any questions- investigating the nature of understanding-checks in the language classroom

“Any Questions?”: Investigating theNature of Understanding-Checks in theLanguage Classroom

HANSUN ZHANG WARINGTeachers College, Columbia UniversityNew York, New York, United States

Insofar as effective instruction is contingent upon the degree towhich it is tailored to learner understandings in situ, developing a fir-mer grasp of how understanding-checks work in the reality of theclassroom is integral to educators’ knowledge of teacher practicesand, ultimately, their ability to implement effective teacher training.The purpose of this article is to produce a detailed account of howyes-no questions (e.g., “Do you have any questions?”) work as under-standing-checks in the language classroom. Based on 28 hours ofinteraction in an English as a second language classroom, this con-versation analytic study shows how such questions are oriented to bythe participants in two major sequential environments and, in partic-ular, how they are not always produced and treated as inviting ques-tions. Findings of this study provide an empirical basis for enhancingthe efficacy of pedagogical interaction.

doi: 10.1002/tesq.48

That checking understanding is an essential component of teachertalk finds poignancy in Extract 1, in which a student has just com-

pleted her presentation, and some discussion ensues regarding theprecise location of Bryant Park. Before the student leaves the front ofthe room, she asks, “(Are there) any question?” (line 03), and herattempt to check understanding is received with laughter from theclass (see transcription notations in the appendix):

Extract 1: Bryant Park

01 T: Little Brazil. (.) Okay. (.) Midtown.02 (1.6)03 Yoko: → (Are there) any question?04 LL: → ((laughter, some murmuring))05 T: ((begins applause))06 LL: ((applaud))07 T: All right? Good. Who wants to go next.

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 46, No. 4, December 2012

© 2012 TESOL International Association

722

What appears to be happening is that the student is temporarily tak-ing on the teacher’s role by appropriating a somewhat formulaic ques-tion routinely asked by the teacher, and that incongruity between roleand talk is what draws the laughter. The following list of questionsshould sound familiar to anyone who has ever set foot in a classroom;for the purpose of this article, they are roughly glossed as understand-ing-check questions. They may be similar to but broader than whatLong (1983) calls comprehension-checks. It may also be helpful to add, atthis juncture, that these questions are eliciting claims, not demonstra-tions, of understandings:

Do you have any (other) questions?Do you understand?Does everybody understand?Does it make sense?(Are there) any (other) questions?Are you okay?Anything else?Is everybody okay?Is it clear?Is it okay?You got it?Despite the routine presence of such understanding-checks in

teacher talk, empirical inquiries into how they are done in the detailsof unfolding classroom interaction, to my knowledge, are virtually non-existent. The importance of using questions to check understanding isacknowledged in various teacher training texts in applied linguistics(e.g., Richards & Lockhart, 1996; Ur, 1996; Wajnryb, 1992). Few, how-ever, have gone beyond an overall categorization of questions to pro-vide any specificity on how understanding-check questions areformulated, their contexts of use, or strategies for effective implemen-tation. Thompson (1997), for example, describes an approach to help-ing teachers ask questions more effectively, which involves havingteachers categorize their questions by form (yes-no or wh- questions),content (facts, personal facts, or opinions), and purpose (display orcommunicative). Classroom observation schemes often include compo-nents targeting teacher questions with broad concerns such as who thequestion is addressed to (individual or class) or whether the questionis a genuine or pseudo request for information (e.g., Allen, Frohlich,& Spada, 1984; Day, 1990; Spada, 1990). In fact, the routine nature ofunderstanding-checks may speak to their inherent importance insidethe teacher’s pedagogical “toolbox.” Insofar as effective instruction iscontingent upon the degree to which it is tailored to learner under-standings in situ or operating within the learner’s zone of proximaldevelopment (Vygotsky, 1978), understanding-check is an obvious

INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 723

resource to gauge the “pulse” of such understandings. Developing afirmer empirical grasp of how it works in the reality of the classroom,then, is pivotal to educators’ understanding of teacher practices and,ultimately, to their ability to implement effective teacher training.

The purpose of this article is to produce an empirical account ofhow understanding-check questions work in the reality of the languageclassroom: within what sequential environments they are used, howthey are produced and responded to, and what other social actionsthey may be deployed to accomplish, other than checking understand-ing. To obtain such a microscopic look, I resort to the powerful lensof conversation analysis (CA). The usefulness of CA as an analyticaltool, especially in applied linguistics, has been hotly debated (e.g., Kas-per, 2009; Kasper & Wagner, 2011; Long, 2007). A major point of con-tention is whether CA as a methodology is capable of addressing issuesof learning. Although Long (2007) remains skeptical, Kasper (2009)argues that learning or cognition can be located in interaction, whichis thereby a suitable object for CA inquiry. This is a dramatic develop-ment from her earlier position that the A (in SLA, or second languageacquisition) stands for acquisition—an issue incompatible with thefocus on language use in CA research (Kasper, 1997). Similarly, He(2004) writes that, “unlike language socialization research, CA doesnot address introspective, unobservable matters that may be importantto language learning” (p. 568).

My own view on CA and learning has been fluctuating and evolvingover the years, but I believe that the power of CA as an analytical toolin illuminating professional competencies has been well tested indiverse research projects across a range of institutional settings (e.g.,Drew & Heritage, 1992). In this article, I harness this power to explorequestions of competency, that is, scrutinizing a particular teacher prac-tice. Given its microanalytic orientation, CA is known for its ability tocapture what intuitions fail to register and, by extension, yield whatmay be counterintuitive understandings of teachers’ most taken-for-granted practices, which, in the context of the current article, involvesteachers’ understanding-checking questions. As I show, for example,“Any questions?” may be used to accomplish other actions aside fromchecking understanding, and teachers and learners may hold diverg-ing orientations toward such a question.

