpus (CIC). 1 Even specialized academic corpora such as the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) or the British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, both of which represent academic English in use, contain far over a million words (MICASE: 1.8 million; BASE: 1.6 million; Lee 2010: 114). By comparison, corpora of primary and secondary school classroom discourse are much smaller. The first volume of the Primary English Classroom Corpus (PECC) contains 46,481 words distributed over 15 transcripts of lessons recorded in grade 3 and 4. Volume 2 of the PECC with another 15 transcripts has a word count of about 40,000 words. The complete PECC adds up to a total of about 87,000 words. The Flensburg English Classroom Corpus (FLECC), a similar database with 39 transcripts of EFL classroom discourse from grade 3 to 10, consists of roughly 56,000 words ( Jäkel 2010). The Dortmund Historical Corpus of Classroom English (DOHCCE), with almost 140,000 words distributed over 36 transcripts of historical classroom discourse (grade 5-10), is another collection of transcripts from English classrooms in Germany (Kurtz 2013). The PECC, 191 Classroom Corpora as Tools for Reflective Practice in Pre-Service Teacher Education FLECC and DOHCCE are three corpora that focus exclusively on EFL classroom discourse in German schools, though each with different specifications. Corpora of teacher talk recorded in international teaching contexts with English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign Language (EFL) are also small in scale. Horst’s (2010) corpus of advanced adult ESL learners in Canada has 121,000 words and Kwon/ Lee’s (2014) Korean EFL teacher talk corpus contains 247,398 words. The CoNNECT corpus, a corpus of native and non-native EFL classroom talk recorded in Belgian secondary education, counts 165,514 words in total and includes 24 native English and 14 non-native English recordings (Nicaise 2015). Specialized corpora are generally smaller in the number of words they include, as they are compiled with more specific research or pedagogical purposes in mind. Another feature of domain-specific corpora is that the language is always contextualized: “Patterns can be linked to pragmatically specialised uses within that particular context situation” (Koester 2010: 74). The focus on a particular setting (i.e. the classroom) allows for a closer connection between an interac‐ tional pattern and its context of use. For example, a pattern found in every EFL classroom is the question-answer sequence, typically made up of three turns: teacher question (Initiation), student response (Response) and the teacher’s feedback (Follow-up) (Sinclair/ Coulthard 1975). The IRF exchange is “one of the distinguishing features of classroom discourse” (O’Keeffe/ McCarthy/ Carter 2007: 224). It is appropriate at certain times because the evaluative function of the feedback helps learners assess the quality of their contribution. However, at other times, it is also unfitting since it restricts learners’ contributions to the classroom discourse. Especially in EFL and ESL classrooms, an overuse of this pattern impedes opportunities for authentic talk-in-interaction. With the use of contextual information, IRF exchanges can be better understood in terms of their learning potential. Knowing more about the classroom, the learners, the lesson phase or the pedagogical focus can be helpful to understand why a particular interactional pattern is used by the teacher to conduct an activity. Given that the size of a classroom corpus is rather small, corpus users can take all occurrences of an interactional feature into account that a corpus entails, rather than only looking at a random sample of that feature. Lee (2010: 114) argues that the greater homogeneity among the texts is an advantage of specialized corpora because fewer texts are necessary in total to be representative of the particular (domain-specific) language use. This also applies to a classroom corpus since all of its texts are transcripts of lessons. Another feature of a classroom corpus is that it contains spoken or, more specifically, interactional data. It displays the verbal interaction in the classroom 192 Holger Limberg during a lesson. Transcripts reproduce the turn contributions of all participants that the recording device(s) picked up. The sequential representation of turns provides a chronological overview of what the teacher and his/ her pupils said during the lesson. Working through the sequences of turns allows corpus users to reconstruct the lesson and its teaching practices. The verbal dimension of the transcripts can also be complemented with short descriptions of participant actions and situational circumstances in order to help develop a more detailed understanding of the teaching situation. When compiling a specialized corpus, information about the context can be collected and used as an additional source for the analysis. The PECC, for example, provides a Background Information Sheet (BIS) for every transcript about the class, the topic of the lesson, its structure and the teaching material used (cf., e.g., Limberg 2019: 18-19). Finally, a classroom corpus is often viewed as a resource that can be expanded and that evolves over time (Koester 2010). Further lesson recordings can be made and converted into transcripts to supplement already existing data. Teachers can also collect data of their own classroom talk over a longer period of time in their professional career and use this data to reflect on their individual teaching skills. Starting with a single recording of a lesson, e.g. made during an internship in the teacher training program, a corpus can be compiled and gradually extended by further recordings. O’Keeffe/ McCarthy/ Carter (2007) compare such a teacher corpus with a portfolio that grows over a teacher’s career and “becomes a tool for development itself ” (220). Such a personalized version of a classroom corpus is a custom-made tool for one’s own professional development. This paper, however, explores the idea of using a classroom corpus with lessons conducted by in-service teachers to develop the professional skills of future language teachers. 3 Working with Classroom Transcripts Video-recordings as well as in-class lesson observations “provide richer sources of data in that they retain the prosodic features of the teacher’s voice, such as stress and intonation, which of course are lost in the transcripts, and in the case of video, also include additional paralinguistic information, such as facial expression and body language” (Cullen 2001: 30). In comparison to watching a video-taped lesson or conducting an in-class observation, however, working with transcripts has the advantage that the complexity of classroom actions is reduced. This feature is especially relevant in the context of teacher education. Reh and Schelle (2010) also assume that transcripts are more suitable for novice teachers since the sequential analysis of talk-in-interaction allows for a deeper 193 Classroom Corpora as Tools for Reflective Practice in Pre-Service Teacher Education understanding of the talk while avoiding an overload of (visual) information. In a classroom transcript the verbal interactions of the speakers are centerstaged, which is particularly relevant for future language teachers. Pre-service English teachers can thus focus on a particular feature of the classroom interaction and explore how this feature is represented in the corpus (e.g., questions, feedback, code-switching). Practical issues of transcript work also have to be taken into consideration. When discussing observations in the context of a seminar, transcripts can be referred to more easily than audio or video data, simply by using line numbering. While classroom videos require technical equipment, which may not be available for everyone or may not always function properly, a printed copy of a transcript can be quickly distributed and thus saves valuable class time (cf. Cullen 1995). What is more, transcripts protect the identities of the teachers and pupils because names and places can be anonymized or replaced by alias. The anonymity helps to ensure that data discussions remain objective and candid (cf. Cullen 1995). Practicability and usability are two important factors for the use of classroom transcripts in the context of language teacher education. In EFL classroom transcripts, the use of the foreign language on the part of the teacher and also on the learners’ part is of particular interest for pre-service teachers. The foreign language is used to conduct an English lesson and it is the target of instruction. In other words, it is the means of instruction and communication in the classroom as well as the subject matter of the lesson (cf. Long 1983). According to Kramsch (1985: 170), “it is the instrument that creates and shapes the social meaning of the class itself ”. The use of language is a signpost for teaching and learning. Walsh and Sert (2019: 6, emphasis in original) argue that “opportunities for learning are created by teachers in their interactions with learners”. EFL classroom transcripts display how teachers use the foreign language to instruct learners and engage with them during an English lesson. They reveal how teachers create and manage learning activities, how they discipline pupils, provide positive or negative feedback for lesson contributions, and how they serve as a language model for their learners. Learners’ contributions give insights into their basic foreign language skills, their interactional abilities to engage with others and their ways of participating in classroom activities. Since transcripts provide unique insights into the verbal interactions, they can be used as a tool to illustrate as well as discuss how the classroom talk-in-interaction can be consequential to foreign language learning and learner development. 194 Holger Limberg 4 The Primary English Classroom Corpus (PECC) The Primary English Classroom Corpus (PECC) spotlights the interaction and classroom activities of early foreign language classrooms in Germany. It displays complete English lessons in grade 3 and 4 (Volume 1) taught by both specialist and general teachers. In the first 15 transcripts of the PECC (Volume 1), all teachers are academically qualified to teach English as a foreign language at primary school level (Limberg 2019: 5 f.). In both volumes of the PECC (1 & 2), English lessons of six teachers were recorded and only two of them (1/ 3) are class teachers with no foreign language-specific university qualification. Notwithstanding that there is still a problem with the formal qualification of many primary school teachers of English (cf. Wilden/ Porsch 2017: 20), all of the teachers in the PECC have experience in conducting lessons in the target language English. The average number of words per PECC transcript (Volume 1) is 3,099. In 45-minute lessons the two recording devices picked up the interaction between the teacher and different pupils largely during teacher-centered activities. Their contributions were transferred into sequences of turns, starting from the begin‐ ning of the lesson until the class was over. Unsurprisingly, but still noteworthy, the majority of words during a lesson is uttered by the teacher (57%), and only about 3% of the verbal input comes from media sources, mainly the CD accompanying the textbook (cf. Limberg 2019: 8). This quantitative finding indicates that teachers take on a leading role of input provider and classroom manager at an early stage of foreign language education (cf. Klippel 2003: 53). Primary school teachers control the patterns of classroom communication by orchestrating the interaction between individual learners and the whole class (cf. Breen 1998; Walsh/ Sert 2019). In the teaching of young learners, many classroom activities are action-oriented, holistic and multidirectional; meaning they involve all learners in a practical way, e.g. through speaking, singing, gesturing, and moving. Accordingly, primary school classroom interaction consists of both talk (i.e. spoken language) as well as non-verbal actions (i.e. gestures, movements). Teachers’ verbal and non-verbal behavior is often directed towards the whole class, even though at a particular moment only one pupil might be directly addressed (e.g., correcting a pupil’s error using a recast, while modeling the correct use of language for the whole class; cf. line 615 in Transcript [2.11] below). The teaching practices shown in the PECC comprise different interactional activities typical of early EFL pedagogy: question-answer sequences, call-re‐ sponse patterns, task instructions, feedback moves (praise/ reprimands), error 195 Classroom Corpora as Tools for Reflective Practice in Pre-Service Teacher Education correction, choral repetitions, code-switching (use of the L1), songs, storytelling, role plays and vocabulary practices. Classroom transcripts used in pre-service teacher training courses offer a rich database for university students to explore different interactional activities and their context-specific use. The PECC has been designed to represent authentic primary school English classroom dis‐ course, giving pre-service teachers insights into how (qualified) English teachers conduct their lessons. The data are not best-practice examples, but represent what is perhaps found in many primary school English classrooms across the country. This also includes language errors and questionable pedagogical decisions made by the teachers in real time during the lesson. The use of the English language in the classroom is an important part of EFL teachers’ professional skills, especially at primary school level. Interviews with primary school EFL teachers have revealed a significant correlation between their own language competence and their use of English in the classroom (BIG-Kreis 2015: 23). It was found that the more proficient the teachers consider themselves to be in their use of the foreign language, the more they use English in the classroom, perhaps even in situations when non-specialist teachers (i.e. fachfremde Lehrkräfte) would switch to their L1 to prevent comprehension problems. Therefore, attention to how teachers use the English language to construct a discourse for learning with primary school pupils must be part of language teacher education. To create a well-balanced, target language-oriented and learner-appropriate classroom discourse is an ambitious goal. Reaching this goal depends on many factors, especially whether pre-service EFL teachers are able to actively improve their own proficiency in the target language English and if they can increase their awareness of how to use language and interaction in the classroom as tool for learning (cf. Walsh 2011; Wilden/ Porsch 2017). Using transcripts from an EFL classroom corpus can promote what Walsh (2011: 165) has called “classroom interactional competence”, defined as the ability of teachers to use interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning. 5 Analyzing Classroom Transcripts To illustrate the potential of using transcripts from a classroom corpus in the context of pre-service teacher education, I will focus on two aspects of the teacher talk that are observable in the PECC: repetition and prompting. These features are not exclusive to English language teaching in primary school, but they do play an important role in the classroom interaction with young learners of English as a foreign language. 196 Holger Limberg 5.1 The Role of Repetition The “repetitive reproduction of prefabricated language patterns in our pri‐ mary classroom” (Legutke/ Müller-Hartmann/ Schocker-v. Ditfurth 2009: 28) is a typical feature of today’s teaching practice with young learners of English. Repeating language structures and rephrasing the linguistic input are important for learners to become familiar with the English sounds, to practice word pronunciation as well as sentence intonation and to construct meaning. A downside to an excessive use of prefabricated language production is that it restricts opportunities for creative language use (i.e. productive speaking). Larson-Freeman (2012), however, sees the role of repetition as innovative for language learning because repeating language creates heterogeneity and variability, both critical components of language learning. Thus, learning about the role of repetition as an interactional device and how it is used by primary school teachers as a resource for learning is important in the context of primary school EFL teacher education. Pre-service teachers can browse the PECC to find examples of repetitions such as the following sequence: [2.1] GS 1 G4a 030913 (Limberg 2019: 31) 594 Teacher: okay one more. 595 [changes the time] 596 tim? 597 Tim: it’s half past (0.5) six. 598 Teacher: [spoken fast] it’s half past six. 599 Class: [spoken fast] it’s half past six. 600 Teacher: [grumpy voice] it’s half past six. 601 Class: [grumpy voice] it’s half past six. 602 Teacher: [very high voice] it’s half past six. 603 Class: [very high voice] it’s half past six. 604 Teacher: [changes the time] The context of this transcript is a 4 th grade English classroom with the topic “What’s the time? ”. The goal of this lesson consists of reading the clock and being able to tell the time in English. At this stage of the lesson, the learners are involved in a teacher-centered speaking activity. The teacher shows a clock, sets it to a specific time and nominates individual learners to say the given time 197 Classroom Corpora as Tools for Reflective Practice in Pre-Service Teacher Education out loud. The correct answer is then repeated several times; first, by having the teacher demonstrate a specific realization form (e.g. spoken fast, l. 598), which is immediately repeated by the whole class (l. 599). This sequence is reiterated twice in different modes (ll. 600-603). The structure of the interaction consists of several adjacency pair sequences of teacher initiation followed by the learners’ responses (I-R pattern). A follow-up (i.e. evaluative) move, typical of teacher discourse (Edmondson/ House 2006: 244 f.), does not occur here. In this practice sequence, learners only receive indirect feedback about the correctness or appropriateness of their utterances in that the teacher immediately continues the activity by setting a new time (l. 604). In this transcript, pre-service teachers can see how the repetition of a particular language structure is used to practice telling the time in English (“It’s…”). All pupils in class are involved through choral repetition. They reproduce language in the safe environment that is created by the class community. According to Walsh and Sert (2019: 8), “by affording learners space in teacher-led interaction […] they are better able to contribute to the process of co-constructing meanings”. The repetition itself is realized in different vocal shapes, varying in terms of volume (ll. 598-599) and speaking style (ll. 600-603). Using different speaking styles is enjoyed by young children, and it creates a positive atmosphere in the classroom. It generates variability in language use, which helps to practice telling the time. Participation in the classroom interaction is achieved by increasing pupils’ engagement and offering them the space to practice the time phrase at their own individual language level. Given that the meaning of ‘half an hour after a stated time’ is expressed differently in English than in German (cf. ‘half past six’ vs. ‘halb sieben’), the phrase deserves special attention as well as practice in class. Repetition helps to create variable input, and it provides all learners the space to practice speaking. Pre-service teachers can discuss the sequential realization of this practice and search for further repetition sequences in the PECC. These patterns can be contextually analyzed and then compared to find out how they differ and what effect they may have on the learners. In doing so, future teachers develop their awareness of how to promote language practice through input variation and repetition. 5.2 Prompting Prompting is a form of elicitation that provides learners with a stimulus to produce an utterance in the target language. According to Klippel (2003: 61), “[e]xamples of prompting include saying the first sound or syllable of a word, using gestures to indicate the intonation of a phrase, [and] pointing to a picture 198 Holger Limberg or object.” It is part of verbal scaffolding, a broader interactional resource that includes different techniques to help learners express what they want to say. In the primary school EFL classroom, learners sometimes encounter the problem of not being able to verbalize their thoughts because they may not remember a word or sentence structure that they need in order to formulate their response: [2.11] GS 2 3b 060215 (Limberg 2019: 283 f.) 608 Teacher: what does she put on? 609 Lotte: maja? 610 Maja: ehm 611 [spoken in a low voice] oh ich vergess das immer wieder 612 Teacher: what is the word? 613 gl-? 614 Maja: glove 615 Teacher: gloves 616 Maja: gloves In this hands-on activity, individual pupils come to the front and pretend to put on a particular item of winter clothing. The teacher moderates the activity, but is not physically involved. The rest of the class has to guess which clothing item is being pantomimed. Lotte pretends to put on a pair of gloves and asks Maja to guess the answer (l. 609). Maja signals that she knows the answer (in German), but cannot think of the (English) word. Switching to German and lowering her voice mark a deviation from the standard use of English in class (l. 611). At this point, the teacher jumps in to help Maja and to avoid a breakdown of the activity. She does so first by rephrasing the question (l. 612) and then provides the first two sounds of the answer (l. 613). This sound stimulus helps Maja to recall the word. It seems to be a word that has been introduced before, since Maja admits that she keeps forgetting it. In her contribution, however, Maja uses the word in its singular form (l. 614), even though the plural would have been more appropriate since Lotte had put on a pair of gloves before. The teacher concludes this sequence, using a recast to indirectly correct the error and to provide a model response for the whole class (l. 615). Maja shows her uptake of the correction by repeating the word correctly afterwards (l. 616). This focus-on-form is a reactive move. It suggests that Maja’s response (l. 614) is treated by the teacher as a contribution in need of correction. 199 Classroom Corpora as Tools for Reflective Practice in Pre-Service Teacher Education Pre-service teachers can discover different prompting techniques primary school teachers use to cue pupils’ responses and to help them formulate their contribution. They can discuss differences in the classroom discourse between teacher-induced elicitations and self-corrections or peer-corrections. The example above makes clear that the teacher does not provide the answer, but guides the learner to do so herself. The first two sounds prompt a recognition of the word. Mehan (1979: 289) has categorized the prompting technique of teachers as a form of evaluation that does not terminate the sequence, but supports until the reply is obtained. Prompting as a verbal scaffold requires teachers to monitor the activity closely and to use a stimulus that maintains the learner’s active involvement in producing a response. 6 Conclusion A classroom corpus is a collection of transcripts that display the interactions between teachers and their learners during a lesson (Limberg 2019). As a context-specific database it can inform classroom pedagogy by showing how the practices of teaching, as displayed in the transcripts, support learning and how they promote learners’ development. Classroom interactions can also be used as a tool for reflection and thus contribute to the professional development of teachers. Classroom transcripts are particularly useful for university students who are studying to become a teacher and who cannot draw on the same experience that in-service teachers make every day in class. Investigating the nature of classroom interaction helps to draw pre-service teachers’ attention to the complexities of a classroom and to understand how theory and praxis are connected. The data provide insights into the practices of teaching and learning in the classroom and they “can tell us about our own teaching and ourselves as part of a professional cohort” (O’Keeffe/ Mc‐ Carthy/ Carter 2007: 220). Working with a classroom corpus in the context of didactic or applied linguistic seminars is a promising avenue for the profession‐ alization of language teacher education because it allows students to focus on specific aspects of the classroom discourse, analyze patterns of use and discuss how these may affect learning or influence learners’ development. One of these classroom corpora is the Primary English Classroom Corpus (PECC). Its transcripts show how teachers go about conducting lessons, how they use their interactional skills to instruct and communicate with young learners in class as well as how they manage classroom activities. For pre-service teachers who study English for primary school, this data source can be an ‘awareness-raising tool’ (Cullen 2001, Farr 2010) - a tool to identify and discuss 200 Holger Limberg different structural patterns of classroom discourse and interactional devices of primary school teachers’ verbal behavior. Apart from repetitions and prompting techniques, the PECC transcripts can be explored for instructions, explanations, feedback moves (e.g., error correction) and other verbal scaffolding techniques (e.g. reformulation, extension, modelling). Students can also study the language of learner contributions during a lesson to find out more about their listening and speaking skills. A transcript corpus is not a replacement for video recordings or lesson observations, but a complementary component of classroom data with its own advantages, particulary relevant in the context of language teacher education. Bibliography BIG-Kreis (Ed.) (2015). Der Lernstand im Englischunterricht am Ende von Klasse 4 - Ergebnisse der BIG-Studie. München: Domino-Verlag. Breen, Michael P. (1998). “Navigating the Discourse: On What is Learned in the Language Classroom.” In: Renandya, Willy A./ Jacobs, George M. (Eds.), Learners and Language Learning. Singapore: SEAMO Regional Language Centre, 115-143. Cullen, Richard (1995). “The Use of Transcripts in Teacher Development.” The Teacher Trainer 9: 1, 3-7. Cullen, Richard (2001). “The Use of Lesson Transcripts for Developing Teachers’ Class‐ room Language.” System 29: 1, 27-43. Edmondson, Willis J./ House, Juliane (2006). Einführung in die Sprachlehrforschung. 3. Aufl. Tübingen: A. Francke Verlag. Farr, Fiona (2010). “How Can Corpora Be Used in Teacher Education? ” In: O’Keeffe, Anne/ McCarthy, Michael (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Lingustics. New York: Routledge, 620-632. Horst, Marlise (2010). “How Well Does Teacher Talk Support Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition? ” Reading in a Foreign Language 22: 1, 161-180. Jäkel, Olaf (2010). The Flensburg English Classroom Corpus (FLECC): Sammlung Authen‐ tischer Unterrichtsgespräche aus dem Aktuellen Englischunterricht auf Verschiedenen Stufen an Grund-, Haupt-, Real- und Gesamtschulen Norddeutschlands. Flensburg: Flensburg University Press. Klippel, Friederike (2003). “Teaching in English - Teacher Language in Primary School.” In: Hermes, Liesel/ Klippel, Friederike (Eds.), Früher oder Später? Englisch in der Grundschule und Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht. München: Langenscheidt, 53-68. Klippel, Friederike (2016). “Aufgabenentwicklung zu Videoclips in der Englischlehrerbil‐ dung.” In: Limberg, Holger/ Jäkel, Olaf (Eds.), Unterrichtsforschung im Fach Englisch: 201 Classroom Corpora as Tools for Reflective Practice in Pre-Service Teacher Education Empirische Erkenntnisse und Praxisorientierte Anwendung. Frankfurt/ M.: Peter Lang, 147-170. Koester, Almut (2010). “Building Small Specialized Corpora.” In: O’Keeffe, Anne/ Mc‐ Carthy, Michael (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Lingustics. New York: Routledge, 66-79. Kwon, Ye-Eun/ Lee, Eun-Joo (2014). “Lexical Bundles in the Korean EFL Teacher Talk Corpus: A Comparison Between Non-native and Native English Teachers.” The Journal of Asia TEFL 11: 3, 73-103. Kramsch, Claire J. (1985). “Classroom Interaction and Discourse Options.” Studies in Second Language Acquisiton 7: 2, 169-183. Kurtz, Jürgen (Hrsg.) (2013). The Dortmund Historical Corpus of Classroom English (DOHCCE). Flensburg: Flensburg University Press. Larsen-Freeman, Diana (2012). “On the Roles of Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning.” Applied Linguistics Review 3: 2, 195-210. Lee, David Y.W. (2010). “What Corpora are Available? ” In: O’Keeffe, Anne/ McCarthy, Michael (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. New York: Routledge, 107-121. Legutke, Michael K./ Müller-Hartmann, Andreas/ Schocker-v. Ditfurth, Marita (2009). Teaching English in the Primary School. Stuttgart: Klett. Limberg, Holger (2019). The Primary English Classroom Corpus (PECC). Volume 1. Flensburg: Flensburg University Press. Long, Michael H. (1983). “Inside the ‘Black Box’.” In: Seliger, Herbert W./ Long, Michael H. (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House, 3-36. Mehan, Hugh (1979). “‘What Time Is It, Denise? ’: Asking Known Information Questions in Classroom Discourse.” Theory into Practice 28: 4, 285-294. Nicaise, Eric (2015). Highlighting Linguistic Features of Native-English Teacher Talk as a Reference Framework for French-Speaking EFL Teachers: A Corpus Study. Unpublished Dissertation. Online: dial.uclouvain.be/ pr/ boreal/ object/ boreal: 156661 [last accessed: 29.07.2021]. O’Keeffe, Anne/ Farr, Fiona (2003). “Using Language Corpora in Initial Teacher Education: Pedagogic Issues and Practical Applications.” TESOL Quarterly 37: 3, 389-418. O’Keeffe, Anne/ McCarthy, Michael/ Carter, Ronald (2007). From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reh, Sabine/ Schelle, Carla (2010). “Der Fall im Lehrerstudium.” In: Schelle, Carla/ Ra‐ benstein, Kerstin/ Reh, Sabine (Eds.), Unterricht als Interaktion. Ein Fallbuch für die Lehrerbildung. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, 13-23. Sinclair, John McHardy/ Coulthard, R. Malcom (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press. 202 Holger Limberg Walsh, Steve (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. New York: Routledge. Walsh, Steve/ Sert, Olcay (2019). “Mediating L2 Learning Through Classroom Interaction.” In: Gao, Xuesong (Ed.), Second Handbook of English Language Teaching. Cham: Springer, 1-19. Watson, Ken/ Young, Bob (1986). “Discourse for Learning in the Classroom.” Language Arts 63: 2, 126-133. Wilden, Eva/ Porsch, Raphaela (2017). “Researching the Professional Development of Primary EFL Teachers: An Introduction.” In: Ibid. (Eds.), The Professional Development of Primary EFL Teachers: National and International Research. Münster: Waxmann, 7-23. 203 Classroom Corpora as Tools for Reflective Practice in Pre-Service Teacher Education Revisiting an Old Acquaintance: Exploring the IRF Pattern in Corpus Data from 5 th Grade EFL Lessons Olaf Jäkel This contribution focuses on the famous teacher elicit exchange (Sinclair/ Coulthard 1992: 14; cf. 1975: 34) that structures many lessons through the typical “Initiation - Response - Follow up (IRF)” pattern. Using classroom data from 5 th year EFL lessons, it will be shown that this pattern is not only frequent, but highly useful for a number of purposes. Not only does the pattern enable teachers to take charge of classroom discourse management, but it also allows for confirmation and praise of learner contributions as well as for various types of error correction, including self-correction or peer-correction. What is more, teachers who are aware of the potential of IRF can consciously and creatively exploit it to strengthen their pupils’ competences in the EFL classroom. 1 Introduction How can Applied Linguistics contribute to the academic training of English teachers? For a while now, the Europa-Universität Flensburg has been home to a theoretically grounded practical orientation of academic teacher training. This provides the communal framework for the practical application of communica‐ tive and usage-based approaches to foreign language teaching in the classroom, which have been in favour with the Applied Linguistics community for quite some time (cf. Schmitt 2002). This paper exemplifies a unique communicative and usage-based approach to English language teacher training at university level, namely one that utilizes the potential of collectively reflecting on the variety and heterogeneity of real EFL teaching as documented in authentic transcripts of classroom discourse without immediate pressure for action (cf. Seedhouse 2004, Walsh 2006, Schwab 2009, and Limberg/ Jäkel 2016). The Flensburg English Classroom Corpus (FLECC) ( Jäkel 2010) is a recent corpus devised and put together at Flensburg University. It consists of reader-friendly transcripts of 39 complete lessons of English as a foreign lan‐ guage taught in North German schools of diverse types: Grundschule (Primary School), Hauptschule, Realschule, and Gesamtschule (Comprehensive Schools). This special corpus of more than 56,000 words (amounting to 240 printed pages in the book publication) covers all age groups of EFL learners, from the 3rd year of Primary School to the last year of Sekundarstufe 1 (Klasse 10), with the numbers of transcribed lessons per year/ grade as follows: 3. Klasse: 4; 4. Klasse: 7; 5. Klasse: 10; 6. Klasse: 6; 7. Klasse: 3; 8. Klasse: 5; 9. Klasse: 1; 10. Klasse: 3. All 39 lessons were taught by advanced students of English during their major six-week school internships in the years between 2003 and 2007. They were documented and transcribed by the author, who was observing the lessons as academic supervisor. Of course, all participants, pupils, teachers, and schools, remain anonymous. This empirical corpus material presents unique opportunities for students in language teacher training to develop their analytical skills, working with authentic classroom discourse with all its flaws and hitches. Theoretical ap‐ proaches from linguistic pragmatics and discourse analysis as well as from Applied Linguistics and TEFL research can be tested as to their explanatory value when it comes to analysing real classroom data. In a consciousness-raising approach, students’ intuitions about ‘good’ or ‘bad’ EFL teaching provide the cognitive basis upon which a sharpened and more profound awareness of linguistic patterns of classroom discourse can be built. In TEFL research, authentic classroom discourse corpora were and still are scarce. “What is needed is classroom documentation that would enable the serious investigation of processes of foreign language acquisition and learning, of interaction in the classroom as well as of conditions promoting or hindering learning” (Diehr/ Gießler 2011: 158, translation OJ). The Flensburg English Class‐ room Corpus (FLECC) fills exactly that gap (ibid.), a finding supported from an Applied Linguistics and Corpus Linguistics perspective: “By way of final evaluation it needs to be said that this corpus with its focus on discourse and events in the English classroom fills a gap in the corpus-linguistic landscape” (Kreyer 2011: 138, translation OJ). The following study focuses on one of the most frequent patterns of classroom discourse to be found across all subjects: IRF. The typical three-part teacher elicit exchange (Sinclair/ Coulthard 1992: 14, cf. 1975: 34) structures many plenary phases through the famous “Initiation - Response - Follow up (IRF)” pattern, in which the teacher has not only the first but also the third turn. What can be seen in the classroom data from the FLECC is that in EFL teaching, this IRF pattern is not only frequent, but highly useful for a number of purposes. 206 Olaf Jäkel As I cannot here truly represent the ways in which the discourse data from the FLECC are used in academic seminars (but cf. Jäkel 2014), with all participants involved in the collective exploration of those patterns of classroom communication, the main parts (section 2 and 3) of this paper will instead provide sample analyses of FLECC material from two 5 th year classes. After a shorter presentation (section 4) of students’ evaluations of seminar work with the FLECC material, the paper will then end (in section 5) with an outlook on the potential of the FLECC and the possibilities of using it for diverse purposes. 2 Sample Analyses I: Canonical IRF In this section, we will look at an example passage from an English lesson in a 5 th year Grund- und Hauptschule (old-style Comprehensive) ( Jäkel 2010: 88). 1 T: Let’s start! Good morning! 2 All P: Good morning! 3 […] In this short passage (ll. 1-3) we witness the opening of the lesson in which the teacher does not start with greeting the class, which only comes second. The first speech act, though, is a directive (Searle 1975) by the teacher, a complex framing move (Sinclair/ Coulthard 1992: 3, 21; cf. Sinclair/ Coulthard 1975), signalling to the pupils that the lesson is about to begin: ‘It’s English time now, so please concentrate and switch your mindsets on to English! ’ Only after this has been established, will this teacher proceed to exchange greetings with her class. With this 5th year class, with pupils aged between ten and twelve years, the teacher’s “Good morning! ” is actually followed by a whole-hearted chorus of “Good morning! ” from all pupils, thereby forming a perfect, ritualised adjacency pair (McCarthy 1997: 119 f.). With pupils of higher age groups, this might not work out so fine. After this opening transaction, the teacher starts an exercise concerning the use of prepositions and prepositional phrases, which lasts for a while (see ll. 4-23 below). Making use of the traditional German blackboard with wings that can be opened and closed as a prop, she demonstrates different positions in space by moving from her ordinary position to one behind that wing: 207 Exploring the IRF Pattern in Corpus Data from 5 th Grade EFL Lessons 4 T: I’m standing in front of the board. 5 Now I’m standing behind the board. 6 Where am I? 7 P: In front of the board. 8 T: Very good! 9 […] During this demonstration, she comments (l. 4 and 5) on the ongoing events, using two assertives (Searle 1975) closely resembling motherese, or child-di‐ rected language (cf. O’Grady 2005: 175-178). The last act in this teacher’s turn (l. 6) is a typical display question (Allwright/ Bailey 1991: 110, cf. Cortazzi/ Jin 2004: 501 f.). It is the first move of a three-part teacher elicit exchange (Sin‐ clair/ Coulthard 1992: 14, cf. 1975: 34), displayed here in its most canonical fashion: the famous “Initiation - Response - Follow up (IRF)” pattern. The teacher (l. 6) initiates this exchange by way of her question. This move is followed by a pupil’s response (l. 7), which takes the shape of the appropriate prepositional phrase. The elicit exchange is completed by another turn from the teacher (l. 8), the so-called follow-up move, in which the teacher provides feedback on the pupil’s performance. As a speech act, this is an expressive (Searle 1975), namely one of praise. The pupil does not utter a complete sentence, yet the teacher’s positive feedback provides confirmation of the contextually fully appropriate prepositional phrase. In the following passage, the teacher asks first a girl (ll. 10-11) and then a boy (l. 16) to come to the front of the classroom to help demonstrating positions in space. Both l. 10 and l. 11 as well as l. 16 are directives (Searle 1975), the most frequent speech act to be found in many teachers’ performance. The passage also displays another series of IRF patterns, both initiated by teacher questions (l. 12 and 17), and followed by appropriate pupil responses (l. 13 and 18). As can be seen in this sequence, one pupil actually answers in a complete sentence (l. 13), which may be the reason for an even more emphatically positive feedback by the teacher in l. 14. The last move in the second of the IRF exchanges (ll. 17-19), the teacher’s F-move, is not revealed in this transcript. 10 T: Now, Pam, come here! 11 And please, sit on the table! 12 Where is she? 208 Olaf Jäkel 13 P: She is on the table. 14 T: Yes, very good! 15 […] 16 T: Please go under the table! 17 Where is he? 18 P: Under the table. 19 […] The sequence below (ll. 20-23) indicates that the follow-up move in the IRF pattern can be used for other purposes than positive feedback which confirms pupils’ answers and praises them for their achievements: 20 T: Please stand in front of the board! 21 Where is he? 22 P: Front of the board. 23 T: In front of the board! The exercise here continues with another boy being called up front by the teacher’s directive (l. 20), and yet another IRF elicit exchange initiated by the teacher’s display question in l. 21. This time, though, the answer provided by a pupil (l. 22) is found wanting by the teacher, who corrects the incomplete prepositional phrase by modelling the correct form (l. 23). This follow-up move is a corrective feedback in the shape of a recast (Allwright/ Bailey 1991: 98-118), the most frequent form of error correction found with the majority of teachers in the FLECC. Although situated on the metalinguistic level, this correction within the communicative situation is least disruptive to the ongoing communication. Though she cannot be sure if the pupil who made the mistake will actually take notice, this recast is the teacher’s way of making sure that the correct form is modelled as part of the linguistic input for the whole class, in order to avoid confusing other learners and in order to prevent fossilization of the incorrect form (ibid.). Subsequent to this sequence, the lesson enters another stage, the longest in this transcript (ll. 24-39). With the overall topic of the use of preposi‐ tions and prepositional phrases remaining the same, the new transaction 209 Exploring the IRF Pattern in Corpus Data from 5 th Grade EFL Lessons (Sinclair/ Coulthard 1992: 5) now is that of a different exercise involving both picture cards (flashcards) and word cards: 24 […] 25 T: [pointing at one of the picture cards on the board] Where is the man? 26 P: On the car. 27 T: Okay. But do it like this [gesture]! Having pinned a number of flashcards to the board (l. 24), the teacher uses a pointing gesture while initiating another IRF exchange with her display question (l. 25). The pupil’s answer in l. 26 is correct as regards its content. But this time, the teacher’s follow-up move (l. 27) not only contains a short positive feedback (“Okay”), but also a small yet important disciplinary action (“But do it like this! ”). The teacher’s adversative conjunction (“But”) indicates that the pupil did not show the desired (re)action, and her directive tells the pupil and the whole class that they should raise their hands before voicing their answers. The same exercise continues in the following passage (ll. 28-32): 28 […] 29 T: [pointing at one of the picture cards on the board] Where is the man? 30 P: [incomprehensible mumbling] 31 T: Behind the car. All together! 32 All P: Behind the car. In l. 29, we find the teacher repeating exactly the same display question which again is accompanied by the pointing gesture she had used before in l. 25 to initiate another IRF exchange. This time, however, the answer provided by a pupil is unintelligible (l. 30), so that the teacher finds it necessary to follow up not only with a clearly articulated recast “Behind the car” (l. 31); she also adds the elliptical directive “All together! ” to which the whole class responds in the desired way (l. 32), this chorus fashion being a well-established means to secure uptake with this age group. In the last passage to be analysed here (ll. 33-39), the exercise is modified by adding word cards: 210 Olaf Jäkel 33 T: And now I’ve got the words here. 34 [pins word cards to board] 35 Can you come here, and take one word, and put it next to the 36 picture! 37 [P pins ‘next to’ next to the wrong picture] 38 T: Nanu? ! 39 […] The teacher’s assertive in l. 33, a comment on her own actions in l. 34 in motherese fashion, serves to prepare and organize the collective activity. In l. 35 the teacher starts yet another IRF exchange, but this time, her initiating move is that of a directive (ll. 35-36) which does not request a pupil’s verbal response but a non-verbal reaction (Sinclair/ Coulthard 1992: 9, 25-28). The pupil who comes to the board fails to put his word card next to the right picture (l. 37). This non-verbal mistake is followed by the teacher’s surprised “Nanu? ! ” (l. 38), which is a most interesting and enigmatic utterance. Quite obviously, the exclamation is an instance of code-switching, in fact the only one on record by this teacher in this lesson. In moments of strong emotional involvement, such as surprise, even some of the most competent speakers of a foreign language are likely to fall back on their L1. When analysing this transcript in an academic seminar, student teachers should be asked to look for pragmatically appropriate renderings of the illocution of the German exclamation in English. Probably one of the best candidates here would be an emphatic “Oops! ” But this is not necessarily the end of the discussion. It could be argued, and is certainly worth discussing, that this teacher may have had other things in mind with her follow-up move (l. 38) to the erroneous performance by her pupil. In fact, her utterance - given enough wait time (cf. Allwright/ Bailey 1991: 107-108) - could as well be interpreted as a feedback inviting the learner to self-correct. This so-called prompting (Allwright/ Bailey 1991: 105-108) is meant to give learners room to correct themselves, or to allow them to correct each other as peers. - The sample analysis of this excerpt, which comprises the first half of this 5 th year EFL lesson, so far has revealed some standard uses of the IRF pattern. 211 Exploring the IRF Pattern in Corpus Data from 5 th Grade EFL Lessons 3 Sample Analyses II: IRF Variations In this section, we will look at example passages from an English lesson in a 5 th year Gesamtschule ( Jäkel 2010: 128-134). Similar to the previously analysed lesson, the teacher opens with a framing move “Okay” (l. 3) and then moves on to the ritualized exchange of greetings with her class (ll. 3-4): 1 [7: 45] 2 [All 24 P are standing.] 3 T: Okay. Good morning everybody! 4 All P: [somewhat droning] Good morning, Mrs T.! Next, the teacher starts an exercise in telling the time, using a huge clock as prop: 5 T: [displaying a huge clock] What’s the time? 6 P: It’s three o’clock. 7 T: It’s three o’clock, right. 8 [Adjusting the huge clock to a new time.] And now? 9 P: It’s quarter past three. 10 T: Right. [Laughs, adjusting a new time.] In a canonical IRF pattern, her display question in l. 5 is followed by a pupil’s answer (l. 6), which is confirmed (l. 7) by the teacher’s verbatim repetition plus positive feedback. The exercise continues in this fashion, with a reduced initiating move (l. 8), another correct answer (l. 9), followed by the teacher’s short positive feedback (l. 10). From here on (ll. 11-41), we can witness an interesting variation in the IRF pattern, in which the teacher deliberately withholds feedback. The following passage contains a series of six exchanges, all of which are initiated by the teacher’s display questions or their elliptical versions (ll. 11, 14, 20, 25, 30, 35). The pupils’ responses, though, are not followed by an immediate feedback move, but the teacher instead inserts a short tag-like question to the whole class (ll. 13, 16, 22, 32, 39), giving every child the chance to make up their own mind about the proper answer. As a result, many pupils confirm the answer either 212 Olaf Jäkel non-verbally (l. 13) or verbally (ll. 23, 33, 40). To end each exchange, the teacher finally provides her delayed feedback (ll. 13, 24, 29, 34, 41): 11 T: And now, what time is it? 12 P: It’s quarter to four. 13 T: Is it? [Waits a moment until a number of P nod affirmatively.] Right! 14 And … [Adjusts a new time.] Now! 15 P: It’s twenty-five past four. 16 T: Right? 17 P: Hab ich nicht verstanden! 18 T: Say it again, please. 19 P: It’s twenty-five past four. 20 T: [Adjusting a new time] And now? 21 P: It’s quarter to five. 22 T: Is it quarter to five? 23 Many P: Yes! 24 T: Yes, it is. Good! 25 [Adjusts a new time.] And now? Peter. 26 [P keeps quiet.] 27 T: Who knows it? 28 P: It’s half past five. 29 T: Right, good! 30 [Adjusts a new time.] And now! 31 P: It’s twenty to seven. 32 T: Is it twenty to seven? 33 Many P: Yes! 34 T: Good! 35 T: [Adjusting a new time.] What’s the time now? 36 P: It’s quarter to eight. 37 T: Say it again, please! 213 Exploring the IRF Pattern in Corpus Data from 5 th Grade EFL Lessons 38 P: It’s quarter to eight. 39 T: Is it quarter to eight? 40 Many P: Yes! 41 T: Yes, good! What we can see in this continuous passage is a very effective way of involving the whole class actively in an exercise that consists of individual pupils providing answers to the teacher’s display questions. This is achieved by a conscious delay of the teacher’s feedback within the familiar IRF pattern. At a later stage of the same lesson, the teacher changes the didactic function of her communication, with more open, referential questions about the pupils’ daily routines - thus, replacing the previous display questions in the I-move. Here, she also uses the IRF pattern to provide corrective feedback: 157 T: Okay, most of you have finished. So, let’s compare! 158 Connie, when do you get up? The first one. 159 P: [hʌlf] past six. 160 T: Half past six, good! As in section 2, we witness a defective answer (l. 159) from a pupil mispro‐ nouncing half with an audible / l/ . The teacher’s feedback to this (in l. 160) consists of a recast accompanied by positive praise. While this pronunciation error asked for a corrective feedback from her side, the teacher moves towards a slightly more ‘natural’ conversation by sharing personal information (l. 161, 166) before eliciting with more referential questions. As regards the teacher’s feedback in the follow-up moves below, this takes the form of interested backchannelling in only two instances (l. 163 and 180) - while it is lacking completely in the series of IR exchanges between ll. 166 and 176: 161 T: I have breakfast at seven o’clock. When do you have breakfast? 