Before we proceed, let me emphasize that understanding-check inits broad sense can be performed in a variety of ways. Many classroomactivities or assessments serve the purpose of providing teachers withinformation on whether a certain language structure or function hasbeen properly grasped. In this article, I use understanding-check in itsnarrow sense, referring to teachers’ use of yes-no questions to seekconfirmation on whether the just-prior activity or talk has been

TESOL QUARTERLY724

received without any problems. For efficiency of presentation, fromtime to time I use UC for understanding-check.

BACKGROUND ON TEACHER QUESTIONS AND YES-NOQUESTIONS

Teacher Questions

Teacher questions in general, although not understanding-checkquestions per se, have received a reasonable amount of scholarly atten-tion in applied linguistics, and this body of empirical work constitutesan important backdrop for my current inquiry. The most prevalent dis-tinction that has been made with regard to teacher questions in thelanguage classroom is perhaps Long and Sato’s (1983) referential ver-sus display questions (also referred to as open versus close questions).Referential questions request unknown, and display questions known,information (cf. known-information question in Mehan, 1979). Buildingon a study of six English as a second language (ESL) teachers’ ques-tioning behavior, Long and Sato conclude that more display than ref-erential questions are used in classroom interaction, which contributesto its nonnaturalness. The dominance of display questions in the lan-guage classroom is confirmed in Pica and Long’s (1986) study of bothexperienced and inexperienced teachers. Subsequently, Brock (1986)found that ESL teachers trained to ask referential questions do askmore of such questions and receive more extended learner responsesas a result. The distinction has continued to dominate our conceptual-izations of and empirical inquiries into teacher questions for the pasttwo decades. Within Walsh’s (2006) Self-Evaluation of Teacher Talkframework, for example, both display and referential questions arelisted as key features of teacher talk, and the exclusive or excessive useof display questions continues to be considered a feature of less com-municative language classrooms (Cullen, 1998).

Some have questioned the view that display questions are less effec-tive in promoting communicative language use. According to Ho(2005), display questions serve their own pedagogical purposes. In hisconversation analytic study, Lee (2006) shows that “display questionsare central resources whereby language teachers and students organizetheir lessons and produce language pedagogy” (p. 691). Moreover, incertain interactional contexts such as Nigeria and Hong Kong, referen-tial questions have been found to be less effective than display ques-tions in generating learner responses (David, 2007; Wu, 1993).Shomoossi (2004) also notes that not all referential questions couldcreate sufficient interaction in English as a foreign language (EFL)


reading comprehension classes in universities in Tehran. Others havequestioned the adequacy of the display versus referential distinctionitself. van Lier (1988), for example, considers the distinction irrelevantin interactional terms, because both types of questions can function toelicit language from the learner and to provide and control input.Banbrook and Skehan (1990) also question the feasibility of the dis-tinction in capturing the range of questions in the ESL classroom.Nunn (1999) argues that the distinction is bound up with a limitedview of classroom interaction.

In her attempt to uncover what teacher questions actually do inone-on-one second language writing conferences at the postsecondarylevel, Koshik (2002) shows that one type of affirmative yes-no questionsconveys reversed polarity negative assertions, which show what is prob-lematic about a portion of student text or talk and suggests a possiblesolution. For instance, by asking “Is this background?,” the teachersuggests that a particular portion of the manuscript is not consideredbackground and should be removed. Koshik (2005) also found thatalternative questions may be used to do error correction by targeting atrouble source in a prior utterance with the first alternative and pro-viding a candidate correction with the second. For a useful review ofteacher questions, also see Koshik (2010).

In sum, despite some very well-argued critiques, prior work onteacher questions in second language pedagogy have largely adoptedthe distinction between display and referential questions and consid-ered the effectiveness of these questions in creating a communicativelanguage classroom. With some notable exceptions (e.g., Koshik, 2002,2005; Lee, 2006), few have delved into the specificity of how questionswork in the details of classroom interaction. The present study extendsthe existing literature by focusing on a previously unanalyzed type ofteacher question—that of understanding-check.

Yes-No Questions

Because the understanding-check questions to be analyzed here areall formatted as polar questions (i.e., questions that require a yes or noanswer), the body of work on yes-no questions is relevant to my cur-rent inquiry as well. Prior conversation analytic work has generatedimportant insights into the nature of yes-no questions, part of whichmay be understood in terms of preference (Pomerantz, 1984)—a techni-cal term that might warrant some explication for readers not familiarwith CA. Preference is a structural organization in which the alterna-tives that fit in a certain interactional slot are treated as nonequivalent(i.e., preferred vs. dispreferred; Schegloff, 2007). Preferred actions are

TESOL QUARTERLY726

the natural, normal, or expected actions. Their absence is noticeable.The absence of a preferred action is a basis for inferring the pres-ence of a dispreferred one. For example, after an assessment, theabsence of agreement is a basis for inferring disagreement (Pomer-antz, 1984). Preferred actions are typically done without any delay,mitigation, and/or accounts, and dispreferred actions with delay, mit-igation, and/or accounts. As such, one can treat a particular actionas preferred or dispreferred by virtue of the format in which it isdelivered. For example, in expressing rejection, one would typicallyuse delay, mitigation, and/or accounts to display an orientation to itsdispreferred nature. However, one can also deliver rejection quicklyand briefly, which would incur certain inferences (e.g., being cal-lous). This is the case where a dispreferred response is delivered in apreferred format.

In keeping with the general preference for agreement, yes-no ques-tions can be built to prefer a yes as in “Can you walk?” or no as in“Nothing special?” (Sacks, 1987). In a revealing study on medical inter-action, Heritage, Robinson, Elliott, Beckett, and Wilkes (2007) reportthat the formulation “Is there something else you would like to addressin the visit today?” is much more likely to receive patient concernsthan if something is replaced by anything. Aside from the preference foragreement, responses to yes-no questions, according to Raymond(2003), also exhibit a preference for type-conformity. In other words,those that begin with the type-conforming yes or no are preferred overthose that do not, and the preference for type-conformity is indepen-dent of the preference for agreement. Finally, the preference of yes-noquestions is not always considered in yes-no terms. Heritage (2010)found that instead of preferring yes or no, history-taking yes-no ques-tions in medical care orient to the “principle of optimization” (p. 52),inviting a response that embodies a positive health outcome, be that ayes or a no.