162 P: Ten o’clock. 163 T: Ten o’clock? At Saturdays? Oh, do you eat at school, breakfast? 164 P: [incomprehensible mumble] 214 Olaf Jäkel 165 [8: 19] 166 T: I go to school at half past seven. When do you go to school? 167 P: I go to school at quarter to seven. 168 […] 169 T: When do you come home? Lara. 170 P: I come home at one o’clock. 171 T: And when do you come home, Peter? 172 P: I come home at quarter past one. 173 T: And Katharina, when do you have dinner? 174 P: I eat dinner at [incomprehensible mumble]. 175 T: And Max, when do you eat dinner? 176 P: I eat dinner at six o’clock. 177 T: When do you go to bed? 178 P: At nine o’clock. 179 P: I go to bed at twenty past nine. 180 T: Twenty past nine! That’s late. Note that the last IRF exchange (ll. 177-180) features two pupils answering the teacher’s referential question. The last of these two answers (l. 179) evokes the follow-up expression of surprise or amazement by the teacher (“That’s late”), which contributes to the more ‘natural’ feel of this conversation in an EFL classroom. In the remainder of this lesson (ll. 197-236), the teacher introduces further modifications of the IRF pattern, which we cannot go into here for lack of space. Thus, she invites individual pupils to take over the elicit move, while still providing the feedback herself. In the end, even the follow-up move is performed by some pupils, who confirm their classmates’ correct answers to their own display questions. This shows an enormous range of variations of the standard IRF pattern, which is professionally utilised by a teacher who is obviously aware of its limitations as well as its general usefulness. In summary, the follow-up move of the canonical IRF exchange provides room for at least two very important ingredients of classroom communication: On the one hand, it serves to confirm correct answers and praise pupils’ achievements, 215 Exploring the IRF Pattern in Corpus Data from 5 th Grade EFL Lessons and on the other hand, it allows teachers to give corrective feedback, which is an essential ingredient of foreign language teaching of pupils in their first years. However, (student) teachers need to acquire professional knowledge (and competence) with regard to the IRF pattern and its various didactic functions in order to use it flexibly and intentionally in different classroom situations. This also includes knowledge about when and how to deviate from its canonical structure or about avoiding it altogether in favor of more genuine, authentic forms of teacher-pupil interaction (see Jäkel 2001). According to the Birmingham Model, it is of crucial importance to acknowledge, though, that the feedback move in particular is an essential part of any classroom exchange and should not be withheld continually (Sinclair/ Coulthard 1975: 51). 4 The Potential of the FLECC in Teacher Education Why in particular student teachers will benefit from exposure to the FLECC and its advantages is clearly stated by Diehr/ Gießler (2011: 161, translation OJ): As the empirical data of the FLECC come from a world remote from teacher students’ everyday experience, they open up an important perspective on teaching for exactly that clientele in the academic stage of teacher education. […] The FLECC provides a basis, from which access to the experiential level of action in teaching can be gained, by way of applying concepts from teaching methodology and linguistics. This favourable review is corroborated by recent evaluation results and experi‐ ential reports coming from students of English at Flensburg University. Positive judgments can regularly be found in student evaluations of courses that included analytical work with the FLECC, and very often, they will wish and ask for more of that work. The following quotations have been collected from Reflections written in English by students after some FLECC sessions of their advanced class in the Primary School Master programme in 2015: (1) I believe that the FLECC offers a wonderful way to look at a lesson and to analyse it regarding specific points which are essential in language teaching. It offers an opportunity to look at a lesson from different angles, to imagine how students could react in specific situations, even though it is not directly visible to the reader. […] It shows how everything we have talked about before in class is put together into a construct called lesson which will enable learners to acquire new knowledge in English. (Loreen M.) (2) It was so interesting to hear all the others’ opinions about the transcribed lesson. […] Although I had read the transcription many times before, my fellow students found out new aspects or their interpretation of some aspects was a little bit different than mine. As I already pointed out during our session, at first I was not 216 Olaf Jäkel quite sure if I liked the transcribed lesson or not. For me it seemed kind of boring how the teacher always repeated her questions. But then I asked myself what would I do differently and then I noticed that she did a great job. […] In conclusion I would like to say that the whole session helped me as a future teacher. […] I am really looking forward to my next internship. (Isabel S.) (3) Does it make sense to look at the FLECC excerpts in detail? […] Close reading and reflecting on it carefully will help me in particular situations. It might help me cope better with difficult moments. Speaking about and discussing somebody else’s mistakes could help one avoid making similar mistakes oneself. […] I learned how important it is to have a clear structure and different, well-chosen and appropriate methods. (Maike S.) (4) Dealing with the Flensburg English Classroom Corpus (FLECC) and hosting a session on an excerpt of a 4 th grade EFL lesson in a German primary school gave me the opportunity to deal with an authentic classroom discourse. As I have not had a lot of opportunities so far to hold English lessons, this transcribed lesson provided me with the chance to do some meaningful analysis of different aspects of this English lesson. The excerpt allowed our group to look closely at the structure of the lesson, the media which were used, the errors which appeared, or the topic of motivation. After analyzing those themes our group strongly agreed that the EFL teacher did a very good job and that this excerpt can offer us a lot of practical advice for us as future ‘soon-to-be’ primary school teachers. […] It was a valuable experience for me as a student preparing to become a teacher to work with this excerpt from the FLECC, because it was very interesting to analyze so many different aspects of a lesson in the 4 th grade of a German primary school. ( Janika W.) (5) I was surprised to see how many aspects one can analyze and it was great to look at an excerpt from an outside perspective. Talking about the good and bad things about this lesson has also made me become a little bit more sensitive towards my own teaching. ( Jil R.) These statements bear witness to the general value of studying English language lessons intensively and in detail (1) just as well as to the cooperative aspect of collectively discussing the discourse material in the seminar group, with the reported self-experience of a gradual change and growth of one’s perspective plus a boost of expectations, looking forward to the school internship ahead in the integrated practical term (2); to the value of detailed analysis, e.g., of mistakes made by other, unknown teachers (3), as well as to those diverse aspects of a lesson and the inspiration felt for one’s own teaching (4), and the truly experienced consciousness-raising for matters of lesson planning and teaching (5). 5 Outlook: Using the FLECC The detailed sample analyses of the IRF pattern’s various functions and uses in this paper served to illustrate the FLECC’s potential for pre-service teacher education at university level. Probably the greatest advantage of this classroom 217 Exploring the IRF Pattern in Corpus Data from 5 th Grade EFL Lessons corpus is that we can use it to engage our teacher students in thorough, ‘slow motion’ analyses of authentic EFL classroom data. One of the most difficult aspects of working in the classroom, not only for beginners, but also for many experienced teachers, is the constant need to make quick decisions on how to react or continue. In the case of pupils’ errors, e.g., the teacher has to decide within milliseconds if the error needs to be corrected; if so, who should correct it, as well as when and in what form (cf. Allwright/ Bailey 1991: 99-100). In the protected environment of the academic seminar, however, we can take our time to discuss the merits or drawbacks of individual teacher decisions, in as much detail as desired by the group. Moreover, we can take our time, both collectively and in individual project work, to think up alternative options not followed by the teacher in the documented classroom discourse, and again weigh the advantages and disadvantages. In all of this, the fact that we are studying printed transcripts instead of video-taped lessons has the effect of drawing our attention to the linguistic details, which are part and parcel of successful EFL teaching (see Jäkel 2010: 12, cf. Allwright/ Bailey 1991: 62, Kreyer 2011: 138). The empirical, data-driven approach to language teacher training outlined above presents unique opportunities for student teachers to develop their analytical skills, working with authentic classroom discourse with all its flaws and hitches. In consciousness-raising fashion, students’ intuitions about effec‐ tive and less effective EFL teaching provide the cognitive basis upon which a sharpened and more profound awareness of linguistic and communicative patterns of TEFL classroom discourse can be built. And as we often learn more from the negative examples of obviously ‘ropey’ teacher performances, it may be regarded as one of the best things about those lessons documented in the FLECC, that not all of the student teachers involved display the same competence as the ones witnessed in this contribution. In addition, theoretical approaches from linguistic pragmatics (cf. Spencer-Oatey/ Žegarac 2002) and discourse analysis (cf. McCarthy/ Mat‐ thiessen/ Slade 2002) can be tested as to their explanatory value when it comes to analysing real classroom data. For instance, one of the general results that the analyses of the FLECC data have yielded include the finding that the canonical IRF pattern is still ‘alive and kicking’, prevalent in many current EFL classrooms. Thus, the classical ‘Birmingham Model’ (Sinclair/ Coulthard 1975, Sinclair/ Coulthard 1992) can be confirmed as one of the most effective tools of analysing classroom discourse (cf. Allwright/ Bailey 1991: 12). I will end this paper with a list of issues that can be tackled based on the FLECC material (cf. the research questions proposed in Jäkel 2010: 227-230). How is a particular lesson structured (opening, stages, topics, exchanges/ moves/ acts, 218 Olaf Jäkel closing)? What kinds of speech acts occur? How much of speaking time in the classroom is occupied by the teacher, and how much is given to the learners? What is the role of typical turn taking patterns such as the classical ‘Initiation - Response - Feedback’ (IRF)? How are tasks set, and instructions given? What forms and functions of teacher questions can be found? How are new words introduced, explained and established? What kinds of errors can be detected (both pupils’ and teacher’s), and how are they treated? What role does English-German code-switching play? How can the teacher’s performance be evaluated? How are the special demands on the teacher as linguistic role model met, in particular in primary school EFL classrooms? How can the (linguistic) heterogeneity of learners be exploited for the teaching of English? - These and similar questions can be approached on the basis of the authentic corpus material of English classroom discourse provided by the FLECC. The corpus, which is also available online, can be mined for a multitude of purposes, including student projects in Applied Linguistics. Finally, I would like to suggest how great an opportunity it would be to see similar corpora of classroom discourse from EFL lessons being generated by researchers in teacher education from other regions. Apart from providing firmer experiential grounding to local academic teacher training programmes, this would give us the chance of comparing how English is being taught as a foreign language to pupils of different ages in various types of schools in different regions, probably allowing to share and learn from each other. Bibliography Allwright, Dick/ Bailey, Kathleen M. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduc‐ tion to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Gillian/ Yule, George (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer‐ sity Press. Cortazzi, Martin/ Jin, Lixian (2004). “Questioning Techniques”, in: Byram, Michael (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London/ New York: Rout‐ ledge, 501-503. Coulthard, Malcolm ( 2 1985). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London/ New York: Longman. Coulthard, Malcolm (Ed.) (1992). Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London/ New York: Routledge. Diehr, Bärbel/ Gießler, Ralf (2011) “Rezension: The Flensburg English Classroom Corpus”. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 54, 158-162. 219 Exploring the IRF Pattern in Corpus Data from 5 th Grade EFL Lessons Jäkel, Olaf (2001). Sokratisches Textgespräch: Ein Modell zur schülerorientierten Gedichtin‐ terpretation im Englischunterricht mit Fortgeschrittenen. Frankfurt/ M. et al.: Peter Lang. Jäkel, Olaf (2010). The Flensburg English Classroom Corpus (FLECC): Sammlung authen‐ tischer Unterrichtsgespräche aus dem aktuellen Englischunterricht auf verschiedenen Stufen an Grund-, Haupt-, Real- und Gesamtschulen Norddeutschlands. Flensburg: Flensburg University Press. Jäkel, Olaf (2014). “Unterrichtsanalyse anhand des Flensburg English Classroom Corpus.” In: Pieper, Irene/ Frei, Peter/ Hauenschild, Katrin/ Schmidt-Thieme, Barbara (Eds.), Was der Fall ist: Beiträge zur Fallarbeit in Bildungsforschung, Lehramtsstudium, Beruf und Ausbildung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 213-226. Kreyer, Rolf (2011). “Buchbesprechung: The Flensburg English Classroom Corpus”. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 40: 2, 136-138. Limberg, Holger/ Jäkel, Olaf (Eds.) (2016). Unterrichtsforschung im Fach Englisch: Empiri‐ sche Erkenntnisse und praxisorientierte Anwendung. Frankfurt/ M. et al.: Peter Lang. McCarthy, Michael ( 7 1997) Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, Michael/ Matthiessen, Christian/ Slade, Diane (2002). “Discourse Analysis.” In: Schmitt, Norbert (Ed.), 55-73. O’Grady, William (2005). How Children Learn Language. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer‐ sity Press. Schmitt, Norbert (Ed.) (2002). An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Arnold. Schwab, Götz (2009). Gesprächsanalyse und Fremdsprachenunterricht. Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik. Searle, John R. (1975). “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts.” In: Gunderson, Keith (Ed.), Language, Mind, and Knowledge. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 344-369. Also reprinted in: Searle (1979), 1-29. Searle, John R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seedhouse, Paul (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Sinclair, John/ Coulthard, Malcolm (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, John/ Coulthard, Malcolm (1992). “Towards an Analysis of Discourse.” In: Coulthard, Malcolm (Ed.), 1-34. Spencer-Oatey, Helen/ Žegarac, Vladimir (2002). “Pragmatics.” In: Schmitt, Norbert (Ed.), 74-91. Walsh, Steve (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. London: Routledge. 220 Olaf Jäkel Teaching Classroom Discourse Competence through Lesson Observation Educational Resources Designed for EFL Teacher Training Gabriele Blell / Friederike von Bremen The VirtU-Website (virtu.engsem.uni-hannover.de) of the Department of English Didactics at the Leibniz University of Hanover offers teaching materials along with videos of authentic English lessons for use in EFL teacher training. We designed this teaching material to enhance the practical relevance of teacher training programmes and at the same time improve students’ reflective professional competence. Alongside the university’s online courses, which are open to enrolled students only, these materials form a corpus of educational resources for the first and second phase of teacher training in any German-speaking learning environment. Being an essential part of EFL lessons, the issue of classroom discourse and its different manifestations in the EFL classroom are regularly featured in these materials. Students are guided through the analysis of classroom situations with tasks that are specifically structured to train their reflective abilities and at the same time impart issue-specific didactic knowledge. This article introduces the VirtU-project and its didactic design. It illustrates the role of classroom discourse in the materials with samples of teachers’ task instructions and moderation of classroom discussion. 1 Introduction With the aim of designing learning modules that train reflective practice in EFL teacher training based on authentic teaching scenarios, the Department of English Didactics at the Leibniz University of Hanover (LUH), Germany has created a wide range of educational materials. This started as part of the “Leibniz-Prinzip: Theoria cum Praxi”, a comprehensive project (2016-2018) at the LUH to improve university-based teacher training. The project was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and is accompanied by a research programme examining reflective competence in lesson analysis (Blell/ von Bremen 2020). In order to make these educational materials available to a wider audience engaged in EFL teacher training (e.g. university lecturers, students, trainee teachers and their instructors), the VirtU-Website was set up in 2019. This password-protected webpage offers a pool of 33 learning modules that usually centre around a corresponding video-taped EFL lesson. Each learning module has a 20to 40-page downloadable pdf-document with explanations, lesson plans and materials, tasks for lesson analysis and suggestions for solu‐ tions. The task design of the learning modules adopts a multi-step approach based on Wallace’s (1991) reflective practice model of professional competence. The selection of video clips that the tasks focus on, as well as the complete video of each lesson, can be viewed on that site. As a core element of teaching practice in schools, classroom discourse is constantly observable in the VirtU-Website videos and is a focal point in nearly all of the learning modules. Teachers’ classroom discourse competence is of key importance in terms of structuring lessons, imparting knowledge, engaging students in the learning processes and cultivating a meaningful personal connection with the class during the teaching process. This is why the VirtU-module tasks regularly aim at the analysis of different manifestations of classroom discourse. Classroom discourse is understood in our paper as the co-constructed inter‐ action between learners and teachers according to their shared practices of participation in the learning processes (cf. Hallet 2009: 68-78). At the same time, it has to be taken into account that classroom discourse can be characterised by various dialogic or polylogic negotiations and also serves to establish social roles and interpersonal relationships in the classroom. “Discourses, in this sense, are more than just language, they are ways of being in the world, of forms of life that integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes and social identities” (Kramsch 1998: 61). It is assumed, therefore, that classroom discourse and real-life discourse should be combined and interlinked with each other. In her theoretical framework, Quasthoff (2011: 210-251) distinguishes between three sub-competences of discourse competence: ■ contextualisation competence (embedding discourse in a particular social, cultural and sequential context), ■ textualisation competence (internally building up a discourse unit according to the requirements of a special discursive practice), ■ marking competence (using linguistic forms and patterns to explicate (con)textualisation structures and communicate them adequately (see also Erath et al. 2018: 165). 222 Gabriele Blell / Friederike von Bremen 1 Erath et al. (2018) applied Quasthoff ’s categorisation to teaching discourse competence in the mathematics classroom. Regarding the role of classroom discourse there are obvious differences between mathematics lessons and EFL lessons. Nevertheless, a number of core aspects of classroom interaction are similar. Applying these theoretical underpinnings to classroom contexts, Erath et al. argue that “students who participate adequately in classroom discourse have to recognize contextually when to place which discourse practice (e.g. explanation instead of narratives), master the specific textualization patterns (e.g. explaining general procedures step-by-step) and use a specific lexical and grammatical repertoire to mark it (e.g. ‘that’s why’ for explaining).” (ibid.) 1 In our understanding the same applies to teachers moderating and modelling classroom discourse. Although this categorisation cannot cover all classroom discourse practices existing in the EFL classroom, it summarises three core competence fields which can be observed in classroom interaction to some degree. 2 The VirtU-Website Everyone officially affiliated with institutionalized teacher education can apply for personalized login data via the VirtU-Website (virtu.engsem.uni-hannover. de) to gain access to all the materials and videos provided there. The main website page (1, see Fig. 1) is freely accessible and contains an overview of the 11 subject areas (1. Vocabulary, 2. Grammar, 3. Communicative Competences, 4. Intercultural Communicative Competence, 5. Literature, 6. Film, 7. Teaching Methods, 8. Digital Learning, 9. Achievement Evaluation, 10. Heterogeneity and 11. Lesson Reflection), each of which includes three single teaching samples with associated learning modules. The videos (4) for each teaching sample can be viewed via a password-protected webpage (2), which also includes the tasks and materials of the associated learning module (3). The learning modules usually focus on an analysis of the respective lesson plan first, then guide users through the analysis of the video-taped lesson with an array of tasks that focus on specific aspects of that lesson, and conclude with a task related to the planning of their own lesson. To ensure a high level of practical relevance, these learning modules were created and evaluated by various university didactic experts in cooperation with experienced EFL teachers. The videos of the lessons were shot with multiple cameras. For the final cut, the most meaningful shots were then combined to focus on central actions, while at the same time viewers were also given an overview of the whole 223 Teaching Classroom Discourse Competence through Lesson Observation classroom. This style of video production is meant to create a natural viewing experience that compares favourably with that of observers actually present in the classroom. Fig. 1: The VirtU-Website (virtu.engsem.uni-hannover.de) 224 Gabriele Blell / Friederike von Bremen The videos, in line with our understanding of classroom discourse, intentionally do not represent best-practice examples, but show real-life teaching experiences with more as well as less successful classroom interactions. This means that these videos can serve to stimulate discussions on teaching decisions and possible alternatives. For the observation tasks in the learning modules, shorter video clips with an average running time of three to seven minutes were selected from the video-taped lessons to draw the viewer’s attention to specific aspects of the respective classroom situation. 3 The Role of Classroom Discourse in the VirtU-Materials The tasks embedded in the learning modules focus on matters of lesson manage‐ ment, planned and spontaneous teaching decisions within a lesson, classroom behaviour and the interdependencies between these aspects (cf. section 4). As spoken language often plays a vital role in these areas, many tasks deal with specific forms of classroom discourse and the way they influence learning processes (e.g., referring to the context of the lesson, the choice of content in oral instructions and the use of emphasis). In the process of task design and material development the three sub-competences mentioned above (contextualisation, textualisation and marking competence) were taken into account. Even though many other aspects can be observed in the video-taped lessons (such as the individual teachers’ linguistic features [e.g. speaking AE or BE], the differing levels of teachers’ linguistic competence or the different styles of engaging with students through language), the learning module tasks centre solely on those issues that have potential to yield insights into methods of creating and evaluating teaching processes. With this deliberately limited focus on linguistic behaviour, the tasks aim above all at preparing for real-life teaching practice. This also takes into account, that overlooking unnecessary details in classroom situations can be essential to mastering teaching challenges by focussing mainly on key aspects (e.g. Hallet 2008: 76-96, 2011: 54 ff.). The teaching-related aspects of classroom discourse, which the VirtU-module tasks feature, fall into four categories (see Tab. 1). This categorisation can provide an overview of the types of classroom discourse relevant for teaching decisions in day-to-day EFL lesson scenarios. However, as it is based on a rather small collection of only 33 teaching samples, it can only consider those characteristics of classroom discourse that the recorded lessons actually displayed. In addition to that, the subdivision of these four categories into specific manifestations allows room for interpretation, given, for example, that the item ‘feedback’ can play an important role not only in creating a functioning 225 Teaching Classroom Discourse Competence through Lesson Observation learning atmosphere, but can also be a part of classroom management or even be used to communicate knowledge. Main Category Manifestations in the Classroom Settings 1. Managing of the Learning Process • indicate beginning and ending of the lesson • initiate different stages of the lesson and lead over be‐ tween them • announce and explain tasks • give assistance • give feedback • initiate conversation in class • moderate conversation in class 2. Communi‐ cating Knowledge • explanations, lectures • summing-up of findings • semantisation of vocabulary • correction of mistakes • being a language model 3. Creating Disci‐ pline and a Func‐ tioning Learning Atmosphere • maintaining order and clear roles • dealing with classroom disturbances • feedback, praise 4. Practising Lan‐ guage • (students’) language production, for example in classroom conversations • verbal interaction between students • roles students take on in cooperative learning phases Tab. 1: Aspects of Classroom Discourse in the Tasks of the VirtU-Modules All four categories represent types of classroom discourse that are usually based on a combination of two or all three sub-competences (contextualization, textualisation and marking competence), with one core competence always being the dominating feature. For example, discourse acts that communicate knowledge (category 2, cf. Tab. 1) centre around textualisation, but in order to make this knowledge more accessible for students, teachers often use forms of marking to emphasise the core message as well as contextualisation to link the new knowledge to the context of the lesson. With respect to the VirtU-materials it should be noted that the categories 1 to 3 (see Tab. 1) deal predominantly with teachers’ verbal actions and only the fourth category highlights students’ verbal activities. That is to say, the teachers’ role in the classroom settings is prioritised. There are two reasons for this: (1) All of the video-taped lessons represent a teaching style in which teachers have a central role in organising the learning processes. (2) The learning modules aim to educate prospective teachers for their professional role by “reflect(ing) on 226 Gabriele Blell / Friederike von Bremen (teaching experiences), (and) leading to the conscious development of insights into knowing-in-action.” (Wallace 1991: 13). 4 The Structure of the Tasks in the VirtU-Materials Following Grimm, Meyer and Volkmann’s argumentation (2015: 69) that “the focus of a task is on meaningful and appropriate interaction as well as processand product-oriented performance as the means and goals of learning”, the VirtU-task design takes account of this comprehensive and holistic under‐ standing of tasks. The tasks accompanying the analyses of the video clips follow a structure that starts with a non-guided observation assignment, asking students to describe what they regard as noteworthy in the video (see Fig. 2, task a). This first step aims to promote students’ self-reliance in classroom observation. At the same time this step prepares students to compare their individual knowledge, past experience and beliefs about teaching with other perspectives on teaching in the next steps of the task. The second assignment includes an analysis of the video in relation to a specified aspect of the classroom situation prescribed in the task (see Fig. 2, task b). Here, the students’ observation and analysis of the video is guided by the performance requirements and thus limited to specific core themes, with this limitation serving as a motivation to examine the observed scene more closely. While the second assignment either confirms the students in their choice of focal point from the first assignment or contrasts this with a different prioritisation, students compare their own findings with a suggested solution in the follow-up task, adding another perspective to the classroom situation analysed as well as imparting specific didactic knowledge (follow-up task: “Compare your findings with the suggested solutions for task 2b and explain what you have learned from this comparison.”). These suggested solutions are designed to serve as examples of how to perform an in-depth analysis of teaching scenarios while maintaining a mindful attitude towards the persons and processes involved in the scenes analysed. Furthermore, they provide an additional perspective on the classroom situation observed, which might help students understand that classroom scenarios can be perceived and interpreted differently, depending on the individual observer. The task which asks students to explain what they have learned from the comparison between their own findings and the given solutions is intended to ensure that they check the suggested solutions as well as review their reflective competence displayed in their own solution. It can also replace feedback from a supervising instructor in cases in which this material is studied independently. 227 Teaching Classroom Discourse Competence through Lesson Observation The concluding assignment (see Fig. 2, task c) aims to develop a repertoire of action alternatives for the aspect of teaching behaviour analysed. The task might be either to collect ideas for alternative ways of organising a situation or to reflect on the (dis-)advantages or interdependencies of specific teaching decisions. Here again, the follow-up task requires students to compare their own findings with a given solution and point out the insights gained through this. The overall structure of these multi-step tasks is based on Wallace’s reflective practice model (Wallace 1991, von Bremen 2019: 248), which suggests that pre-service teachers can develop professional competence through a continuous process of applying received and experienced knowledge in teaching practice and through reflection on that experience. With each reflection leading to an increase in knowledge, each subsequent teaching practice will be informed by a corresponding growth in professional competence, leading to a perpetual cycle of action and reflection to build up knowledge. In the VirtU-learning modules the experience of students’ own teaching practice is replaced by the observation of teaching practice in video-taped EFL lessons. This transforms the process designed by Wallace to a less action-based level, yet makes it more timeand resource-efficient and allows for a shared set of knowledge to be acquired. TASK 2: DESCRIBING PICTURES a) Watch video 2 and describe what stands out to you. b) Analyse how the teacher introduces and instructs the describing of the pictures. Compare your findings with the suggested solutions for task 2b) and explain what you have learned from this comparison. c) Collect at least three additional methodic alternatives, with which the teacher could instruct and support the describing of the pictures. Compare your findings with the suggested solutions for task 2c) and explain what you have learned from this comparison. Fig. 2: Sample Task (translated; original language: German) In the following section, two examples of classroom scenarios used to teach specifics of classroom discourse in the VirtU-learning modules will be depicted. The first relates to the task design in Fig. 2 and deals with instructions a 228 Gabriele Blell / Friederike von Bremen teacher gives to initiate a speaking activity. The second example focuses on the communication strategies a teacher applies to moderate a class discussion. 5 Example 1: Giving Instructions (cf. Fig. 2) The 3-minute video clip chosen for this task shows a teacher instructing a class of 8 th graders on an ensuing speaking exercise, in which the pupils are expected to describe a self-chosen picture to their seatmate in class. The teacher illustrates his instructions with a projection of the pictures available for the description, including some vocabulary annotations as language support. In the learning module task, after the initial non-guided observation, the subsequent analysis focuses on how the teacher introduces and assigns the speaking exercise (see Fig. 2, task b). This video sequence was chosen for the analysis because the teacher’s instructions in this lesson exemplify how instructions can be clearly communicated while also imparting the additional knowledge needed to do the task. In this scene, the teacher not only takes on the role of instructor, but also presents himself as language model, turning the instruction into a form of teacher discourse that combines the management of the learning process with communication of knowledge (see transcript 1). Here, the teacher textualises specific knowledge while also contextualising it regarding the classroom situation, as well as marking specific words to help the pupils understand the task. Reflecting on the interdependencies between this way of drafting the in‐ structions and the flow of the learning process in that lesson can lead to a deeper understanding of how learning processes can be shaped: On the one hand, the instructions include exemplary formulations that create transparency about the planned learning activities. On the other hand, these instructions are combined with extensive vocabulary cues, which leads to a rather long teacher’s monologue. These vocabulary cues, however, represent a suitable form of language support as they help the pupils prepare for the description of the pictures. At the same time this presentation might preempt some of the pupils’ performances. Considering that the teacher tells pupils that the speaking activity is intended simply to warm-up their English-speaking skills while introducing the lesson topic, the aspect of performance achievement does not seem to be a priority in this scenario. Instead, all the language and content-related assistance the teacher gives pupils serves to ease them into the speaking activity. Though long, the teacher’s instructions help to avoid ambiguity, so that pupils do not need to ask for help later on. 229 Teaching Classroom Discourse Competence through Lesson Observation Transcript 1: Teacher’s Instructions, Task 2 (Duration: 3 Minutes) T: But at first, (1) just to get you into speaking English and also to get some impressions of what’s waiting for you, I brought a couple of pictures with me. OK? So, first have a look at the pictures. Look at them closely and then please take turns describing the pictures to your partner. Luckily you’re in even numbers so that should work fine. OK? Afterwards I’ll tell you what’s next. Alright, (2) [switches on the projection with the pictures] here you can see five different pictures, and for the ones that need some help, yeah up there once more there is some language support, so you know o. k. what phrases can I use? And then for the different pictures there are also some vocabulary given. OK. So, in case you might need some of these words. I’ll just skip through these pictures individually and then you get about three minutes, four minutes to talk about one, two pictures. OK? (3) So that’s the first one here and you can see the word “arch” is given, “skyscraper”, “stairway”, “riverbank” and also “townhall”. […] Maybe you want to describe that one to your partner afterwards. Then here a rather graphic picture: the words “plate” are given, or is given, the word “outline”, “trail” and “banner”. And here another one that might be a bit confusing at first, so look closely. There you can see a plane in it, there’s a wing, “dome”, “scaffolding”, some scaffolding, a “cage” and also “concrete”. Here: with some more people in it. Here the words “folding chair”, “stage”, “speaker”, “string bass” and “audience” might help you. And the last one: there’s a “rubber raft”, there are some “paddles”, “helmets”, “life jacket” and “rapids”. OK. So, (4) now take three to four minutes and describe one of these pictures to your partner. OK? And if you’re really fast you can also take a second one. Everyone needs to describe at least one picture. Ok. Off you go.“ When analysing the teacher’s monologue and comparing their findings to the suggested solutions, student teachers can develop sensitivity towards details in framing instructions. In this example, they can reconstruct how the teacher creates transparency about the upcoming tasks and their aim (cf. 1, in the transcript), how he presents the material and the method of language support (2), how he models the pronunciation of necessary vocabulary by reading aloud (3) and how he makes sure to give exact instructions for the task, including a description of the activity, the time frame and the social form, at the end of his monologue (4) even though he had already mentioned that earlier in his instructions. After the close analysis of this example, student teachers are asked in the learning module to describe a number of alternative ways to arrange the instructions they could give in a classroom situation like this (see Fig. 2, task c). This step enables them to enhance their own mental repertoire of learning management techniques, ensuring they do not feel obliged to imitate 230 Gabriele Blell / Friederike von Bremen the example observed and providing a variety of options which, as teachers, they can choose from and even combine. 6 Task Example 2: Guided Induction in a Classroom Discussion In contrast to example 1, which deals with a monologic form of classroom discourse, the task scenario in example 2 focuses on verbal interactions in a classroom discussion in which the teacher instructs pupils by means of guided induction, allowing them to work out the lesson’s objective on their own. In this lesson, a class of 12 th graders researches and discusses the differences between Germany and Great Britain in relation to how they remember their nation’s past. At the beginning, the teacher introduces the topic by presenting a photo of the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin and then guides the class through a 9-minute classroom discussion that enables pupils to formulate core statements and key questions. To this end, she asks five consecutive questions with interrogative particles (what, why, what, which, where) in the discussion. These questions prompt the pupils to give specific input, which, taken together, points to a key issue that pupils can formulate themselves. Through posing questions for contextualization, the teacher instructs the pupils to textualise necessary information. Besides asking the questions, the teacher also manages the discussion by choosing the order of pupils who speak, asking for clarification if needed and, in specific cases, by rephrasing input in a more precise way and by leading over to follow-up questions with further explanations. For visual support, the teacher employs a map of Berlin and, later on, a map of London via projection on the board. The challenge of moderating a classroom discussion for a guided induction lies in two areas. In the first place, teachers need the intellectual ability to plan prompts or questions that stimulate learners’ input and help them to recognize key issues. In the second place, teachers must be able to react spontaneously to all kinds of input from the class and to integrate it into a course of discussion that they have planned without informing their pupils of the plan. To help student teachers to understand how such a discussion can be managed, they are asked to work out the steps the teacher uses to guide that classroom conversation in the video. This task trains their ability to grasp conversation processes quickly and to notice how a teacher’s moderation techniques can influence the course of a discussion. The teaching example chosen also provides them with a model that they can use for orientation and individually adapt in their own classes later on. 231 Teaching Classroom Discourse Competence through Lesson Observation The discussion in the example (cf. transcript 2) can be subdivided into four steps, starting with a clarification of the Holocaust Memorial through the definition of its geographic setting and of the word “memorial”. In the second step, the teacher asks the class to elaborate why this memorial is located in Berlin. Then, a third step aims to specify its exact location in Germany’s capital. In the fourth step, the teacher presents a map of London and asks the pupils where it should lead them. After the first three steps, which focus on describing the remembrance of the past in Germany, the last step confronts the class with a sudden change of topic. The contrast serves to encourage the pupils to find a connection between these two seemingly unrelated topics. With the information they have at that point, they can work out key questions that need to be answered to build a satisfying connection between these topics (here: memorials in two capital cities representing the nations’ idea of their past), thus taking on responsibility in the creation of the following learning process. On the basis of this example, student teachers can gather practical knowledge about specific impulses and how they are formulated, as well as how the situation they are applied in can influence the course of classroom discussions. To deepen their understanding of how powerful guiding questions can be, students are also asked to reflect on their function and on the underlying principles of discourse that allow them to work in classroom discussions. Later, they are asked to formulate their own sequence of guiding questions to ensure that, in theory at least, they will be able to apply the knowledge gained from the analysis of the video clip. To help readers reconstruct the task presented, the abbreviated transcript (see transcript 2) of the classroom discussion attached here includes all the guiding questions used by the teacher (underlined and in bold letters) and essential input from pupils (in bold letters) with one contribution being rephrased for clarity by the teacher (underlined with a dotted line). In the learning modules, classroom discourse analysis tasks focus solely on the observation of video clips or audio files. This is to prepare the prospective EFL teachers for real-life classroom situations that take place in real time. For this reason, transcripts are provided only in the suggested solutions so as to help students understand details they might have overlooked when watching the video in the prior task. 232 Gabriele Blell / Friederike von Bremen Transcript 2: Excerpts from the Classroom Discussion, Example 2 T: […] what is in this word ‚memorial.’ What other English word you see in there? (…)? S3: Memory? T: Memory - And that means? S3: Erinnerung. T: Okay, so S1 said straight away: “This is in Berlin”. Why do you think it’s in Berlin? I mean, the events that happened, the events that this commemorates mostly didn’t happen in Berlin. Do you know where most of these events happened? […] S5: Maybe because Berlin is the capital city of Germany and there are the most people who can see this memorial. […] S6: Maybe for a symbolic reason, as Berlin is the most important city in Germany and the government and the parliament is in there so it’s like saying that for the government the Holocaust is really important. […] S2: I wouldn’t say it’s important for the government, but it’s something important to remember. And it’s something, the symbolic reason is also that you shouldn’t hide from your past, you shouldn’t ignore it. You should stand by it and regret those things that you did and do everything you can do to not let it happen again. And a way to do this is by spreading awareness […]. […] S7: I would say there are in Berlin very much more memorials, for example about the German history I would say. And so very many people come to Berlin to visit this sights for example or the memorials and so I would say it’s a good way if there’s a Holocaust memorial because very many people come because they would see some memorials. T: So, in other words, I’m trying to rephrase what you said: Berlin shows its history to visitors with its memorials. S7: Yes. […] T: [summing-up] Great, so what all of you have said is that people who come to Berlin and see this will think about how Germany deals with its past. Yeah? Okay? Do you guys know where this is in Berlin? What’s close to it? 233 Teaching Classroom Discourse Competence through Lesson Observation […] S2: Maybe the Parliament? T: Yeah. So, here’s a map of Berlin. [presents a map of Berlin] […] Here is the Reichstagsgebäude, which is where our Bundestag is. And down here we have the so-called Holocaust Memorial, which in German is Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas […] You could say it represents the heart of our democracy possibly. A very important place because that’s where our laws are made, right? In the Bundestag. That’s what this is within a radius of 700 meters around the Bundestag. [changes the projection to a map of another city] And here’s another city with the same radius around its parliament. Which city is it? S9: London. T: That’s London, exactly. We have the same radius: 700 metres. And so, what do you see are we gonna be doing? Where is this taking us? The answer is not in the map so much. It will be in the map, but it’s not there yet. S10: Maybe we will look for any other memorial places that are in these radius? […] S2: Maybe, how Britain deals with its past? […]. […] T: Okay, well that’s what we’re going to look at. (The full transcript can be found in the material on the VirtU-Website.) 7 Cultivating Discourse about Classroom Discourse The VirtU-learning modules focus on analysing and reflecting on observed EFL lessons and also aim to cultivate a mindful discourse about classroom situations. To help student teachers consider the teachers and learners they observe with empathy and understanding, the tasks focus on the possible reasons behind classroom decisions, their advantages and disadvantages, and their interdependencies. Based on the premise that learning processes are highly individual experiences, teaching decisions always come with advantages for some learners and disadvantages for others. In addition, when watching a lesson as an observer, it is not possible to fully take account of influential factors that the pupils and their teachers naturally consider in their interactions, such as personality traits, the social atmosphere in the classroom, external circumstances etc. For this reason, the learning module tasks never ask for a value judgment of 234 Gabriele Blell / Friederike von Bremen the perceived teaching or learning behaviour, but instead guide users to a reflective discussion of their own observations, ideas and assumptions. The suggested solutions support this approach by modelling a mindful discourse about classroom observations. With this, the tasks and solution examples (self-checks) are designed to highlight the individual potential of each EFL student teacher to learn through lesson reflection while at the same time raising awareness that the perspective as an observer in a classroom situation is necessarily limited. Bibliography Blell, G./ von Bremen, F. (2020). “Assessing Pre-Service Teachers’ Reflective Classroom Observation Competence in English Language Teaching.” In: Lenz, F./ Frobenius, M./ Klattenberg R. (Eds.), Classroom Observation. Researching Interaction in English Language Training. Berlin: Peter Lang, 225-244. von Bremen, F. (2019). “Videobasierte Lernmodule in der Englischdidaktik zur Förderung Reflektierter Handlungsfähigkeit.” In: Dannemann, S./ Gillen, J./ Krüger A./ von Roux, Y. (Eds.), Reflektierte Handlungsfähigkeit in der Lehrer*innenbildung. Leitbild, Konzepte und Projekte. Berlin: Logos, 245-257. Erath, K./ Prediger, S./ Quasthoff, U./ Heller, V. (2018). “Discourse Competence as Impor‐ tant Part of Academic Language Proficiency in Mathematics Classrooms: The Case of Explaining to Learn and Learning to Explain.” In: Educational Studies in Mathematics 99, 161-179. Grimm, N./ Meyer, M./ Volkmann, L. (2015). Teaching English. Tübingen: Narr. Hallet, W. (2009). “‘Ways of being in the world’. Diskursfähigkeit als Kompetenzziel und die Inhaltsorientierung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts.” In: Bausch, Karl-Richard/ Bur‐ witz-Melzer, Eva/ Königs, Frank/ Krumm, Hans-Jürgen (Eds.), Fremdsprachenunterricht im Spannungsfeld von Inhaltsorientierung und Kompetenzbestimmung. Tübingen: Narr, 68-78. Hallet, W. (2011). Lernen fördern. Englisch. Kompetenzorientierter Unterricht in der Sekun‐ darstufe I. Seelze: Klett-Kallmeyer. Hallet, W. (2008). “Diskursfähigkeit heute. Der Diskursbegriff in Piephos Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz und seine zeitgemäße Weiterentwicklung für die Fremd‐ sprachendidaktik.” In: Legutke, M. (Ed.), Kommunikative Kompetenz als fremdspra‐ chendidaktische Vision. Tübingen: Narr, 76-96. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quasthoff. U. (2011). “Diskurs- und Textfähigkeiten.” In: Hoffmann, L./ Leimbrink, K./ Quasthoff, U. (Eds.), Die Matrix der menschlichen Entwicklung. Berlin: de Gruyter, 210-251. 235 Teaching Classroom Discourse Competence through Lesson Observation VirtU-Website: virtu.engsem.uni-hannover.de Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training Foreign Language Teachers: A Reflective Approach. Cam‐ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse. Language in Action. New York: Routledge. 236 Gabriele Blell / Friederike von Bremen Enhancing EFL Classroom Discourse Competence at Pre-Service University Level ClaDis - A TEFL Course for Advanced Student Teachers Katrin Thomson This chapter reports on the theoretical underpinnings and conceptual framework of ClaDis - a TEFL course concept designed and implemented at university level to foster student teachers’ classroom discourse competence (CDC). Drawing on my conceptualization of CDC (in this volume) as well as important key concepts which presently inform language teacher education in Germany (including the construct of teachers’ professional knowledge, professional vision, classroom research and reflective practice), I will first elaborate on the conceptual pillars that form the foundation of ClaDis (i.e. knowledge—reflection—practice) and then show what specifically each of these pillars entails in terms of actual course work and TEFL students’ competence gains. Integrating selected student teacher samples, this chapter illustrates the potential of ClaDis to effectively and sustainably contribute to the development of CDC at pre-service university level. 1 Introduction Although the vital importance of effective classroom discourse (CD) and teacher talk in foreign language (FL) classrooms has been recognized as a major field of teachers’ professional competence and been given more attention in empirical research, it is quite astonishing that the development of classroom discourse competence (CDC) - or its initiation - still only plays a rather marginal role in pre-service EFL teacher education programs at university level. Compared to the number of TEFL courses focusing on the methodological and didactic issues of, for instance, teaching literature, culture or the language system, much less attention is generally given to CDC and the complex questions of how teachers can and should make professional use of the L2 (and other linguistic and discoursal resources) in ways that are conducive to FL learning. The notion 1 See for instance Walsh/ Li who see a strong “need to place an understanding of classroom discourse at the centre of English and/ or any second language teacher education or development programme” (2016: 486). 2 Due to the Corona pandemic and the necessary shift from in-house seminars to digitally taught online courses via ZOOM, a modified version of ClaDis was temporarily implemented between the summer term of 2020 and the winter term of 2021/ 2022. of teachers’ CDC is by no means to be confused with teachers’ general L2 proficiency. Rather, it denotes a complex professional competence that requires systematic development (see Thomson’s chapter on “Conceptualizing CDC” in this volume), which arguably ought to be initiated at pre-service stage. 1 It is this glaring disparity and my academic interest in EFL teacher education and CD(C) that prompted me to conceptualize a TEFL course in which classroom discourse, teacher talk and student teachers’ development of CDC take center stage: “The Way Teachers Talk: Developing Classroom Discourse Competence” (short form: ClaDis). In a continuous (and still on-going) process of critical reflection, evaluation and optimization, this course has evolved into a solid format which is carefully tailored to the needs of TEFL student teachers and takes account of the specific demands of the teaching profession. By first presenting the course’s theoretical underpinnings and conceptual framework and then providing insights into the practical course work, this paper aims to illustrate the course concepts’ potential to effectively and sustainably contribute to the development of CDC at pre-service university level. 2 The Course Design: Theoretical Underpinnings and Conceptual Framework of ClaDis 2.1 Course Context and Course Structure Originally designed as a course unit for the TEFL study program at the University of Wuppertal, the course in its earliest shape and form (ClaDis-BUW) was piloted in the academic year of 2015/ 2016. Since its implementation, the course concept has continously been refined and optimized to even more so meet the specific academic needs of advanced TEFL students. In its current format, it is being taught at the University of Augsburg (ClaDis-UniA), where it has become a regular element within the TEFL course program since 2018. 2 ClaDis-UniA is embedded in the Advanced Module, which is preceded by the Basic Module and Intermediate Module (see Fig. 1). 238 Katrin Thomson 3 Within one academic year, the percentages of those participating in ClaDis ‘out of interest’ has steadily increased from 7.7% in the winter term of 2018/ 19 to 8.3% in the summer term of 2019 to 16.7% in the winter term of 2019/ 20 (Student Evaluation of Educational Quality, Qualitätsagentur Universität Augsburg). Fig. 1: TEFL module structure at the University of Augsburg (Gymnasium) While each term approximately 60-70 students register for ClaDis - which is indicative not only of the course’s popularity among TEFL students but also its curricular justifiability -, roughly one third can only be admitted due to limited capacities. Thus, whether student teachers encounter ‘classroom discourse’ and hence are given the opportunity to develop CDC at pre-service level is in many cases (still) simply a matter of either coincidence and luck (Schröder 2010: 46) or students’ intrinsic motivation to attend more TEFL classes than they actually have to. In fact, since its second term at Augsburg University, ClaDis has seen a substantial increase in the numbers of those who are willing and able to take part in the course out of academic and professional interest and without intentions to obtain credit points. 3 As will be shown in more detail (see section 2.2), the internal structure of ClaDis is rather complex - and so are the topics dealt with in the course. The table below (Fig. 2), thus, can only provide a rough outline of the course program: 239 Enhancing EFL Classroom Discourse Competence at Pre-Service University Level Unit / No. of Ses‐ sions Focus (selection) Course Work & Teaching Approach A 2 Introduction classroom discourse, research methods, reflective practice Material and resources: video vignettes, lesson tran‐ scripts, tailor-made worksheets (for structured observation and analysis), tailor-made handouts (to accompany input/ post-ses‐ sion self-study phases) In-class activities (ungraded): video and transcript analysis, transcription, simulated microteaching, oral reflection on action Social forms & teaching methods: individual work, pair work, group work, whole-class discus‐ sions, teacher-led input phases implementation of different forms of cooperative learning in combination with CD-specific is‐ sues (e.g. fish bowl discussion, double circle, a combination of jigsaw puzzle and gallery walk) Course assignment (graded): a modified term paper format (take-home exam) B 5 (In)Effective Teacher Talk wait time, echoing, IRF, code-switching and enlightened monolingualism, TTT/ STT C 2 Creating Interactional Space for Learners interactionist approaches to SLA, ne‐ gotiation of meaning, speech mod‐ ification techniques, conversational scaffolding, ZPD D 2 Questioning Techniques types of questions, didactic functions, teacher questions and differentiation E 2 Error Correction (EC) & Correc‐ tive Feedback (CF) Techniques types of errors, SLA theories/ hy‐ potheses and the role of errors within these, EC/ CF techniques, error treatment in form-/ fluency-fo‐ cused phases, EC/ CF and differentia‐ tion F 1 Evaluation & Info on Course As‐ signment Fig. 2: Outline of the ClaDis course program 2.2 Underlying Principles and Rationale The course design of ClaDis is informed by various concepts and principles currently discussed in and/ or applied to FL teaching and teacher professionali‐ zation. This section aims to shed some light on the theoretical and conceptual backbone of ClaDis. (1.) The concepts of professional competence and professional knowledge: Ascribing CDC a pivotal role within the concept of FL teachers’ professional competence, ClaDis thus is inseparably intertwined with a competence-oriented approach to teacher education. Following Blömeke’s (2011: 13 ff.) and Blömeke et al.’s (2015: 6 ff.) conceptualizations, ‚professional competence‘ is understood 240 Katrin Thomson here as (a) a multi-dimensional construct, which encompasses cognitive (i.e. different forms of knowledge) and affective-motivational components (i.e. motivation, attitudes, beliefs, values), and (b) as a continuum and complex process in which student teachers’ individual ‘dispositions’ (i.e. knowledge, affect) provide the basis for competence development. (Prospective) Teachers’ individual dispositions are tapped in specific classroom situations and shape/ inform their performances while teaching (i.e. observable classroom actions). Drawing on these tenets, two aspects are particularly relevant with regard to the course design of ClaDis: (A) Considering that professional competence development rests to a signif‐ icant extent on a solid knowledge base, then students’ acquisition of professional knowledge is of paramount importance. ‘Knowledge’, however, is a complex, multi-faceted term in itself. Here, the definition of teachers’ professional knowledge (Professionswissen) chimes with current conceptualizations (e.g. Baumert/ Kunter 2006, Roters et al. 2011, both drawing on Shulman 1986, 1987), which distinguish between different types of knowledge: content knowledge (CK, Fachwissen), general pedagogical knowledge (GPK, allgemeines pädago‐ gisches Wissen) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK, fachdidaktisches Wissen). However, within this course concept considerable emphasis is placed upon acquiring theoretical CD knowledge, which is understood here as a CD-spe‐ cific knowledge repository of CDC that is informed by students’ CK, PCK and GPK (see Thomson’s chapter on “Conceptualizing CDC” in this volume). Putting strong emphasis on the acquisition of CD knowledge in ClaDis has two reasons: (i) Prior to attending this course, the vast majority of course participants has reportedly not encountered or ever dealt with CD-related issues, concepts or theories and, therefore, lacks the knowledge base needed to adequately describe, analyze, understand and reflect upon the interplay between classroom interaction, teacher talk and FL learning. The stance adopted here is in line with the basic assumption that “some dispositions have to be in place before situation-specific skills can be acquired” (Blömeke et al. 2015: 7). (ii) The notion of theoretical CD knowledge itself is a complex one as it does not only refer to what I call ‘surface CD knowledge’, but also to ‘deep CD knowledge’. Knowledge acquisition on both levels is considered here as a prerequisite and keystone for developing professional CDC (see section 2.2.1 for an elaboration of this point; also see Thomson’s chapter on “Conceptualizing CDC” in this volume). (B) If professional competence is seen as a continuum developing gradually over time, then ClaDis - with its overall objective to enhance CDC - can only serve as a starting point in this process, i.e. a first step and contribution at pre-service university level to initiate professionalization in this field. This 241 Enhancing EFL Classroom Discourse Competence at Pre-Service University Level course, then, certainly neither intends nor expects participants to fully master CDC. Instead, what it attempts to achieve is, among other course objectives, to foster student teachers’ awareness and understanding of classroom interactional dynamics, teachers’ crucial role in classroom discourse and the necessity to develop professional competence in this domain. In this sense, ClaDis is conceptualized as a catalyst aiming to encourage student teachers to become the driving forces in and of their own professionalization process, taking charge of furthering their CDC as they proceed from pre-service to in-service stages. (2.) The concepts of classroom research, teachers’ professional vision and reflective practice: In ClaDis, authentic classroom data is used to familiarize student teachers with the tools and research methods to systematically approach, describe, analyze and reflect upon CD and teacher talk in particular. Such resources primarily include authentic classroom data documented in lesson transcripts and video-recordings. Much has been written about the use of transcripts (e.g. Cullen 2001, Helmke et al. 2007) and video vignettes (e.g. Krammer/ Reusser 2005, Mann et al. 2019, Sonnleitner et al. 2018) in (FL) teacher education programs, and their potential for fostering (future) teachers’ professional vision and reflective competences is undeniable. Although some scholars emphasize the particular merits of video-recordings (e.g. Weger 2019: 20, Wipperfürth 2019: 112), course work in ClaDis also (and to the same extent) includes the analysis and discussion of transcripts in order to allow participants to explore and become aware of the specific characteristics of both tools. Not only are course participants required to learn about transcript conventions, they are also given the opportunity to put them to use when manually transcribing short video-recorded sequences either of their own or other teachers’ classroom practices. In ClaDis, the structured and systematic analysis of CD data, especially of those captured on video, also aims at fostering student teachers’ professional vision, i.e. their ability to first of all notice those elements in classroom discourse and teacher talk which are (or might be) relevant to students’ language learning in a specific classroom situation and, secondly, to describe, analyze and evaluate the classroom situations at hand - a complex procedure known as knowl‐ edge-based reasoning (Bechtel/ Mayer 2019: 52 f., Weger 2019: 16 f.). Tapping into their knowledge repositories, student teachers are then encouraged to discuss and/ or generate ‘informed proposals’ for teachers’ alternative classroom (discourse) actions. In the process of developing professional vision skills not only ‘knowledge’, again, plays a crucial role. ‘Reflection,’ too, is a key element closely linked to 242 Katrin Thomson this concept (Bechtel/ Mayer 2019: 53). Drawing on Schön’s notion of reflective practice, ClaDis incorporates reflective activities which enable course partici‐ pants to (further) develop their reflective competences. Using both ‘other-data’ (i.e. documented classroom practices of other teachers) and ‘self-data’ (i.e. recordings of student teachers’ own classroom actions) as the basis and target of their reflections, course participants are given ample opportunity to not only reflect on action (i.e. “retrospective [reflections]” which usually “take place once a lesson is over and the teacher engages in thinking back on lesson events already completed”, Murphy 2014: 616), but also for action (i.e. “proactive and future-oriented” reflections which enable teachers “to develop action plans for what to do and for what to do differently in the future”, ibid.). (3.) Integration of practical components: Practical components are also incorporated into the ClaDis course concept. While in most cases the transcripts and video vignettes used in ClaDis revolve around classroom practices of other teachers (‘other-data’), the course also provides valuable opportunities to analyze and reflect on student teachers’ own ‘classroom’ actions (‘self-data’). These practical components in ClaDis include video-recorded micro-teaching (MT) sequences and classroom simulations, which allow course participants to take on the teacher’s role and gain ‘practical experience’ within the seminar’s ‘safe’ campus-based classroom setting. In ClaDis, course participants conduct MT sequences in the sense of Klinzing’s (2002: 197 ff.) ‘peerteaching-microteaching’ (i.e. a form of MT in which a student teacher’s peers in a university seminar serve and act as school students). Within the context of ClaDis, this specific version is referred to as simulated MT, given that the intended situational classroom context can indeed only be simulated. But similar to the method’s traditional approach (see Havers/ Toepell 2002: 178 f.), student teachers plan and teach a short sequence representing a specific phase within a lesson (e.g. a lesson opening, a teacher-led class discussion or a teacher’s instruction-giving in a classroom management scenario). These simulated MT sequences are video-recorded, which allows teacher candidates, their fellow students and the TEFL educator to (re)watch, discuss and reflect upon them. In a “supportive environment” (Ralph 2014: 17) and without the performance pressure of ‘real-life classrooms’ and ‘real-life school students’, course participants can concentrate on the specific classroom discourse skill(s) they intend to practice and develop. ‘Micro-teachers’ later use their self-data for transcription, in-depth analysis, evaluation and self-reflection in written accounts (see section 2.3 below for a student sample). Hands-on activities in ClaDis are mandatory but ungraded assignments as they are seen as opportu‐ nities for learning and practice. 243 Enhancing EFL Classroom Discourse Competence at Pre-Service University Level In the actual ClaDis seminar, these theoretical and conceptual underpinnings, of course, do not manifest as separate and independent entities. Rather, these components or ‘pillars’ - in short: (1) knowledge, (2) practice, (3) reflection - are closely intertwined and relate to one another in a complex and dynamic interplay. 2.3 Enhancing CDC through Knowledge - Practice - Reflection 2.3.1 Zoom-in on ‘Knowledge’ Competence development in general is, as has been shown above, to a significant degree influenced by student teachers’ professional knowledge. The acquisition of theoretical CD knowledge is, therefore, a prerequisite for enhancing CDC. This rather broad term is futher divided into ‘surface’ and ‘deep’ CD knowledge, i.e. two interrelated dimensions of CD knowledge (see Fig. 3 below; also see Thomson’s chapter “Conceptualizing CDC” in this volume). Fig. 3: Conceptualization of theoretical CD knowledge ‘Surface CD knowledge’ refers to key terms, definitions and explanations of CD-related phenomena as well as pertinent research findings with regard to these. ‘Deep CD knowledge,’ on the other hand, relates to those underlying theories, constructs and conceptualizations which one needs to know about not only in order to arrive at a profound pedagogical understanding of these CD phenomena but also to be able to approach these phenomena in a more critical and differentiated way than they are occasionally dealt with in TEFL literature. Thus, for a high level of classroom discourse competence student teachers need to acquire CD knowledge in both domains, and they need to be able to understand their interrelatedness. What is more, it is - as the ‘iceberg 244 Katrin Thomson proportions’ in Fig. 3 imply - the theoretical knowledge ‘below the surface’ that is of key importance for the development of CDC in its professional sense. Using wait time as an example (also see Thomson 2020: 6 f.), the approach taken in ClaDis can be specified briefly in the following way: In a first step (surface level), course participants are introduced to various definitions of wait time I/ II, drawing, for instance, on those suggested by Rowe (1986) and Tobin (1987). Major empirical findings on teachers’ use of wait time are also considered and discussed (e.g. Thornbury 1996, Helmke et al. 2008). According to those research findings, teachers’ wait time I is often much too short, usually leading to either equally short, poor-quality answers on the part of learners or to no learner participation at all. With a certainly well-meant intention, TEFL literature usually advices (prospective) teachers to simply extend wait time (e.g. Walsh 2011: 34, 39). Student teachers find this advice quite plausible, but they usually do not recognize its inherent overgeneralization. While extending wait time might surely be effective in certain classroom situations, it may not be in others. In order to explore why that is, student teachers, thus, also need to address the theoretical issues lying beneath this surface level (deep CD knowledge). That is, they need to understand (a) why wait time has an impact on learners’ language production and participation in classroom discourse, and (b) why, when and how teachers should use wait time flexibly. So in a second step (deep level), course participants study Levelt’s (1989) model of speech production, and awareness is raised of the complex pre-articulatory processes (i.e. conceptualization, formulation, retrieval and encoding processes, monitoring etc.) taking place before learners are even able to verbally react to a teacher’s prompt or give an answer to a teacher’s question. The type of question, though, is yet another factor which teachers need to consider as far as wait time is concerned. Introducing course participants to Bloom’s taxonomy of higher-order and lower-order thinking skills, student teachers are enabled to realize that some questions (e.g. referential, convergent or divergent ones) are cognitively more demanding and require more complex processing than other question types (e.g. display, yes/ no or, to some extent, alternative questions). Depending on the question type, the content of the question and the pedagogic goal of a specific classroom situation, teachers need to adjust their wait time accordingly. Thus, teachers’ questioning techniques as well as their various didactic and communicative functions in specific stages of a lesson are also given much attention in ClaDis (see Fig. 2 above). 245 Enhancing EFL Classroom Discourse Competence at Pre-Service University Level 4 Both TEFL students attended ClaDis in the summer term of 2018. Prior to that they had not encountered or ever dealt with CD-specific issues and, thus, did not have any knowledge or experience in this area. The potential of ClaDis to foster CDC can be seen in the written accounts of their individual assignments. Both students were offered the opportunity to contribute to this volume’s online supplement. Full-length versions of their papers are available as downloads: www.meta.narr.de/ 9783823383741/ Zusatzmat erial.zip. 2.3.2 Zoom-in on ‘Practice’ In ClaDis, the application/ transfer of previously acquired knowledge to ‘prac‐ tice’ is intended to work in two ways: (1) Course participants are to tap and extend their cognitive resources on specific CD phenomena (e.g. teacher echoing, IRF structure, teacher code-switching, sign-posting, error correction techniques etc.) for knowledgeand theory-based descriptions, anal‐ yses and evaluations of teachers’ actual classroom actions (→ ‘practice’ in the sense of hands-on classroom discourse analysis). (2) Course participants are to use their knowledge of research tools productively to become more adept in working with these professionally (i.e. ethically and in line with academic research conventions). This includes both lesson recording and transcription (→ ‘practice’ in the sense of hands-on classroom research). Either way, ‘practical components’ in ClaDis are closely connected with the notion of classroom research and potentially also action research. As pointed out in 2.2, the incorporation of a variety of practical components in ClaDis provides student teachers with opportunities to not only deepen their CD knowledge but also link theoretical issues with actual teaching practices in hands-on activities. More specifically, in individual course assignments (which completely replace the traditional format of student presentation (Referat) in this course) partici‐ pants are, for instance, asked to self-select a video-recorded lesson sequence (sample 1a below) which they consider particularly noteworthy - either in a positive or negative sense - with regard to classroom discourse and the teacher’s classroom discourse actions (→ noticing; professional vision). Along the lines of knowledge-based reasoning they are then required to describe, analyze, evaluate and reflect upon the sequence at hand in terms of its effectiveness (reflection-on-action), and, depending on the data, to put forward ‘informed suggestions’ for possible alternative classroom actions. Alternatively, students may be asked to prepare, conduct and analyze a simulated MT sequence (sample 1b below). The two student samples serve to illustrate the scope and potential of such practical course work in ClaDis. 