With regard to the functions of yes-no questions, Raymond (2010)distinguishes between yes-no interrogative (YNI) and yes-no declarative(YND). Whereas YNI (e.g., “Did you have a good pregnancy?”) signalsnot knowing and makes an answer relevant, YND (e.g., “And he’s abuilder?”) asserts certain knowledge and makes confirmation relevant.Raymond shows that during interaction between British health visitors(HVs) and new mothers, YND is used to accomplish the bureaucratictask of gathering information and YNI for advice giving or attemptingfriendliness. And, as noted earlier, Koshik (2002) found that yes-noquestions are used by teachers in second language writing conferencesto convey negative assertions and, more specifically, to indicate whatis problematic about the student’s writing and to point out possiblesolutions.


In sum, prior CA work has yielded important insights into the pref-erence as well as functions of yes-no questions in a variety of contexts.In this article, I continue to explore and hope to extend these analyti-cal themes by focusing specifically on the function of a particular typeof yes-no questions used by teachers in the second language classroom.More specifically, my analysis is guided by the following two researchquestions: (1) How are the understanding-check questions oriented to bythe learners? (2) How do the teachers manage the understanding-checkquestions? In answering these questions, I hope to make a further con-tribution to the growing efforts to integrate conversation analysis intoapplied linguistic concerns over the past decade or so (e.g., Heller-mann, 2008; Jacknick, 2011; Markee & Kasper, 2004; Mori & Zuengler,2008; Mortensen, 2009; Waring, 2008, 2009, 2011; Wong, 2004).

METHOD

Participants and Setting

The participants were ESL teachers and students in eight differentclasses at a Community English Program (CEP) in a major city on theEast Coast of the United States. As a lab school for a master’s in teach-ing English to speakers of other languages (MA TESOL) program in amajor graduate school of education, the CEP serves the adult immi-grant and international population in the neighborhood surroundingthe university by offering three levels of ESL classes: beginning, inter-mediate, and advanced. New students are placed into these three lev-els at the beginning of each semester based on their performance onan in-house placement test. Of the eight classes included in this study,two were from the beginning level (B-1, B-2), three from the interme-diate level (I-1, I-2, I-3), and three from the advanced level (A-1, A-2,A-3). The numerals (1–3) are used here to keep track of the differentclasses at the same level, not as indicators for any sublevels, and theyare included in the beginning of each transcript extract to indicatethe class from which the extract was taken.

The CEP teachers included Master Teachers as well as MA studentswho were taking a TESOL practicum course. The Master Teachers,who had more than 10 years of teaching experience, acted as modelsfor the MA students and fulfilled the staffing needs of the program.Because the MA students typically decide to pursue a graduate degreein TESOL after having been initially involved in and inspired by theirvarious teaching experiences, none of the MA students in this studywere complete novices. Their prior teaching experiences ranged from2 to 5 years in various adult ESL or EFL settings, or both. A total of

TESOL QUARTERLY728

nine teachers were involved in the eight classes (one class was co-taught by two teachers). Of the nine teachers, three were MasterTeachers and six MA students. Of the three Master Teachers, one wasa female nonnative speaker (NNS) of English, and of the six MA stu-dents, one was a male NNS of English. In both cases, their accent wasindistinguishable from that of native speakers. I was not aware of theirNNS status until receiving their self-report on the survey (see below).

The eight classes included a total of 68 students who represented amixture of stay-at-home moms, spouses of international students,immigrants who held full-time jobs, and international students whosought to improve their English. They came from a wide variety of firstlanguage backgrounds, including Chinese, Japanese, Korean, French,Polish, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Turkish, Danish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, and Georgian. Of the 68 students, 8 were males and 60females. Despite the greater number of female students, the practicesto be reported in this study are not unique to the females only. Thereis, in other words, great heterogeneity in the level of classes and back-ground characteristics of the participants. This does not ensure thatthe findings are representative of adult ESL classes in general,although perhaps it provides some basis for claiming that they are notunique to, for example, a particular teacher (e.g., Master Teacher, stu-dent teacher) or level of class.

Data Collection

The data were collected in two installments: (1) fall of 2005 andspring of 2006; (2) spring of 2009. For the first installment, a generalemail message was sent to the CEP teachers of the particular semestersinvolved to solicit interest in participating in the study (i.e., havingone of their regular class sessions videotaped), and those who grantedtheir consent in turn consulted their students for permission. A totalof eight classes with nine teachers eventually signed the consent forms.Before the videotaping began, all the students and teachers filled outseparate survey forms, which gathered information on gender, firstlanguage, length of residence in the United States, and languagelearning history. In addition to gender and first language, the teachersalso reported on their prior teaching experience and current status aseither Master Teacher or MA student. For the first installment of datagathering, I conducted the videotaping by placing a single camera(Canon ZR 100) at a position that maximized the view of the class-room. At the same time, I adjusted the tripod handle and sometimesmoved the entire tripod to capture different frames of interaction.Because I was not focusing on any particular practice at the time of


the videotaping, my camera angle was essentially guided by my intui-tive behavior as an observer in the classroom. In other words, my elec-tronic eye very much replicated my naked eye. A research assistantthen spent 14 hours in the video lab transferring the videotapes intoQuickTime files using iMovie.

The second installment involves data from a single class taught by aMaster Teacher over the course of an entire semester collected for aproject aimed at documenting learning over time. A video camera wasset up by the teacher himself at the beginning of each class in variouslocations depending on the room situation of the day. No additionalcamera person was present throughout the data collection. The digitalvideo clips from each class session were then transferred into the com-puter instantly as QuickTime files for subsequent transcription andanalysis. In the end, the baseline data set for this study includes a totalof 28 hours of classroom interaction: seven classes of 2-hour sessionseach from the first installment and seven 2-hour sessions of a singleclass from the second installment.

All 28 hours were transcribed in their entirety using a modified ver-sion of the system developed by Gail Jefferson (1983; see the appen-dix). I first did a line-by-line reading of the full transcripts andidentified every instance of the teachers’ yes-no questions that may beroughly glossed as understanding-check (UC). A total of 71 instancesresulted from this initial reading. In all 71 cases, each question alongwith its preceding and subsequent talk was then taken out of the origi-nal transcript to form an extract. The preceding talk is included toshow what leads up to the question in its immediate local context, andthe subsequent talk to show how the question is received by the partic-ipants. These UC question extracts then constitute a collection of casessubject to detailed scrutiny for the current project.

Data Analysis

The analysis was conducted within a CA framework (see ten Have,2007, for a thorough introduction). CA is an analytical tool designedto uncover tacit methods of social interaction by conducting detailedanalysis of naturally occurring data transcribed from audio or videorecordings. Analysis begins with the meticulous inspection of singleinstances using both the transcripts and the audio or video files. Thegoal is to uncover the meaning of interaction from the participants’perspective, and this is done through close scrutiny of how each turnis produced and received as evidenced in such minute details aspause, prosody, word choice, timing, sequential position, and thelike.

TESOL QUARTERLY730

A line-by-line CA analysis of the entire collection of all 71 cases wasperformed, which yielded (in addition to the detailed analysis to bepresented later in the article) a few initial observations of the UCquestions. First, all these are yes-no questions, to which the yesresponse may implicate either confirmation of understanding (e.g., “Isit clear?”) or problem of understanding (e.g., “Any questions?”). Forthe purpose of this article, I use no-problem to mark responses thatembody confirmation of understanding and yes-problem to mark thosethat embody a problem of understanding. Second, the questions aretypically prefaced by a transitional or sequence-closing-third okay(Beach, 1993; Schegloff, 2007; the sequence initiated by the UC issometimes closed with a similar type of okay as well). Questions may beeither phrasal (e.g., “Any questions?”) or sentential (e.g., “Do youhave/are there any questions?”), and the target of the understanding-check may be either general or specific (e.g., “Any questions?” vs. “Anyquestions about X?”). Third, these questions are typically (though notalways) addressed to the entire class. Finally, two major sequential envi-ronments emerge to feature the presence of the UC questions: (1)activity boundaries and (2) post–teacher instructions or explanation.Activity boundary is a juncture where a particular lesson segment isdrawing to a close and transition to the next segment is relevant.Post-explanation or -instruction is a juncture where the teacher hasjust finished explaining a vocabulary item, a grammatical structureor the like, or just completed giving instructions for an upcomingactivity.

In selecting extracts to be included in the article, aside from ensur-ing that the full range of practices are represented based on thedetailed CA analysis of the 71 cases, I also made an effort to includeextracts from all eight classes to provide some evidence that the prac-tices were not unique to individual teachers or students, at least notwithin my data set. It would be relevant here to note CA’s treatmentof deviant cases (ten Have, 2007). When it comes to cases that do notfit the general pattern being proposed, they are subject to even closerscrutiny rather than being dismissed as outliers. As Wootton (1989)writes, “infrequently occurring responses would be as significant asthose of frequent occurrence to the task of specifying forms of conver-sational organization which are in some sense shared and accessible tomembers of the society under investigation” (p. 243). As a result ofthe closer scrutiny, the deviant case may turn out to fit in the generalpattern after all (see Extract 9), belong to an entirely different prac-tice, or become the basis for modifying the initial proposal. Thisapproach was applied to all 71 cases in the data set. In other words,the selection of extracts for inclusion in this article was not done atthe expense of any unaccounted-for cases or cases that do not fit the


general pattern that is being proposed. This does not mean that allthe teachers and learners behaved uniformly across the eight classes.However, it does mean that there is no counterevidence regarding theoverall findings in all 71 cases of UC questions found in the eight clas-ses (more on CA and generalizability in the Discussion and Conclusionsection).

In the remainder of this article, I first describe how the UC ques-tions are oriented to by the learners as preferring no-problem regardlessof sequential environments—a pattern somewhat at odds with theinteractional project of understanding-check, which should accommo-date the yes-problem possibility as well if the goal is to assess the state ofunderstanding rather than to confirm that all is well. I then show howthe teachers manage the UC questions in subtly differential ways: inthe activity-boundary cases, the UC questions are in part produced asa possible activity-closing sequence prior to transitioning to the nextlesson segment, where no-problem responses are welcomed and taken asa basis for sequence-closing; in the post-explanation or -instructioncases, on the other hand, yes-problem is treated and pursued as a realpossibility, where the teachers display a reluctance to move on withoutabsolute assurance of learner understanding. In presenting the analy-sis, I also make an attempt to explain these findings in terms ofthe multifunctionality of sequences as well as the participants’ faceconcerns.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

In keeping with the research questions outlined earlier, I first showhow learners oriented to the UC questions as preferring no-problemacross the two environments. I then describe the teachers’ environ-ment-specific management of these questions.