4 246 Katrin Thomson 5 The lesson was recorded within the context of the EMU project (Helmke et al. 2011), and the complete video has been made available online: URL: www.unterrichtsdiagno stik.info/ video/ (last accessed: 13.09.2021). 6 Learners had been instructed to prepare a written statement about criteria they personally find relevant when choosing a job. Reading out the statement was not supposed to take longer than 20 seconds. Student Sample 1a: Anna Bichlmaier’s focus on a teacher’s instruction-giving Anna chose to take a closer look at a video-recorded English lesson (9 th grade, German Realschule) that focuses on the topic of jobs. 5 From this 45-minute recording, she self-selected a sequence of six minutes in which the teacher instructs his learners to form a double circle in order to present short, written statements to each other, which they had prepared individually prior to that. 6 Although the EMU project’s online material also includes a transcript of the entire lesson, Anna was asked to transcribe this particular double circle-sequence by herself again and to include far more details (e.g. paralinguistic features, the teacher’s body language, learner turns not included in the original transcript), which would allow for a more fine-grained analysis. With her special focus on the teacher’s instruction-giving, Anna then detected features in the teacher’s classroom idiolect (such as his over-use of certain discourse markers and his frequent repetitions), which caused his instructions to be not only unstructured but also long-winded. She also managed to identify a substantial mismatch between the method’s actual didactic purpose (i.e. to maximize STT and to provide an opportunity for learners’ language use in communicative situations) on the one hand and the extremely small amount of STT in this sequence on the other hand. The fact that the teacher’s talking time is “more than twice as much as the individual STT during the double circle” (Bichlmaier, online supplement to this volume, 12) is not only an immediate consequence of his unstructured input but also has to be attributed to the teacher’s partially wrong implementation of the double circle. Drawing on her method knowledge (both theoretical and experiential), Anna was able to find out that the teacher’s use of the method disregards the key principles of cooperative learning in several ways: For one, he omits the share-phase - an essential component within the think-pair-share-structure - and asks his learners to return to their seats immediately after the last round of ‘statement reading’ was completed. For several reasons, all of which have to do with the teacher’s classroom actions, learners’ talking time and opportunities for (free) language use are not maximized but drastically minimized. Based on her findings and reflections, Anna was also able to put forward a number of constructive ideas for the teacher’s potentially more effective organization of classroom discourse and 247 Enhancing EFL Classroom Discourse Competence at Pre-Service University Level 7 While the cover image is certainly a good choice, the book itself would perhaps only be partly suitable for ELT contexts, considering its challenging style and experimentation with genre features. However, since the focus was only on the book cover and not on the novel itself, her choice was justified. classroom actions - all aiming to optimize or generate opportunities for learners’ language acquisition. Anna’s written account is indicative of her ability to identify ‘critical incidents’ in teacher talk, i.e. to notice those “lernrelevant[e] Unterrichts[dis‐ kurs]komponenten” (Weger 2019: 16, adapted KT) which either foster or hinder learners’ L2 development. Furthermore, her thorough analysis and critical reflections-on-action give further proof of Anna’s ability to transfer her knowl‐ edge to specific classroom situations and evaluate teacher actions against the backdrop of these specific contexts. Student Sample 1b: Chiara Ballmann-Noukra’s simulated MT sequence Chiara conducted a simulated MT sequence. Her MT sequence was preceded by a session on teachers’ questioning techniques. While both the lesson phase to be simulated (here: the beginning of a lesson in 12 th grade) and its didactic focus (here: introductory lesson to a new teaching unit in which learners are to read a full-length novel; lead-in with the help of the novel’s book cover) were predetermined by the TEFL educator, the selection of a suitable novel/ book cover as well as the decisions on the didactic/ methodological steps to be taken were entirely up to the teacher candidate. Chiara decided to use Claudia Rankine’s Citizen: An American Lyric (2014), which focuses on racial issues in the USA. 7 The book cover is a photograph of David Hammon’s 1993 artistic piece “In the Hood”. With the assignment’s particular aim to foster student teachers’ discourse skills in semi-plannable teacher-led classroom interaction (here in the sense of fragend-entwickelndes Unterrichtsgespräch), Chiara was asked to develop a lesson plan and prepare a structured lead-in phase in which she would be able to use a variety of questions related to the book cover and its implied topic. During the stage of lesson planning, (optional) expert support was offered in the form of face-to-face consultations with the teacher educator, taking place outside of class (an option however not chosen in this case). The sequence was video-recorded with two cameras capturing the classroom proceedings from different angles. In an ad hoc post-sequence feedback session, both Chiara and her ‘learners’/ peers shared their first impressions on various issues including, for instance, Chiara’s classroom performance, the structure of the sequence, the material used and the challenges of getting into character. An additional face-to-face feedback session with the TEFL educator outside of class was then 248 Katrin Thomson offered at a later stage, giving Chiara some time to watch the recording and reflect upon her performance. 2.3.3 Zoom-in on ‘Reflection’ Working with transcripts and video-recordings can promote student teachers’ reflective skills. In ClaDis, much of students’ reflective practice can be charac‐ terized as reflection-on-action and relates to recorded classroom practices of other teachers. While most ClaDis students find it comparatively easier to reflect on other teachers’ actions, focusing on ‘self ’ seems to be more challenging as this urges them to address their personal experiences, observations, beliefs and attitudes (Farrell 2019: 45). Picking up on Walsh and Mann’s concern that prospective teachers often do not know what ‘reflection’ actually is, how it is done and “what reflection might actually ‘look like’” (2015: 351, 360), I would argue that this is particularly true for ‘self-reflection’ and reflection-for-action. However, the ideas that student teachers generate in reflection-on-action activ‐ ities are often informed by or linked to their own experiences, beliefs and visions of possible/ alternative future actions. Hence, students’ reflections-on-action also have the potential to inform, shape or affect their own classroom performance later on, thus rendering the conceptual boundaries between reflection-on-action and reflection-for-action permeable. With the aim to foster students’ reflective competences, one component within these individual course assignments there‐ fore asks students to reflect on/ for action and on ‘other’/ ‘self ’, respectively, depending on the classroom data at hand. ClaDis, thus, offers valuable oppor‐ tunities to increase students’ awareness by directing their reflections especially towards ‘self ’ - not only with regard to students’ individual assignments, but also with regard to potential CDC gains within and through the course as such. Student Sample 2a: Anna Bichlmaier’s reflections Some of Anna’s self-reflections had a methodological focus. Reflecting on the merits and drawbacks of the research tools she used in the context of her assignment, Anna came to the conclusion that although watching the video-re‐ corded sequence yielded “some valuable insights”, it was the process of manually transcribing this sequence that really allowed for a fine-grained analysis, which eventually resulted in a “deeper understanding” of the interactional complexities within this sequence (Bichlmaier, online supplement to this volume, 15): The transcript helped me to notice a discourse pattern which I had not been aware of before. […] Even if it is quite time-consuming to transcribe a lesson sequence manually (i.e. without the help of transcription software), it is absolutely worth it because it promotes your competence to listen closely and to critically reflect upon teacher talk and 249 Enhancing EFL Classroom Discourse Competence at Pre-Service University Level classroom discourse in general. Furthermore, it raises your awareness towards different classroom discourse features, and creating a transcript makes you also think critically about your own classroom discourse competence and teacher talking habits. (ibid.). Shifting focus from reflecting on her activity as classroom researcher to reflecting on the teacher’s instruction-giving, Anna realized, among other things, that this particular skill does not develop solely through teachers’ practical experience (as she had initially assumed) but requires theoretical knowledge ideally acquired at pre-service stage. In her opinion, understanding the theoretical background “enables teachers to work much more specifically on their classroom discourse competence and to improve certain aspects if necessary” as they simply know “what to pay attention to” (ibid.: 14). Reporting on a self-organized school internship at a Bavarian Realschule which she did shortly after attending ClaDis, Anna realized how the acquisition of CD knowledge had then informed her approaches to lesson planning, instruc‐ tion-giving and teacher talk as such (ibid.). Her ability to transfer acquired theoretical knowledge to classroom practice also allowed her, she realized, to approach observations and evaluations of other teachers’ classroom actions more critically and on the basis of her professional CD knowledge: Knowing about the theoretical background not only helped me to work on my own classroom discourse competence, but it also made me look differently at other teachers’ instructions. During the internship, there were teachers who did a great job explaining to their students what they were supposed to do, and there were others who were not precise enough in their instructions. Consequently, they lost some students on the way who then came up with completely different solutions because they did not do the task as they were expected to. (ibid.: 14 f.) Perhaps implying a certain amount of initial skepticism towards ClaDis, Anna came to the conclusion that the seminar ‘The Way Teachers Talk: Developing Classroom Discourse Competence’ taught me otherwise. In the seminar, we looked at different features of classroom discourse and ways to analyze and improve teacher talk. By doing so, my awareness for this topic was raised and I realized that teachers, especially foreign language teachers, strongly guide and influence their students’ learning through the way they talk. (ibid.: 14) Student Sample 2b: Chiara Ballmann-Noukra’s reflections Motivated to find out why “the actual lesson slightly differed from [her] original plan” (Ballmann-Noukra, online supplement to this volume, 3), Chiara opted for a written account of her MT sequence in which she self-selected ‘critical’ lesson 250 Katrin Thomson scenarios for fine-grained transcription, in-depth analysis and self-reflection. Comparing the original plan to her actual ‘classroom’ performance, she identi‐ fied, for instance, a certain pattern in her teacher talk: “Instead of asking the one question I had prepared for a specific aspect, I split it up into many” (ibid.), thus confronting her ‘learners’ with long series of questions. These questions, in addition, also focused on slightly different aspects, which, she thinks, might have been rather confusing for her ‘learners’ - or potentially could have such an effect on ‘real’ learners (ibid.: 4). Reflecting on her verbal reactions to learner contributions, she realized that she “did not really know how to react to students’ contributions when those were actually quite valuable but did not fit to the ones” (ibid.: 5) she had anticipated when planning the sequence. Although she had shown some verbal appreciation through positive feedback words (such as “Exactly.”), she realized that she “did not really respond to the ideas as such” (ibid.: 6) but instead quickly nominated other speakers. Having identified this pattern, she pondered over the effects which her ‘minimalistic content feedback’ might have had or potentially could have on learners: “I can imagine that this was or could be rather disappointing for students and could perhaps demotivate them to further participate.” (ibid.). When she, retrospectively, links her feedback moves to her desire to “stick to [her] lesson plan” but at the same time generates ideas of what she could do differently in the future (“[…] I think I should try to include everyone, really respond to students’ ideas and become a bit more flexible.”, ibid.), she clearly demonstrates her ability to think along the lines of reflection-on-action-for-action. Strongly encouraged by the TEFL educator to also identify and appreciate the positive aspects of her MT performance, Chiara realized, among many other things, that she was quite effective in structuring the discourse through the use of discourse markers such as sign-posts and backtracking (ibid.: 5). Analyzing her lesson video and transcript, she also noticed a specific situation (i.e. one in which she provides learner support through lexical scaffolding) to be a potentially crucial one in terms of learners’ language acquisition and the furthering of classroom interaction. Her meta-reflections, both on the method of simulated micro-teaching and its use within the university context of ClaDis, are not only detailed but, from a TEFL educator’s point of view, also very insightful. Although Chiara does see some limitations to the method’s effectiveness (e.g. university students acting as 12 th -grade high school students), these are clearly outweighed by the numerous merits she mentions (ibid.: 6f.). Interestingly, Chiara - similar to Anna’s account above - also mentions that it was the process of manually transcribing her 251 Enhancing EFL Classroom Discourse Competence at Pre-Service University Level 8 So far, ClaDis-UniA has been evaluated by a total of 55 students after four consecutive terms (2018, 2018/ 19, 2019, 2019/ 20). The evaluation is carried out anonymously and with the help of the University’s standardized 30-item questionnaire in German. 22 items are closed ones and directly relate to the course, asking students to evaluate various aspects of it (e.g. course structure, learning gains, course instructor, in-class interaction, student participation, material etc.) with the help of a five-point rating scale that offers answer video-recorded sequence that eventually increased her awareness and deepened her understanding. Chiara’s written account is indicative of her ability to use CD-specific knowl‐ edge not only during the stage of lesson planning but also in the post-sequence analysis and reflection of her own classroom actions. When referring to certain discourse phenomena, her use of CD-specific meta-language is clear evidence of a knowledge-based approach to CD analysis and self-reflection. Although her focus is primarily on ‘self ’, she evaluates her classroom actions in relation to the broader pedagogical and didactic contexts and considers the effects of her interactional decisions on learners. The insights she gained, not only through video and transcript analyses but through reflections of the MT experience itself, enabled her to draw conclusions which could (ideally) inform and shape her future classroom practices. 3 Conclusion: Evaluation and Assessment This chapter has presented the theoretical underpinnings and conceptual framework of ClaDis - a TEFL course concept designed and implemented at university level to foster student teachers’ classroom discourse competence (CDC). Specifically, ClaDis is designed to raise student teachers’ awareness of the interactional complexities of classroom discourse, the interplay between teacher talk and students’ FL learning opportunities, and the vital necessity to develop CDC as a core competence of language teachers. ClaDis, furthermore, aims at student teachers’ acquisition of CD-specific knowledge (including meta-linguistic knowledge), which enables them to describe, analyze, evaluate and reflect upon classroom practices documented by means of video-recording and transcription. Finally, the ClaDis concept is geared towards students’ development of professional vision and aims at initiating processes of reflective practice both on action and for action. Two student samples have been included in this paper to illustrate ClaDis’ potential to initiate and contribute to the development of CDC at pre-service university level. Apart from students’ ungraded written analyses and (self-)reflections, their anonymous end-of-term evaluations 8 and graded course finals provide further 252 Katrin Thomson options ranging from ‘fully agree’ to ‘fully disagree’. In all four terms, ClaDis received highly favorable student evaluations. evidence of the concept’s effectiveness and potential to enhance CDC. However, still little is currently known about the actual processes of individual student teach‐ ers’ learning and competence development within the course (let alone beyond). Although their self-assessments of individual learning and competence gains in the course evaluations and course assignments are somewhat revealing, more accurate and reliable data are needed. Thus, intending to strengthen the course’s research dimension, the summative forms of evaluation used so far need to be coupled with research instruments allowing for continual formative assessment in order to gain deeper insights as to how ClaDis affects students’ CDC development. These will have to be operationalized to empirically explore, for instance, students’ cognitive resources available at the course onset, the factors involved in students’ ‘noticing’ in specific teaching contexts, the role of teacher personality, or the relation between TEFL students’ beliefs, values and attitudes towards FL teaching on the one hand and their perceptions, analyses and evaluations of teachers’ classroom actions on the other hand. To what extent ClaDis is capable of sustainably fostering students’ CDC would have to be examined in longitudinal studies tracing ClaDis students’ professionalization process as they proceed from pre-service stages of teacher education to in-service stages of further professional development. An ambitious research project of this type, however, would require resources and capacities significantly larger than those currently available. Bibliography Baumert, Jürgen/ Kunter, Mareike (2006). “Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften.” Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 9: 4, 469-520. Bechtel, Mark/ Mayer, Christoph O. (2019). “Professionelle Unterrichtswahrnehmung und Selbstreflexion schulen - ein Projekt in der Lehrer(innen)bildung im Fach Französisch.” Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 48: 1, 50-62. Blömeke, Sigrid (2011). “Teacher Education and Development Study: Learning to Teach (TEDS-LT) - Erfassung von Lehrerkompetenzen in gering strukturierten Domänen.” In: Sigrid Blömeke et al. (Eds.), Kompetenzen von Lehramtsstudierenden in gering strukturierten Domänen. Erste Ergebnisse aus TEDS-LT. Münster: Waxmann, 7-24. Blömeke, Sigrid et al. (2015). “Beyond Dichotomies: Competence Viewed as a Con‐ tinuum.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie 223: 1, 3-13. Cullen, Richard (2001). “The Use of Lesson Transcripts for Developing Teachers’ Class‐ room Language.” System 29, 27-43. 253 Enhancing EFL Classroom Discourse Competence at Pre-Service University Level Farrell, Thomas C. (2019). “Reflective Practice in L2 Teacher Education.” In: Walsh, Steve/ Mann, Steve (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher Education. Londin/ New York: Routledge, 38-51. Havers, Norbert/ Toepell, Susanne (2002). “Trainingsverfahren für die Lehrerausbildung im deutschen Sprachraum.” Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 48: 2, 174-193. Helmke, Andreas et al. (2011). “Unterrichtsvideo 1 (Realschule, 9. Klasse, Englisch.” Unterrichtsdiagnostik mit EMU: Evidenzbasierte Methoden der Unterrichtsdiagnostik. Version 7.0 (10.10.2018). Online. URL: www.unterrichtsdiagnostik.info/ video/ (last accessed: 31.10.2021). Helmke, Tuyet et al. (2008). “Die Videostudie des Englischunterrichts.“ In: DESI-Konsor‐ tium (Eds.), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie. Weinheim: Beltz, 345-363. Helmke, Andreas et al. (2007). “Die DESI-Videostudie. Unterrichtstranskripte für die Lehrerausbildung nutzen.” Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch 90, 37-45. Klinzing, Hans Gerhard (2002). “Wie effektiv ist Microteaching? Ein Überblick über fünfunddreißig Jahre Forschung.” Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 48: 2, 194-214. Krammer, Kathrin/ Reusser, Kurt (2005). “Unterrichtsvideos als Medium der Aus- und Weiterbildung von Lehrpersonen.” Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung 23: 1, 35-50. Levelt, Willem J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mann, Steve et al. (2019). Video in Language Teacher Education. British Council. Teaching English. ELT Research Papers. Warwick: The University of Warwick. Online. URL: iateflesolsig.files.wordpress.com/ 2019/ 04/ j201-elt-video-in-language-teacher-educa‐ tion-final_web.pdf (last accessed: 13.09.2021). Murphy, John M. (2014). “Reflective Teaching: Principles and Practices.” In: Celce-Murcia, Marianne et al. (Eds.), Teaching English as a Second and Foreign Language. 4 th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, 613-628. Ralph, Edwin G. (2014). “The Effectiveness of Microteaching: Five Years’ Findings.” International Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education 1: 7, 17-28. Roters, Bianca et al. (2011). “Professionelles Wissen von Studierenden des Lehramts Englisch.” In: Blömeke, Sigrid et al. (Eds.), Kompetenzen von Lehramtsstudierenden in gering strukturierten Domänen. Erste Ergebnisse aus TEDS-LT. Münster: Waxmann, 77-99. Rowe, Mary B. (1986). “Wait Time: Slowing Down May Be a Way of Speeding up! ” Journal of Teacher Education 37: 1, 43-50. Schröder, Konrad (2010). “Problematischer Input: Der Classroom Discourse wird im Englischunterricht häufig vernachlässigt.” Praxis Englisch 2, 46-48. Shulman, Lee S. (1986). “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching.” Educational Researcher 15: 2, 4-14. 254 Katrin Thomson Shulman, Lee S. (1987). “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform.” Harvard Educational Review 57: 1, 1-22. Sonnleitner, Magdalena et al. (Eds.) (2018). Video- und Audiografie von Unterricht in der LehrerInnenbildung. Opladen: UTB Budrich Verlag. Thomson, Katrin (2020). “‘Teacher Talk matters’: Lehrersprache im Englischunterricht lernförderlich einsetzen.” Praxis Fremdsprachenunterricht: Englisch 17: 4, 4-8. Thomson, Katrin (in this volume). “Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC): A Key Competence in Foreign Language Teaching.” In: Ibid. (Ed.), Classroom Discourse Competence: Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education. Tübingen: Narr. Thornbury, Scott (1996). “Teachers Research Teacher Talk.” ELT Journal 50: 4, 279-289. Tobin, Kenneth (1987). “The Role of Wait Time in Higher Cognitive Level Learning.” Review of Educational Research 57: 1, 69-95. Walsh, Steve (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse. Language in Action. London/ New York: Routledge. Walsh, Steve/ Li, Li (2016). “Classroom Talk, Interaction and Collaboration.” In: Hall, Graham (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching. New York: Routledge, 486-498. Walsh, Steve/ Mann, Steve (2015). “Doing Reflective Practice: A Data-Led Way Forward.” ELT Journal 69: 4, 351-632. Weger, Denis (2019). “Professional Vision - State of the art zum Konstrukt der professio‐ nellen Unterrichtswahrnehmung in der Lehrer(innen)bildung.” Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 48: 1, 14-31. Wipperfürth, Manuela (2019). “Oberflächliche Unterrichtsanalyse: Wie handlungslei‐ tendes Wissen in Unterrichtsnachbesprechungen verhandelbar wird.” Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 48: 1, 103-122. Student Contributors (Online Supplements to this Volume, www. narr.de): Ballmann-Noukra, Chiara (this volume, online). “Reflections on a Simulated Micro-Teaching Sequence: Introducing a Book by its Cover.” Online Supplement to: Thomson, Katrin (Ed.), Classroom Discourse Competence: Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education. Tübingen: Narr. Bichlmaier, Anna (this volume, online). “‘Now we do the following’ - Teachers’ Instruc‐ tion-Giving Competence as an Essential Part of Effective Classroom Management.” Online Supplement to: Thomson, Katrin (Ed.), Classroom Discourse Competence: Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education. Tübingen: Narr. 255 Enhancing EFL Classroom Discourse Competence at Pre-Service University Level Developing Novice Teachers’ Classroom Discourse Competence through Micro-Teaching and Reflective Practice Sandra Stadler-Heer This chapter describes a teacher training concept for the development of classroom discourse competence at the University of Erfurt in winter 2019/ 20. Students design and perform two micro-teaching (MT) units. One centers on storytelling or playing a game, the other on teaching vocabulary or practicing writing. The focus on specific speech events allows for a content-specific training of speech acts and respective turn management, topic management, non-verbal behaviour, breakdown repairs and interactive listening (cf. Galaczi/ Taylor 2018: 226f.). So far, reflective practice (RP) of MT or transcripts is mostly conducted individually and in written form (cf. Walsh/ Mann 2015: 351). The presented course format answers Walsh and Mann’s call for “more concrete descriptions of [how] RP” can take place (2015: 351). Here, MT units are video-taped and used for ad-hoc (self-)observation in oral peer-feedback phases along the lines of the stimulated recall method. Later the students summarize these oral reflections in a reflective journal. Varying tools are used to help guide the analysis of the different speech acts performed during the MT all aiming to foster “interactional micro-skills” (Hall/ Hellermann/ Pekarek-Doehler 2011: 5). The chapter concludes with a discussion of the limitations and suggestions for further developments. 1 Introduction The growing interest in research in the workings of L2 classroom interaction and development of teacher’s interactional competences in the L2 classroom is highlighted by the recent publication of an open-access special issue of Classroom Discourse focusing on “social interaction in the L2 classroom” and “perspectives for language teacher education” edited by Karen Glaser, Maxi Kupetz and Hi-Joung You (2019: editorial). In fact, Huth, Betz and Taleghani-Nikazm call for the “[r]ethinking of language teacher training” 1 Interestingly, a comparative case study by Grossman et al. (2009) of professional education across three different professions, the clergy, clinical psychology, and teaching, found that, while “teacher education provides multiple approximations of various aspects of preactive practice in teaching[, for example simulated lesson planning, unit planning, even planning for classroom management]”, novice teachers “encountered many fewer opportunities in the context of coursework to engage in approximations of interactive practice - such as how to respond to a student’s question or orchestrate a discussion - than did novices in clinical psychology” (2094f.). as existing “teaching methodology textbooks do not address the structural systematicities of real-time communication/ interaction and the highly con‐ text-dependent intricacies of communication” (2019: 104, cf. Perkins 2018: 6). However, as “many of the most difficult aspects of teaching lie in these interactive dimensions of practice, novice teachers may be losing valuable opportunities to hone their skills in these areas” if not given the chance to “enact” their role as teachers in these situations already in the university context (Grossman et al. 2009: 2095). 1 To address this “conceptual blind-spot in the profession” (Huth/ Betz/ Taleghani-Nikazm 2019: 105) and to overcome the divide between theory and practice that university-based teacher training is often accused of, a training concept built on micro-teaching (MT) and reflective practice (RP) was developed at the University of Erfurt to foster novice teachers’ classroom discourse competence (CDC) by practicing specific speech events, namely storytelling, game-based teaching, the teaching of vocabulary and the teaching of (writing) skills. Before describing the course concept in greater detail, recent research findings reporting the effectiveness of MT and RP for the development of novice teachers’ professional vision are briefly presented. 1.1 Fostering Professional Vision through Micro-Teaching (MT) MT is, like “model lessons, unit planning, simulations, role-plays and student teaching”, a concept of “approximation of practice” (Grossman et al. 2009: 2094) that allows for a complexity-reduced, yet structured engagement with an authentic teaching situation (cf. Jahn et al. 2014: 180). Teacher candidates plan and perform a ten-to-fifteen-minute excerpt of a lesson “before a small group of their peers” thereby practicing “specific instructional skills or tasks” (Ralph 2014: 17). The presented MT unit is “typically recorded for subsequent viewing, reflection, and evaluation by the teacher candidate, her/ his peers, and the course mentor” (ibid.). The effectiveness of MT, i.e. its ability to foster 258 Sandra Stadler-Heer 2 Seidel and Stürmer clarify that “[f]or teachers, professional vision is the ability to notice and interpret relevant features of classroom situations” (2014: 741). 3 Ralph (2014) provides an overview for the following areas: geriatric care, athletics/ sports coaching, psychological counseling, dietetic advising, and business/ com‐ merce communication and instruction. so-called professional vision 2 , is reported in numerous studies across various disciplines. 3 Ralph’s (2014) five-year-study summarizing the experiences of 134 teacher-candidates with MT confirms these findings for the teaching profession. In a comparative study training professional vision of classroom management using a video-based teacher training format, Hellermann, Gold and Holodinsky show “that analysing others and one’s own teaching was the most efficient training program for improving professional vision” compared to analysing only the videos of other teachers (2015: abstract). Moreover, “training by analysing videos of others resulted in learning effects as well” (ibid.). Recent research in science education was able to show that professional vision of primary science class novice teachers and in-service teachers “varies across two differing aspects of teaching, namely classroom management (general pedagogical-psychological) and learning support in science classrooms (con‐ tent-specific)” (Steffensky et al. 2015: 363-364). Interestingly, Steffensky et al.’s video-based study revealed a slightly higher relationship between professional vision of learning support (PVLS) and professional vision of classroom manage‐ ment (PVCM) than studies that assessed general pedagogical-psychological knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge with paper and pencil tests (cf. Steffensky et al. 2015: 364, Voss/ Kunter/ Baumert 2011). They argue that [p]aper-pencil tests of knowledge may reduce complexity and focus on only one specific dimension of teacher competence. In contrast, professional vision is usually assessed by using classroom videos as stimuli that transport complexity, but do not separate content-specific from noncontent-specific aspects that occur simultaneously in authentic classroom videos—even though items may focus on specific aspects. Noticing and interpreting complex classroom events thus might be more holistic than answering questions in a paper-pencil test, considering that other general abilities (e.g. working memory) or beliefs may also affect the two processes. (Steffensky et al. 2015: 364) Steffensky et al.’s (2015) empirical findings thus underpin Walsh und Mann’s claim that RP conducted in written form lead to a less holistic reflection of the complex classroom situation (2015: 351). Moreover, content-specific tools 259 Developing Novice Teachers’ Classroom Discourse Competence through MT and RP of reflection are necessary for the development of specific competencies, for example L2 CDC. 1.2 Reflective Practice (RP) The practice of reflection is arguably invaluable for the learning process of any profession yet an ambiguous exercise and difficult to pin down. Boud, Keogh, and Walker (1985: 3) define “[reflection as] a generic term for those intellectual and affective activities in which individuals engage to explore their experiences in order to lead to new understandings and appre‐ ciation.” Walsh and Mann draw on this particular definition of reflection because it underlines “the need for further development and emphasis on more concrete, evidence-based, and data-led approaches to reflection” (2015: 352). So far, RP has mostly been understood as “an individual rather than collaborative process”, which is “dominated by written forms of reflection” and “lacks appropriate tools” thus hindering the development of reflective, contextual and content-specific competences (cf. Walsh/ Mann 2015: 353). Walsh and Mann thus argue for a data-led, collaborative and evidence-based way forward to RP. For effective RP to take place, Walsh and Mann (2015) recommend a threefold approach: Firstly, real data, such as “recordings of a teaching session, a set of test results, feedback from a colleague who has observed a teaching session, a conversation with a group of students” (356) or short written evaluations should be used. Secondly, RP should be conducted in collaboration with other learners or practitioners, as this allows for “potentially richer articulation and analysis” through the act of “first articulat[ing] and then reformulate[ing] in a progression towards enhanced understanding” (ibid.). Third and last, using contextand content-specific tools, such as ad hoc self-observation, stimulated recall, critical incidents, use of portfolios, cooperative development, narrative enquiry, staffroom talk and critical friendships, supports a contextualised evaluation of social interaction (Walsh/ Mann 2015: 360). The present chapter not only describes a teacher training concept for the development and promotion of classroom discourse competence at the University of Erfurt but provides exemplary data of RP that may serve as a basis for further analysis. The presented course format answers Walsh and Mann’s call for “more concrete descriptions of [how] RP” is done in practice (2015: 351): MT units were video-taped and used for ad-hoc (self-)observation in oral peer-feedback phases along the lines of the stimulated recall method. In a second step, ad hoc (self-)observation and stimulated recall phases of two university seminars were audio-taped and transcribed for analysis using 260 Sandra Stadler-Heer 4 These written reflections on their own ad-hoc self-reflections after the MT unit in combination with the written notes of peers were meant as a means for students to communicate and portray their gained knowledge ideally leading to deeper learning and integration of gained experiences in own teaching habits (cf. Kolb 2014). No grades were linked with this assignment. MAXQDA-Software. Varying tools were used to help guide the analysis of the different speech acts performed during MT all aiming to foster “interactional micro-skills” (Hall, Hellermann and Pekarek-Doehler 2011: 5). At the end of term, the students summarized the earlier oral reflections in a reflective journal as part of the portfolio assessment. 4 1.3 Developing Novice Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) CDC - or (L2) interactional competence (IC) as it is more commonly termed (cf. Galaczi/ Taylor 2018) - is a construct particularly difficult to operationalise and, thus, to assess. Galaczi and Taylor point out that “visuals, such as table, line diagram, or flowchart” are not suitable for representing the construct “because these tend to suggest fixed hierarchical or causal relationships between elements, which are actually flexible, fluid, and subject to fuzzy boundaries” (Galaczi/ Taylor 2018: 226). Galaczi and Taylor thus chose “a more metaphorical visual representation (in the form of a tree)” (ibid.) in order to illustrate that on the macrolevel, IC is the ability to co-construct interaction in a purposeful and meaningful way, taking into account sociocultural and pragmatic dimensions of the speech situation and event. This ability is supported by the linguistic and other resources that speakers and listeners leverage at a microlevel of the interaction, namely, aspects of topic management, turn management, interactive listening, breakdown repair and non-verbal or visual behaviours.” (ibid., emphasis in original). 261 Developing Novice Teachers’ Classroom Discourse Competence through MT and RP Fig. 1: Defining interactional competence (Galaczi/ Taylor 2018: 227) Barraja-Rohan explains that “[i]nteractional features need to be taught in context through the use of recorded and transcribed naturally occurring con‐ versations” (2011: 481). Hence, conversation analysis “offers teachers insights 262 Sandra Stadler-Heer 5 Within the seminar, no transcripts but recorded materials only were used for analysis. Hence, the language the novice teachers used during the MT was analysed in action and directly after the performance of the MT unit during the ad-hoc self-reflection phase with the help of evaluative tools (cf. Appendix: SETT-framework and ‘tree model’). into this interactional machinery, and they can then transfer this knowledge to L2 students by making it explicit” (ibid.). 5 As a basis for developing novice teacher’s professional vision of interactional features in the L2 classroom, the course instructor used Walsh’s established Self Evaluation of Teacher Talk framework (SETT) (2006). The SETT framework is a tool specifically designed for observing and evaluating the fluidity of the second language classroom context, [portraying] the relationship between pedagogic goals and language use, [acknowledging] that meanings and actions are co-constructed through the interaction of participants, and [facilitating] the description of interactional features, especially of teacher language. (cf. Walsh 2006: 63) Unlike other competence frameworks, such as the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference), the SETT, due to the problems of operationalising interactional features as explained above, does not provide scales that would describe the stages of teacher’s development of CDC in beginner, intermediary, advanced, or expert. Walsh explains that “pedagogy and interaction come together in talk: peda‐ gogic goals are manifested in the talk-in-interaction. Using the term mode encompasses the interrelatedness of language use and teaching purpose” (2006: 62, emphasis in original). Modes are thus “L2 classroom microcontexts that ha[ve] clearly defined pedagogic goal[s] and distinctive interactional features determined largely by a teacher’s use of language. […] [A]s the focus of a lesson changes, interaction patterns and pedagogic goals change too” (ibid.: 62 f.). Choosing the SETT framework as one tool for analysing novice teachers’ talk in video-taped MT units meant to subscribe to Walsh’s premise that “under‐ standing and meaning are jointly constructed, but that the prime responsibility for their construction lies with the teacher” (ibid.: 63). Finally, content-specific tools of observation were put together and used to accompany the training of CDC (cf. Chapter 2.2 and Appendix). 263 Developing Novice Teachers’ Classroom Discourse Competence through MT and RP 6 In winter 2019/ 2020, two further Teaching English in action-courses were available for students to choose from, one focusing on reading, the other on intercultural learning. 2 Teaching English in Action The following course concept is based on MT and RP aiming to develop L2 CDC through teaching experiences in context-specific situations. 2.1 Major Learning Objectives The novice teachers… ■ plan, conduct and evaluate L2 English lessons according to curricular requirements in two areas (storytelling/ games, vocabulary/ writing). ■ gain practical experience in teaching L2 English by planning, conducting and evaluating MT units first in oral then in written form. ■ initiate, maintain and evaluate appropriate classroom discourse (i.e. know different classroom modes, respective vocabulary and classroom phrases to initiate, maintain and end respective phases of the lesson). ■ cooperatively evaluate and critically reflect on (observed) MT units in TEFL in relation to relevant theories and competences. ■ foster interaction in the primary English classroom (e.g. by using con‐ tent-specific classroom phrases for teaching games, skills and in story‐ telling). Teaching English in Action is one of two mandatory courses in the first semester of the Master of Education Programme for primary school teachers of English at the University of Erfurt. The presented course format provides the first practical experiences of English Language Teaching for most participants in their studies for becoming primary school teachers. Hence, special attention is paid to the development of novice teacher’s lesson planning and classroom discourse competences in two exemplary areas: a) storytelling or games and b) teaching vocabulary or teaching writing. 6 The focus on specific speech events allows for a content-specific training of speech acts and respective turn management, topic management, non-verbal behaviour, breakdown repairs and interactive listening (cf. Galaczi/ Taylor 2018: 226f.). The number of participants in the course is ideally kept between six to a maximum of eight participants so that each novice teacher is given the opportunity to conduct two MT units with different thematic foci and respective speech act-specificities. 264 Sandra Stadler-Heer 2.2 Outline of Course Content The course is structured in five parts (cf. Fig. 2): Part Session Content Learning/ Materials I 1 Overview and organization Input/ Video-Clips, guided ob‐ servation, ad-hoc (self-)reflec‐ tion 2 Criteria for lesson evaluation, classroom language Input/ Video-Clips, guided ob‐ servation, ad-hoc (self-)reflec‐ tion 3 Storytelling, Part I: criteria of selection, storybooks and learning Input 4 Storytelling, Part II: story‐ books and language, inter‐ action while storytelling to foster learning Input 5 Games: types and method‐ ology Input II 6-8 MT (story‐ telling or game) MT (story‐ telling or game) a) Video-clips of MT performed in class b) RP 1: Guided observation (Evaluation sheet 1) c) RP 2: Ad-hoc (self-)reflection III 9 Teaching writing Input 10 Spoken interaction in the classroom Input/ SETT-framework (2006) and ‘tree model’ (2018) IV 11-13 MT (focus on writing skills) MT (focus on writing skills) a) Video-clips of MT performed in class b) RP 1: Guided observation (Evaluation sheet 1 + 2) c) RP 2: Ad-hoc (self-)reflection V 14 Evaluating course book pack‐ ages Input 15 Evaluating course book pack‐ ages and round-up of course Fig. 2: Exemplary Course Schedule Teaching English in Action - Focus on Writing Part I. At the beginning of the course, 3-4 mostly teacher-led knowledge modules on lesson planning, classroom language, storytelling and games set the 265 Developing Novice Teachers’ Classroom Discourse Competence through MT and RP scene for teaching English as a foreign language. Drawing on Kolb’s dynamic ex‐ periential learning concept (cf. Kolb 2014, Fig. 3 below) students are confronted with concrete teaching situations though reflective observation of video-taped primary school English lessons from the first session of the course. Using multimedia presentation slides for visualisation, Initiation-Response-Feedback structures and assigned observation roles, the course instructor moderates the course participants’ first concrete experiences of language teaching from ini‐ tially grasping and discussing abstract criteria for appropriate topicor skill-spe‐ cific classroom language and methods of content-specific lesson planning to observing, detecting and applying these criteria in/ to concrete recordings of pre-selected classroom situations (cf. QUA-LiS NRW 2020) through guided observation. Thus, novice teachers form their first abstract conceptualisations about effective RP and CDC in this first part of the course. . Fig. 3: The Experiential Learning Cycle (adapted from Kolb 2014: 51) 266 Sandra Stadler-Heer Part II. Subsequently, three to four sessions follow in which students put their previous experiences and abstract conceptualisations into action. They perform and video-tape their first MT unit within the university seminar context, thus conducting their first “active [teaching] experimentation cf. Fig. 3) in the area of storytelling or teaching with games. This means that a 90-minute seminar session is divided in 4 phases, which repeatedly reinvoke the components of the experiential learning cycle (cf. ibid): ■ MT by novice teacher I: Roughly 20 minutes, including set-up/ transition phase. ■ RP 1: A roughly 10-minute ad-hoc (self-)observation phase, in which the video-taped MT unit is watched with the help of a content-specific evalua‐ tive feedback sheet (storytelling/ game), is followed by a roughly 20-minute oral peer feedback phase in which the MT is discussed with the help of notes previously taken on evaluative materials on storytelling/ games. ■ MT by novice teacher 2: cf. MT by novice teacher1. ■ RP2: cf. RP 1. Part III and IV focus on a specific skill or central aspect of second language learning, in this case, vocabulary, writing, reading or intercultural compe‐ tences. Other foci specific to the foreign language classroom are of course possible. Again, one to two teacher-led input sessions (Part III) including discussions of video-taped best practice examples are followed by three to four micro-teaching sessions focusing on one specific speech event (Part IV). Part IV is structured like Part II except that two evaluative feedback sheets are available, a content-specific sheet evaluating the teaching of a specific skill as well as the SETT framework (Walsh 2006) to evaluate the teacher language used (cf. Appendix). Therefore, the ad-hoc (self-)observation phases and subsequent peer feedback required initially more time and guidance by the instructor to cover all aspects. Part V. The final two sessions are used to evaluate course book packages in the form of a group puzzle. Novice teachers work on two to three different ministry-approved course book packages for teaching English at primary schools and prepare mini-presentations, e.g. on how a specific skill is trained in a pupil’s book. Ultimately, short online course surveys conducted live during the session via Moodle are used for immediate class discussion and reflection on major learnings. Competence assessment. Learning outcomes are assessed continuously over the course of the semester with the help of a portfolio (pass/ fail, no specific grade assigned). The course portfolio consists of four tasks: 267 Developing Novice Teachers’ Classroom Discourse Competence through MT and RP ■ Submit an analysis of the storybook or game you chose. ■ Submit two lesson plans (a) storytelling or game and b) vocabulary or writing lesson for a 45-minute lesson and highlight those ten minutes which you perform during your MT. ■ Submit the evaluation forms of three of your peers for one MT unit. ■ Submit a written evaluation (two to three pages) critically summarizing and assessing one of your MT with the help of provided peer feedback forms. 3 Conclusion “[T]he fact that language learning not only occurs through interaction, but that language use is fundamentally rooted in social interaction” (Glaser/ Kupetz/ You 2019: 6, emphasis in original) is true for both language learners and novice teachers who are performing content-specific MT units. The presented course accompanies novice teachers in their primary steps into teaching L2 Enlish by means of training them in content-specific classroom language, by selecting relevant topics and letting them plan, perform and thus experience their lessons in action. 