Learner Orientation to UC Questions

In this section, I begin with learner responses to the UC questions atactivity boundaries (Extracts 2–3) and move on to those after teacherexplanations (Extracts 4–5) and then instructions (Extracts 6–7). InExtract 2, the class has been practicing pronouncing a list of words onthe board and has just finished the last item. In lines 01–05, theteacher surveys the class for the “success rate” of the practice, andTomo emerges to be the “winner” who got everything right. This over-all evaluative nature of the survey marks the completion of the pro-nunciation activity and signals the activity-boundary position of the

TESOL QUARTERLY732

interaction so far. Note that each extract in the analysis section islabeled with the specific class from which it is taken (e.g., B-2 refers tothe second of the two beginning-level classes):

Extract 2: no questions B-2

01 T: Did somebody get everything right?02 L: ºYes.º03 T: ºYeah? Tomo?º04 (0.2)05 T: º(You get) everything right?º06 Tomo: {0.2)-((nods))}[ºYeah.º]07 T: → [°’kay.º] Okay. Do you have any08 questions.09 LL: → No. No questions. ((several speaking not in perfect unison))10 T: No questions. Good. A’right.11 ((T sorts through papers on desk))12 Okay now, take out you:r stor- homework. ((continues))

In line 07, immediately after acknowledging Tomo’s response with asequence-closing-third “Okay” (Schegloff, 2007), the teacher producesa transitional “Okay” (i.e., acknowledges prior while prefacing upcom-ing talk; Beach, 1993) that precedes the UC question. Note that inline 09, the learners’ “No. No questions” is done without any delay,mitigation, or account. As such, they treat no-problem as the preferredresponse to the teacher’s UC question. The teacher then accepts theno-problem response and proceeds to move on to the homeworksegment of the lesson (lines 10–12).

Learner orientation to UC questions as preferring no-problem at activ-ity boundaries is also observed in their production of yes-problemresponses in the dispreferred format. In Extract 3, the class has justfinished answering questions about an article on lottery tickets. Lines01–02 comprise the end of an exchange that clarifies the number ofpeople who jointly won the largest lottery in U.S. history—the focus ofthe last item on the list of questions. In line 04, the teacher launchesa UC question after the transitional “Okay”:

Extract 3: number seven I-2

01 Jen: Uh hu:h,02 T: Two: people wo:n, so they had to split that.03 Mary: Two::.04 T: → Okay? Do you have any que:stions about this

article,05 vocabulary, that (0.4) you(‘d) like (0.2) help with06 pronunciation, o::r, the definition, you don’t07 understand what it means,08 (3.0)09 Jen: → Uh ( )?10 Joe → (What is)( ), for number seven.11 (0.6)12 T: Spli:t?


Note that the teacher’s initial turn component “Do you have anyque:stions” extends past multiple possible completion points (e.g.,after “article” in line 04, “with” in line 05, “means” in line 07), whereopportunities for next-speaker uptake are made possible but nonetaken, and the learners’ eventual yes-problem responses (lines 09–10)are preceded by a long, 3.0-second gap and done with further within-turn delay (“Uh”). Thus, by delivering their yes-problem responses in adispreferred format, the learners again treat the teacher’s UC ques-tions as preferring no-problem.

The same preference may also be observed in learner responses toUC questions after some teacher explanation. In Extract 4, in whichthe teacher finishes offering an explanation in answering Marta’s ques-tion in lines 01–11, the UC question in line 13 (i.e., “D’y understandthe question?”) is formatted in such a way that a yes response wouldimplicate no-problem:

Extract 4: yeah yeah I-1

01 T: an’ you sa:y I::ve known her si:nce (0.2) >°how02 long have you known Marta.°<03 (0.5)04 Marta: [ ((s c o w l s)) ]05 Marie: [$>°Two months ago.°<$]06 Marta: [uh huh huh huh huh] [t(h)wo m(h)onths] ag(h)o.07 Marie: [ ((smiles)) ] [h u h h u h ]08 T: since two [months ago?]09 Marta: [.hhhhhhhhhh]10 $since two mon[ths ago.] °right.°$11 T: [Okay. ]12 (0.2)13 → >D’y understand< the que[stion?][now?]14 Marta: → ((nodding))-[Yeah.][yeah.]15 {((nods/smiles))>°I know.} {Yeah.°<16 -((smiles/looks down))}17 (2.0)18 T: Yes.

As can be seen, Marta’s “yeah yeah” is produced in transitional over-lap (Jefferson, 1983) accompanied by the nodding and followed by “Iknow. Yeah.”

By contrast, in Extract 5, which also involves teacher explanation,learner orientation to UC questions as preferring no-problem is evi-denced in the delayed production of yes-problem response. Theteacher’s explanation of the subjunctive mood comes to its completionin line 10, where a 0.5-second gap emerges. This is followed by theteacher’s sotto voce “Mkay,” which precedes another 3.0-second silencebefore the UC question is produced:

TESOL QUARTERLY734

Extract 5: regrets A-3

01 T: And like we practiced toda::y,=you know, well- if02 somebody: talks about >something that happened,<03 and the:n u:h (0.4) you also have a similar story04 (0.4) you could jump in and be (li-) {((affected05 voice)) O:::h (0.2) I- (.) I want to share my story06 too:::, This happened to me:::} An:d i- if it’s a: >if07 it w- if it’s< a sa:d story, {((puts hand to heart)) ºand08 you feel regret,} then you can say, O:h I wish that it09 hadn’t happened. Like that.º10 (0.5)11 T: ºMkay.º12 (3.0)-((T looks at BB then turns to class))13 → Any questions?14 (1.8)15 Yes.-((points to Neela))16 Neela: → Can you sa::y (0.5) could °instead of would°?17 T: mm:::::: {((reads BB to self)) if they had studied18 English harder, ((continues))

Note that Neela provides her yes-problem response in the form of aquestion after a 1.8-second delay, thereby displaying her orientation tothe UC question as preferring no-problem.

UC questions after teacher instructions are also responded to in aformat that treats no-problem as preferred, as seen in Extract 6, in whichthe teacher has just finished giving instructions for an upcoming dicta-tion activity:

Extract 6: very clear B-1

01 T: So no:::[:: ]-((shakes head))02 Jose: [Yea]h.-((waves T away)) I understand.03 T: (mhm,)-((steps away from Jose))04 (0.5)-((T approaches Amy and Mo))05 T: ((to Amy)) Do you have any questions?06 Amy: → No.07 T: ((to Mi)) Very clear?08 Mi: → Yes.

In line 06, Amy’s no-problem is produced without any delay, mitiga-tion, or accounts, which is then solidified in her unequivocal “Yes” inline 08 to the teacher’s “Very clear?”

In Extract 7, by contrast, the yes-problem response after the teacher’sinstructions for a game is produced in the dispreferred format, againevidencing the learner orientation to the UC question as preferringno-problem. After the teacher’s explanation is completed in line04, Luk’s “head or tail” in sotto voce in the next line precedes a0.4-second gap. It is after this gap that the teacher launches the UCquestion:


Extract 7: head or tail I-3

01 T: But much prettier I suppose. And the- The02 BACK of it. It depends now. Because they- they03 can be different.=so it’s a qua:rter. It- They have04 new quarters.=so they’re not a:ll the same.05 (0.8)06 T: So it’s the- the- the other side is called tails.07 Luk: °head or tail.º08 (0.4)09 T: → Everybody understand what you’re gonna do?10 (0.6)11 Aly: → But how- how many: (.) space we can (0.4)-((T picks12 up paper))13 T: If y:ou (0.4) flip you (.) get heads is one spa:ce,14 ((continues))

Note that Aly’s yes-problem response is produced with a 0.6-seconddelay as well as multiple signs of speech perturbation, such as a cutoff,lengthening, and pauses as well as an essentially unfinished turn-con-structional unit (TCU; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). As one of thereviewers of this article pointed out, such perturbation may be displayingtrouble with formulating the turn rather than indicating a dispreferredformat. Indeed, the dispreferred format is sometimes implemented in away that appears to suggest trouble speaking. The problem, then,becomes the nature of the observable trouble—whether it is troublefinding words or trouble with going against what is expected (i.e., prefer-ence), and that seems to be the sort of ambiguity in interaction faced byboth the analysts and the participants themselves (Schegloff, 1997).

The distinction between activity boundary and post–teacher expla-nation or instruction may be blurred on occasion when the two con-verge, as in Extract 8. The teacher has brought his discussion of essaystructures (i.e., introduction, body, conclusion) to completion (lines01–04), after which he is about to give instructions for the next writingactivity. The UC question in line 05, then, is launched at a point ofboth activity boundary and post–teacher explanation:

Extract 8: how long A-2

01 T: A↑::h suggestion is good, So: advice,-((write on BB))02 (2.0)03 o::r (5.0) wh:::y this is important fo:r the future.04 ((finishes discussing the importance of conclusion))05 → .hhhh any questions about this.06 (5.0)07 Ana: → How lo:::ng (.) has to be:: the paragraph.08 T: a:h the paragraphs (0.3) ((continues))

Consistent with earlier observations, Ana’s yes-problem response islaunched after a 5.0-second gap, thereby signaling her treatment ofthe UC question as preferring no-problem.

TESOL QUARTERLY736

There is, however, one instance in my data set in which the patternobserved so far (e.g., learner preference for no-problem) appears to beunsupported. In Extract 9, Sato’s question, that is, a yes-problemresponse, immediately follows the teacher’s UC question without anydelay. The class has been talking about intimate as an adjective versusintimate as a verb: Both words have been written on the board with dif-ferentiating accent marks, and a student has suggested that intimatethe verb means “to share”:

Extract 9: intimate A-2

01 T: ((writes on BB)) °to share.°02 (0.8)03 .hh but again, the thing that you’re sharing04 (0.8) °is usually very (.) private.° When we05 use this wo:rd, ((points to “intimate” the verb))06 it means to share something (.) °very private.°07 (0.5)08 and who do you >share something< pr↑ivate09 with, ((points to “intimate” the adjective))10 >someone that< you’re- intimate with. ((nods))11 (4.5)12 → any questions.=13 Sato: =(syl syl sy) ho:w can I (0.5) °then° intima:te14 this it’s- (0.5) it sounds like (.) must be difficult.15 (0.2)16 °this-°

Upon a closer look, we may note that within the larger sequence,Sato’s question is delayed. The teacher’s explanation of intimate theverb reaches its possible completion in line 06 and then again in line10, where the gap is particularly long. Sato’s question could have beenraised at these junctures. Rather, it is withheld until after the teacher’sexplicit solicitation. Although this delay does not speak specifically tothe learner treatment of UC questions along the line of my argumentso far, it does evidence an overall learner dispreference for articulatingunderstanding problems, which is in broad consonance with the lear-ner treatment of UC questions as preferring no-problem.

In sum, in my data, the learners persist in their orientation to theUC questions as preferring no-problem both at activity boundaries andafter teacher explanations or instructions. This is evidenced in theirbrief and quick delivery of no-problem responses as well as their delayedand mitigated delivery of yes-problem ones. (Note also that all the no-problem responses are done with no or yes, depending on the polarity ofthe question, and all the yes-problem response are done with questionsthat seek to clarify understanding.) This pattern of response mayappear somewhat counterintuitive, given that UC questions are ostensi-bly designed to gauge the state of understanding in general without


any tilt toward a specific type of answer. In the following sections, bydescribing how the teachers manage these UC questions, I hope inpart to offer some insights into this somewhat puzzling learner conduct.

Teacher Management of UC Questions

Compared to the uniform learner orientation to the UC questions,the teacher conduct manifests some variability in the management ofsuch questions. A crucial contingency that factors into the variabilityappears to be the sequential environment. In particular, although theUC questions at activity boundaries are designed to accomplish dualfunctions, those launched after teacher explanations or instructionsmaintain a singular focus on ensuring absolute understanding of thejust-given explanation or instruction.