3.1 Course Evaluation A content analysis of the transcribed ad-hoc (self-)reflections shows that over the course of the semester, course participants did indeed reflect ever deeper on language teaching processes and on the language they used to get their pedagogical goals across. The oral peer-feedback phases were conducted collaboratively in the course participants’ mother tongue, i.e. German, as opposed to the MT units, which taught and were taught (in) the L2, i.e. English. Switching to the mother tongue in the reflection phase after the MT meant that students’ reactions to the just made or whitnessed teaching experience were immediate and unfiltered. Responding to and experiencing themselves the different teaching modes, limitations in the reflection due to “institutional constraints” (Walsh/ Mann 2015: 351) could be kept to a minimum. The reflection phases were however not without difficulties. Interestingly, the different interactional features of Walsh’s SETT framework (2006) had to be explained more frequently to the participants than the guidelines for teaching specific skills, games or for storytelling. One reason for this was the lack of background knowledge in conversation analysis and linguistic terminology. Hence, introducing the analysis of classroom discourse in the ad-hoc (self-)reflection phase in the second half of the course (cf. Part III and IV) meant an extra effort on both the course instructor’s and the participants’ 268 Sandra Stadler-Heer side. As neither Walsh’s SETT framework (2006) nor Galaczi and Taylor’s “tree model” (2018) are operationalised for the stated reasons, students voiced difficulties in the initial stages of analysing their fellow novice teachers’ speech as well as when identifying proficiency levels. Most course participants had not received training in conversation analysis in their previous studies, thus an extensive introduction of terminology was necessary. Practical examples of definitions, interactional features and pedagogical goals helped address issues of applying terminology to conducted MT units. Short revision sections at the beginning of each session helped to refresh required terminology. Moreover, video-taped lessons of an experienced in-service teacher, initially watched to introduce basics of lesson planning and classroom language in Part I of the course, were watched again with a special focus on classroom discourse competence to provide further visual material that could accompany the verbal explanations and examples of interactional features provided by the instructor. Ad-hoc oral (self-)reflection phases initially took up about 9 minutes expanding to up to 23 minutes toward the end of term showing the great variance and depth of discussion taking place. As Seidel and Stürmer explain: Teachers’ reasoning about video-based examples of classroom practice serves as an indicator for the quality of teacher knowledge. High reasoning abilities indicate differentiated and integrated knowledge with a flexible application to various teaching situations. Low reasoning abilities on the other hand indicate fragmented and rather sparse knowledge structures without the ability to use this knowledge flexibly. (2014: 740) Eventually, efforts on both sides paid off as students mentioned in course evaluations that they were now more aware of why certain interactions were efficient and why others were not. In their final portfolio tasks, students point to the benefits of discussing their classroom language with peers. Additionally, they reported that the experience of MT had helped them to better understand classroom discourse competence and how to teach a foreign language in school. Therefore, the combination of practical MT units alongside theoretical tools for observation and reflection did arguably lead to a deepened critical reflection of the observed processes. It should be noted that the teaching of CDC alongside an introduction how to teach skills requires a mastery of CDC of course instructors themselves. This particular course instructor is still working on extending her wait-time for student answers, for instance. Given the brevity of a semester and the amount of content that needs to be covered, a full mastery of CDC on students’ side is not to be expected. Drawing on the jargon of competence frameworks: On their path to becoming CDC 269 Developing Novice Teachers’ Classroom Discourse Competence through MT and RP experts, novice teachers arguably remain on the beginners or intermediate level in their university studies, move to the advanced level in their teacher training and become specialists in CDC only as in-service teachers if provided with specific and continuous professional development. 3.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Developments The hypothesis of a CDC learning curve, of course, needs to be tested in future empirical research and with the help of an operationalised competence framework of classroom discourse competence as in preparation by Galaczi and Taylor (2018: 232). The following components are arguably crucial in developing CDC: ■ amount of exposure to diverse teaching situations (own and observed), ■ amount of pre-knowledge of discourse/ conversation analysis, ■ amount of exposure to theoretical concept, ■ “opportunities for participants to grapple with new and existing beliefs and perceptions through oral discussions and written reflection” (Kolano/ Childers-McKee 2016: 367). Grossman (2005) points out that an analysis of (novice) teacher’s perceptions of their learnings in a single course and by the course instructors themselves is problematic. Hence, despite the presented course concept being positively evaluated in two courses, the number of participants (n=14) is too small to speak of a generalisable effectiveness of the presented format. A follow-up study could conduct systematic analyses of all parallel courses including detailed descriptions of how transcripts and recordings were analysed as well as publish further data to help provide more insight in context-specific reflective practice. Additionally, future studies “would benefit from a comparative design in which a diverse group of teachers engage […] in a variety of [university] settings over a longer period of time in order to better describe the ways that teachers’ perception of their […] experiences may fluctuate in different […] sites.” (Kolano/ Childers-McKee 2016: 366). In order to trace language teachers’ development of CDC, i.e. from initial teacher training to in-service teaching, diachoronic approaches that monitor and record instances of classroom interac‐ tion as well as subsequent RPs over several months or years would provide more detailed insights into the development of interactional competences among language teachers. This type of research has recently gained more attention, yet studies documenting the emergence and diversification of a teacher’s classroom language and competence to foster social interaction are scarce (cf. Pekarek Doehler/ Wagner/ González-Martínez (eds.), 2018). 270 Sandra Stadler-Heer Ultimately, the presented course concept intends to prepare language teachers for “interactional competence-based instruction” (Huth/ Betz/ Tale‐ ghani-Nikazm 2019: 116) thus fostering an understanding that (language) learning and learner and teacher development “entai[l] an [ever] increas[ing] ability for context-sensitive conduct based on speakers’ progressive diversifica‐ tion of methods for action” (Wagner/ Pekarek Doehler/ González-Martínez 2018: 69). Appendix All materials are available as downloads from the publisher’s website. ■ Evaluative feedback sheet for a) exemplary content specific MT unit (skill: writing) and b) teacher language (SETT-framework). ■ Full Transcript of exemplary ad-hoc self reflection phase (in German). Acknowledgement The design of course concepts is never a lonely process. I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Petra Kirchhoff for initiating and supporting the transformation of an earlier course concept based on MT and RP, and Diana Nathanael and Stephanie Karl for their feedback on ongoing course developments. Bibliography Boud, D./ Keogh, R./ Walker, D. (1985). “‘What is Reflection in Learning? ’” In: Boud, D./ Keogh, R./ Walker, D. (Eds.), Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page Ltd. Galaczi, Evelina/ Taylor, Lynda (2018). “Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions.” Language Assessment Quarterly 15: 3, 219-236. Grossman, P. (2005). “Research on Pedagogical Approaches in Teacher Education.” In: Cochran-Smith, M./ K. Zeichner, K. (Eds.), Studying Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 425-476. Grossman, P. et al. (2009). “Teaching Practice: A Cross-Professional Perspective.” Teachers College Record 111: 9, 2055-2100. Hall, Joan Kelly/ Hellermann, John/ Pekarek Doehler, Simona (Eds.) (2011). L2 Interactional Competence and Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hellermann, Christina/ Gold, Bernadette/ Holodynski, Manfred (2015). “Förderung von Klassenführungsfähigkeiten im Lehramtsstudium. Die Wirkung der Analyse eigener 271 Developing Novice Teachers’ Classroom Discourse Competence through MT and RP und fremder Unterrichtsvideos auf das strategische Wissen und die professionelle Wahrnehmung.“ Zeitschrift für Engwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie 47: 2, 97-109. Huth, Thorsten/ Betz, Emma/ Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen (2019). “Rethinking Language Teacher Training: Steps for Making Talk-in-Interaction Accessible to Practitioners.” Classroom Discourse 10: 1, 99-122. Jahn, G./ Stürmer, K./ Seidel, T./ Prenzel, M. (2014). “Professionelle Unterrichtswahrneh‐ mung von Lehramtsstudierenden - Eine Scaling-up Studie des Observe-Projekts.” Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie 46: 4, 171-180. Kolano, L./ Childers-McKee, C. (2015). “Designing Authentic Field-Based Experiences with Immigrant Students through One University and Urban School Partnership.” In: Polly, D./ Spooner, M./ Heafner, T./ Chapman, M. (Eds.), Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD). Pennsylvania: IGI-Global, 84-97. Kolb, D. (2014). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Develop‐ ment. 2 nd ed. New Jersey: Pearson. Neuweg, G. H. (2005). “Emergenzbedingungen pädagogischer Könnerschaft.” In: Heid, H./ Harteis, C. (Eds.), Verwertbarkeit: Ein Qualitätskriterium (erziehungs-)wissenschaft‐ lichen Wissens? Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 205-228. Pekarek Doehler, S./ Wagner, J./ González-Martínez, E. (Eds.) (2018). Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction: Current Developments and Methodological Challenges. London: Palgrave. Perkins, Lauren (2018). “Developing Classroom Interactional Competence through a Teacher Development Workshop.” Master Thesis. British Council. QUAL-LiS NRW, Qualitäts- und UnterstützungsAgentur - Landesinstitut für Schule Nordrhein-Westfalen (2020). “Unterrichtsvideos.” Online. URL: www.schulentwicklun g.nrw.de/ cms/ angebote/ egs/ unterrichtsvideos/ index.html (last accessed: 26.08.2021). Ralph, Edwin P. (2014). “The Effectiveness of Microteaching: Five Years’ Findings.” International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education 1: 7, 17-28. Seidel, Tina/ Stürmer, Kathleen (2014). “Modeling and Measuring the Structure of Profes‐ sional Vision in Preservice Teachers.” American Educational Research Journal 51: 4, 739-771. Steffensky, Mirjam et al. (2015). “Professional Vision of Classroom Management and Learning Support in Science Classrooms - Does Professional Vision Differ Across General and Content-Specific Classroom Interactions? ” International Journal of Sci‐ ence and Mathematics Education 13, 351-368. Voss, T./ Kunter, M./ Baumert, J. (2011). “Assessing Teacher Candidates’ General Pedagog‐ ical/ Psychological Knowledge: Test Construction and Validation.” Journal of Educa‐ tional Psychology 103, 952-969. Walsh, Steve (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. London: Routledge. 272 Sandra Stadler-Heer Walsh, Steve/ Mann, Steve (2015). “Doing Reflective Practice: A Data-Led Way Forward.” English Language Teaching Journal 69: 4, 351-362. Wagner, J./ Pekarek Doehler, S./ González-Martínez, E. (2018). “Longitudinal Research on the Organization of Social Interaction: Current Developments and Methodological Challenges.” In: Pekarek Doehler, S./ Wagner, J./ González-Martínez, E. (Eds.), 3-35. 273 Developing Novice Teachers’ Classroom Discourse Competence through MT and RP Contributors Jochen Baier Jochen Baier is Professor of English Literature, Culture and Didactics at Univer‐ sity College of Education Schwäbisch-Gmünd. His current research interests are in the areas of media literacy, body language in the (virtual) foreign language classroom and the relevance of national images for intercultural learning. Chiara Ballmann-Noukra Chiara Ballmann-Noukra studied English and Spanish for Gymnasiallehramt at Augsburg University. She spent one year abroad and taught German as a foreign language at a secondary school in England. Chiara graduated from Augsburg University in 2020 and joined the Department of Spanish and French Literature and Culture at University of Düsseldorf, where she started to work on her PhD project on Indigenism in Guatemala. Anna Bichlmaier Anna Bichlmaier studied English and French for Realschullehramt at Augsburg University. During her semester abroad, she worked as teaching assistant at secondary schools in France, where she taught German as a foreign language. In 2016, Anna joined the Chair of French Linguistics as student assistant, and in 2018 she became student assistant at the Chair of TEFL, where she was involved in a project on classroom discourse competences in ELT (Dr. Katrin Thomson). Anna graduated from Augsburg University in 2019 and started her two-year teacher training which she will complete in 2022. Gabriele Blell Dr. Gabriele Blell is a professor at the University of Hanover, Germany and head of the English Language Teaching Unit. Her main research interests are interand transcultural learning, literature and culture teaching, multiliteracies (mul‐ tilingualism and multiculturalism), and diversity-sensitive teacher education. Furthermore, she has been involved in cross-curricular projects on teaching film in lower and upper school faculty. She has recently published a co-authored volume (with J. Oldendörp, 2021) on inclusive English language teaching, and an article on multilingual films in foreign language classrooms (2020). Emily Brehm Emily Brehm is a master student of teaching EFL and German at primary level at University College of Education Schwäbisch-Gmünd. She has been a student tutor at the English department since 2019 and is currently involved in the “Imaginary Journeys” project. Charlott Falkenhagen Dr. Charlott Falkenhagen is head of the Music Department for Primary School Education and senior lecturer at the Martin-Luther-University in Halle/ Saale. She completed her PhD thesis ( Jena) on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in music education in 2014. Furthermore, she has contributed to books and has published various teaching units and articles especially on CLIL Music and Music in the EFL Classroom. Ralf Gießler Dr. Ralf Gießler is a senior lecturer for TEFL at Wuppertal University. Before that, he taught English at secondary schools and was involved in projects for curriculum development and language assessment at a statewide institute in Soest, Germany. His research interests cover vocabulary acquisition, digital tools for EFL writing assessment and the use of video in teacher education. Karen Glaser Karen Glaser is Assistant Professor of Teaching English as a Foreign Language with a focus on Young Learners at Leipzig University. She received her PhD in Applied English Linguistics from Leuphana University Lüneburg and holds an MA in TESL from Kent State University, Ohio/ USA, and an MA in English Linguistics from TU Dresden, Germany. Before joining Leipzig University, she worked at University of Potsdam, TU Chemnitz, TU Dresden, and Kent State University. Her research interests include classroom interaction, foreign language pragmatics, literacy development, and the professionalization of language teachers, including digital competences. She authored the monograph Inductive or Deductive? The Impact of Method of Instruction on the Acquisition of Pragmatic Competence in EFL, and co-edited a German volume on the teaching and learning of pragmatic skills in school contexts (with Holger Limberg). Jon Haines Jon Haines is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences at Newcastle University, and is Co-Director of the Secondary PGCE initial teacher programme. Jon has had a long-standing interest in the practical application of technology in the classroom to support pupil and teacher learning, and - together with his colleague Paul Miller - founded VEO in 2013. 276 Contributors Olaf Jäkel Olaf Jäkel is Professor of English Linguistics and TEFL at Europa University Flensburg, Germany, where he is also head of the English Department. He has published numerous articles in English and German, in particular on issues in cognitive linguistics, metaphor theory, semantics, classroom discourse and TEFL. His book publications include The Flensburg English Classroom Corpus FLECC (2010) and Unterrichtsforschung im Fach Englisch (with Holger Limberg, 2016). René Koglbauer René Koglbauer is Professor of Professional Learning and Leadership at New‐ castle University and is University Dean for Lifelong Learning and Professional Practice. René has extensive experience in teaching languages in secondary schools, further and higher education. As a teacher educator, his scholarly work focuses on educational leadership, professional learning and language policy. René is a former president of the Association for Language Learning and chairs its management board. He is also a member of the University Council for Modern Languages and a member of the Language Policy Special Interest Group at the International Deutschlehrerinnen und Deutschlehrer-Verband (IDV). Holger Limberg Holger Limberg is Professor for the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) at the European University of Flensburg. His academic work focuses on classroom discourse in primary and secondary school English classrooms and on the teaching of pragmatics. Most recently, he published The Primary English Classroom Corpus (PECC), a two-volume collection of lesson transcripts from primary school English classes in Germany (www.uni-flensburg.de/ pecc). His research in the field of foreign language pragmatics deals with the teaching of speech acts and politeness, and the analysis of pragmatic input in German EFL textbooks. In 2020, he published a co-edited volume on pragmatic competences in foreign language teaching with a comprehensive introduction into this research field (Limberg/ Glaser 2020). Anna Rosen Anna Rosen works as a researcher and study advisor at the University of Freiburg, both at the English Department and the School of Education. After completing her PhD in English linguistics at the University of Bamberg in 2011, she underwent teacher training and became a fully qualified secondary school teacher for French and English. Her main research interests cover aspects of both her background as a linguist and as a teacher and include language variation and change, spoken learner language and corpus linguistics and the 277 Contributors classroom. She was awarded the 2017 State Teaching Prize (Lehrpreis des Landes Baden-Württemberg) for her seminar “Applying Linguistics in the Foreign Language Classroom”. Katalin Schober Katalin Schober holds a PhD in English literature and culture from Hum‐ boldt-University Berlin. She is a junior professor of Language Education at the University of Konstanz and at the Binational School of Education. Her research areas include literary, media, and cultural literacies with a focus on questions of diversity and transculturality. She conducts her research in the context of the “Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung” in Germany, a joint initiative of the Federal Government and the Länder, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, which aims to improve the quality of teacher training. Paul Seedhouse Paul Seedhouse is Professor of Educational and Applied Linguistics at Newcastle University. As an expert in task-based language learning, Paul led the develop‐ ment of several innovative language learning tools, e.g. the Digital Kitchen and Linguacuisine (linguacuisine.com). Paul’s most recently edited book Video Enhanced Observation for Language Teaching: Reflection and Professional Devel‐ opment was published by Bloomsbury in autumn 2021. Sieglinde Spath Sieglinde Spath works as a research assistant and project coordinator at the University of Jena. She has taught various courses at the department of English and American Studies concerning issues such as the assessment and evaluation of learning outcomes, teaching grammar and vocab, and CLIL. Currently, she coordinates an internationalization projects at the Center for Teacher Training and Educational Research at Jena University. Her research interests include content and language integrated learning (CLIL), educational objectives across subject boundaries as well as the development of reflective competence of teacher trainees in digital and hybrid learning environments. Sandra Stadler-Heer Sandra Stadler-Heer, PhD, is senior lecturer of TESOL at the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Germany. She is co-convenor of the international AILA Literature in Language Learning and Teaching Research Network and co-editor of Taking Literature and Language Learning Online (Bloomsbury, forthcoming). Her research interests are anglophone literatures and the development of pro‐ fessional competences of foreign language teachers. She was awarded prizes in teaching and research excellence in 2012, 2016 and 2020. Her latest publications 278 Contributors present new insights in fostering technological pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service foreign language teachers through distance education. Katrin Thomson Katrin Thomson, PhD, is post-doc TEFL researcher at Augsburg University (2017-) and has recently held the position of Interim Professor of TEFL at Regensburg University (3/ 2020-9/ 2021). She is a fully qualified secondary school teacher for English and German and worked as TEFL researcher and teacher educator at Jena University, Münster University and Wuppertal University before she joined the Chair of TEFL in Augsburg. Her current research projects focus on pre-service EFL teacher education with specializations in teachers’ classroom discourse competence (CDC) and ELT-specific approaches to class‐ room management discourse. Her most recent publications include articles on classroom discourse (2020) and effective teacher talk (2020). Friederike von Bremen Friederike von Bremen teaches English, Music and Art at a grammar school in Hanover, Germany, and works as an author of English textbooks at the Cornelsen Verlag. She regularly teaches courses in EFL-teacher training at the Department of English Didactics at the Leibniz University of Hanover. There she also coordinated a video project in which English lessons were taped and published for EFL-teacher training (VirtU). In her current research she focuses on the development of reflexivity in teacher training and on hybrid teaching scenarios. 279 Contributors Studies in English Language Teaching Augsburger Studien zur Englischdidaktik Herausgegeben von Engelbert Thaler Aktuelle Bände: Band 1 Engelbert Thaler (ed.) Shorties Flash Fiction in English Language Teaching 2016, 203 Seiten €[D] 39,- ISBN 978-3-8233-6997-4 Band 2 Engelbert Thaler (ed.) Short Films in Language Teaching 2017, 191 Seiten €[D] 39,- ISBN 978-3-8233-8098-6 Band 3 Stephanie Schaidt Ugandan Children’s Literature and Its Implications for Cultural and Global Learning in TEFL An Extensive Reading Project Study 2018, 517 Seiten €[D] 78,- ISBN 978-3-8233-8168-6 Band 4 Engelbert Thaler (ed.) Singer-Songwriters Music and Poetry in Language Teaching 2018, 209 Seiten €[D] 39,- ISBN 978-3-8233-8238-6 Band 5 Engelbert Thaler (ed.) Lit 21 - New Literary Genres in the Language Classroom 2019, 187 Seiten €[D] 39,- ISBN 978-3-8233-8307-9 Band 6 Doris Kocher Fremdsprachliches Lernen und Gestalten nach dem Storyline Approach in Schule und Hochschule Theorie, Praxis, Forschung 2019, 700 Seiten €[D] 128,- ISBN 978-3-8233-8303-1 Band 7 Dorottya Ruisz / Petra Rauschert / Engelbert Thaler (Hrsg.) Living Language Teaching Lehrwerke und Unterrichtsmaterialien im Fremdsprachenunterricht 2019, 261 Seiten €[D] 68,00 ISBN 978-3-8233-8319-2 Band 8 Katrin Thomson (ed.) Classroom Discourse Competence Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education 2022, 279 Seiten €[D] 49,- ISBN 978-3-8233-8374-1 Band 9 Jennifer Schilitz Lernen mit Bewegung und Lernen in Entspannung Effekte auf die Wortschatzaneignung im Englischunterricht der gymnasialen Oberstufe 2021, 237 Seiten €[D] 49,- ISBN 978-3-8233-8508-0 Band 10 Engelbert Thaler (ed.) Teaching Transhumanism 2021, 173 Seiten €[D] 39,- ISBN 978-3-8233-8495-3 Band 11 Jürgen Meyer Fachdidaktik Englisch - Fokus Literaturvermittlung Eine hermeneutische Analyse von Lehrwerken der gymnasialen Oberstufe 2021, 312 Seiten €[D] 68,- ISBN 978-3-8233-8519-6 ISBN 978-3-8233-8374-1 008 In language learning contexts, the role of the language teacher is a particularly crucial one: it is the teacher who, through and with their use of (the foreign) language, has a significant influence on the extent to which language learners are linguistically/ cognitively activated, and thus determines whether processes of language learning are initiated and promoted, or perhaps even impeded or prevented. Thus, it is of utmost importance for language teachers to acquire a high level of classroom discourse competence (CDC) - a professional competence that goes far beyond the notions of FL proficiency and communicative competence. Located at the intersection of theory, classroom research and practical approaches to (E)FL teacher education, Classroom Discourse Competence. Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education offers university students, trainee teachers, in-service teachers and teacher educators a comprehensive conceptualization of CDC (Part I). Furthermore, the chapters in this book explore facets of CDC (Part II) and present good-practice examples of CDC development in the context of pre-service teacher education (Part III). www.narr.de K. Thomson (ed.) · Classroom Discourse Competence Katrin Thomson (ed.) Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education Classroom Discourse Competence