At activity boundaries. The analytical claim I develop in this sectionis that, at activity boundaries, the UC sequences perform a dual func-tion. At the most literal level, by employing the syntactic resource ofan interrogative and lexical resources such as “Any questions?,” theyprovide learners with an opportunity to voice any unresolved under-standing problems; that is, they engage in understanding-check. Addi-tionally, however, they also serve to launch a possible activity-closingsequence before transitioning to the next activity can take place. Ihad initially analyzed the sequence as a pretransitioning one, but asone of this article’s reviewers pointed out, the relationship betweenthis and the upcoming activity is unlike that, for example, between apreinvitation and invitation. Although the closing down of the currentactivity allows for the beginning of the next, the closing-down itself isnot integral to the next activity, as preinvitation is to invitation. Inestablishing the possible activity-closing nature of the sequence, I callattention to three aspects of the interaction: (1) the transition-relevantenvironment in which the UC question is launched; (2) the formulaicand summative, thereby closing nature of the UC question; and (3)the teacher’s subsequent talk that either makes visible his tilt towardno-problem or implements some explicit closing or transitioning to thenext activity.

As shown in an earlier analysis, some UC questions are launched atactivity boundaries, where a prior lesson segment is coming to its com-pletion. In other words, what is sequentially relevant at this particularjuncture is transitioning to the next segment. Or put otherwise, thesequential slot is prepared for moving on, which is congruent with theanalysis of UC questions as performing some sort of closing work onthe current activity. What specifies this closing work, however, may in

TESOL QUARTERLY738

part be located in the composition of the UC question. The target ofunderstanding, for example, is general rather than specific. As seen inExtract 3, the initial elicitation for questions is followed up with a listof possible sources of confusion related to vocabulary, pronunciation,or definition, the all-encompassing nature of which brings off the sum-mary-like, thereby closing relevant characteristic of the UC question(Button, 1990). Also contributing to the closing hearing of thesequence is the generic or formulaic format of the questions. All UCquestions found at the activity boundaries take either the syntactic orphrasal form of “(Do you have) any (other) questions (about X)?”and, to a lesser extent, “Anything else?” In particular, vocabulary itemssuch as else or other as in “Anything else?” or “Any other questions?”mark the question as seeking-agenda type items that have not yet beencovered, but are related to the current activity. It is worth mentioningthat similar questions used by physicians, such as “Do you have any otherquestions/concerns?,” seem to prefer no responses as well and lead toclosing the consultation (Heritage et al., 2007). Moreover, the teacheralso treats no-problem response as favorable, as seen in Extract 2, whichconstitutes further evidence for the closing nature of the sequence.

What is particularly telling about the possible closing nature of theUC sequence is the teacher’s subsequent talk after the UC question.In Extract 10, the teacher has just finished answering some questionsabout a passage on lottery tickets by line 08, and the UC question islaunched in line 09. Note that the question shifts the discussion out ofthe list of specific comprehension questions to a more generic or om-nirelevant issue related to understanding the article—vocabulary:

Extract 10: was it easy I-2

01 Jen: [It’s true::, it’s true::, not false. Yea:h.]02 Rodrigo: [( )] hh hh I had03 the question. I had the answer but (she) not04 believe me.05 ((laughter))06 T: (No:,) she wanted me to clarify.07 ((laughter))08 T: Because she knew that you (.) had the right answer.09 → Okay? U:m, any questions about the vocabulary?10 (0.2)11 T: → Was it easy?12 [ ((several Ss murmuring “yeah”)) ]13 Di: → [(What’s) number six, in the vocabulary.]

Note that after the brief 0.2-second gap, the teacher raises a secondyes-no question that now prefers easy, which makes evident his pursuitto secure a no-problem response that would facilitate transitioning tothe next lesson segment.


Consider another exemplar of the UC question being used asa harbinger for closing the current sequence. In Extract 11, theteacher has just finished discussing a sentence written by the stu-dents on the board and answered a question about that sentence. A10-second gap emerges in line 09, after which the teacher launchesthe UC question “Anything else?” (a format often deployed in pre-closing sequences, as shown in Button, 1990; cf. Heritage et al.,2007):

Extract 11: who wants a break A-3

01 T: mm:::::: {((reading blackboard [BB] to self)) if they hadstudied

02 English harder, they could spea:k} (0.2) not mm:::03 (0.4) they- they could is um: just (0.2) “could” is04 used for example, in the past, so, (0.6) He- he05 could run fast. >When he was a child.< Right?06 Happened but uh: this is (.) this didn’t (.) happen,07 and u:h (.) this is (.) a hypothetical, situation? So08 (0.2) you can’t. ºuse that.º09 (10.0)-((T looks at BB, turns to Naoko and nods,10 looks at class, looks back at BB))11 T: → Anything else?12 (2.0)13 T: ºMkay.º (uh) who wants a break? ((raises hand))14 LL: ((giggles))15 T: >Okay.< Five minutes. ((looks at watch)) Ten- u:h16 eleven- eleven-(fifteen). ((camera cuts))

Note that after the 2.0-second gap, the teacher proceeds tooffer a break in line 13, thereby officially closing the currentactivity.

One final instance may be considered, in which the possible closinglaunched by the UC question is made explicit in the teacher’s launch-ing of the next activity afterward. The teacher has just finished answer-ing a series of learner questions about a grammar exercise on thepresent perfect; the UC question is produced after a 2.0-second gap,and again follows a transitional “Okay?”:

Extract 12: are we done I-1

01 T: ((looks down and reads TB))-So the team has won02 >98% of the games they have °played so far.<°03 (2.0)04 → Okay? any other questions?05 (0.5)06 → No:?=are we do:ne?07 LL: Yea:[h.08 T: [We’re done with homework?09 (1.0)10 Okay. No:w, (1.0) ↑I want you:: to::

TESOL QUARTERLY740

In line 06, after the brief 0.5-second gap, the teacher explicitlyseeks no-problem via the “No?” followed by an explicit request forconfirmation that the current activity has now been completed(“Are we done?”), and she moves on to the next lesson segment inline 10.

Therefore, in all three of the cases presented, the possible closingnature of the UC question is made evident in the teacher’s subse-quent talk. In other words, what the UC question launches is notonly an understanding-check but also a possible activity-closingsequence, the success of which allows for transition to the next lessonsegment. In all three cases, the silence after the UC question delaysthis closing and is minimized with the teacher’s continuation thatmoves closer to closing. Meanwhile, the silence can indicate that thestudents are not yet ready to move on. Herein lies the conflict withUC questions at the activity boundary: What facilitates the closingaspect of the questions is not always congruent with the goal to fullyassess learner understandings at the time. This explains, at least par-tially, the learner preference for no-problem in their responses to suchquestions at activity boundaries, in the sense that they are in partyielding to the preference for closing. An additional issue may relateto the learners’ competence concerns, where, as one of this article’sreviewers pointed out, expressing nonunderstanding or troubleunderstanding may be seen as compromising their images as compe-tent learners.

Post-explanation or -instruction. Compared to the more formulaicUC formats in the activity-boundary cases, the UC questions in thepost-explanation or -instruction environment are designed using awider variety of lexical markers, such as understand, clear, make sense,or the like. More important, whereas the activity-boundary UC ques-tions implement both understanding-check and possible closing, thepost-explanation or -instruction ones appear to carry a singular ori-entation to gauging the actual state of learner understandings. Thisorientation may be captured in two observations regarding the UCsequences in this particular sequential environment. First, the targetof understanding as formulated in the UC question is more specificcompared to that in the activity-boundary cases (e.g., “this,” “what Imean,” “what we’re going to do”). Second, the teachers engage ina noticeable pursuit, which is absent in the activity-boundary cases,of learner displays of understanding. In Extract 13, for example,the teacher finishes explaining the homework assignment in lines01–05. The UC question is launched in line 07 after a brief gap,onto which a new TCU is latched to specify the “that” in “Is thatclear?”:


Extract 13: for homework A-1

01 T: A’ri:ght,=>so it’s more-< it’s actually- It’s02 su↑pposed to be a grammar practice, >but I

think03 it’s more a reading comprehension practice.<04 (0.6)05 T: Uh (.) which is- which is useful also.06 (0.6)07 T: → So is that clear?=We’ll do exercise one08 and exercise three?09 (0.4)10 T: → for homework [here?]11 L: [<°M ]hm.°>12 T: Uh:: for Thu:rsday [you’re gonna-]13 Sara: [What- what ] is-14 T: (syll- [syll-)]15 Sara: [Wher]e’s um:: (2.0)-((looking in TB)) Oh.16 {((pointing in TB)) You don’t have to read any17 story?}

Note that no learner response emerges during the 0.4-second gapin line 09, after which the teacher adds an increment, thus creatinganother possible completion point for learner uptake, which receives asoft and slow “Mhm” in line 11. Sara’s question in line 13 is raised inpartial overlap with the teacher’s continuation in line 12.

Such single-minded pursuit of learner understanding is strikinglynoticeable in the teachers’ treatment of silence after the UC questionas yes-problem rather than no-problem. In Extract 14, the teacher finishesexplaining his correction of a particular comparative structure in lines01–03. A sotto voce “Okay” is heard in line 04, after which a 0.8-secondgap follows, during which learner display of understanding may be rel-evant but absent. It is after this problem-implicative gap that in line 06the teacher launches the elliptical UC question that targets the just-completed explanation with the anaphoric “this.” Note that unlike thequestions containing the negative polarity device any, this question isdesigned to prefer a yes response:

Extract 14: you sure A-2

01 T: ((nods)) Coke’s sales growth was not as high (.) a:s…02 and here we don’t need {((crosses out word on BB-03 (pep,)} we just need Pepsi:::’s, (.) apostrophe es.04 °Okay.°05 (0.8)06 T: → Questions about this.07 (1.0)-((looks at class))08 → Is this okay or is this (.) difficult for you.09 {(2.0)-((faint murmurs from a couple students))}10 T: → Robin? You okay?11 (4.0)12 Robin: Uumm… (1.0) Yeah.13 T: → You su:re?

TESOL QUARTERLY742

14 (0.2)15 Robin: °No.°=16 T: =No. Okay, okay, okay. Ho:nest answe:r, I’m happy17 to hear that.18 Sato: Sa:::le, [sa:le ] sa:le=

Note that the silence in line 07 is treated by the teacher as implica-tive of yes-problem, as seen in his alternative question in line 08 thatraises the possibility of “difficult for you.” Two more pursuits ensue(lines 10 and 13) as the teacher continues to treat any absence of pub-lic or definitive display of understanding as inadequate.

Aside from treating silence as yes-problem, the teachers also demon-strate their pursuit of learner understanding by seeking an explicitconfirmation of understanding. In Extract 15, the teacher completeshis explanation of “bungee jumping” in lines 01–05:

Extract 15: bungee jumping I-2

01 T: {((points at drawing)) So he jumped,}{((draws circle02 at the bottom of the rope))- comes a:ll the way down03 here,}{((points))- right before the water it (0.4)}04 {((slightly lowers then quickly raises hand in front of

BB))-05 zzzoo::p,} and you go back u:p.06 LL: ((several o::hs))07 T: → Oka:y? Do you understand what I mean?08 LL: → ((several yeses))09 T: Okay. Have you seen that befo:re on TV?10 LL: ((several yeses))11 Rodrigo: Back home, I saw on TV.

Immediately after the teacher’s explanation, several students utterthe change-of-state token “oh,” claiming understanding of the explana-tion. At first glance, the teacher’s UC question after such understand-ing claims may appear rather redundant; what he appears to beeliciting, however, is a more explicit acknowledgment of understand-ing (than what is expressed via the several ohs), which is then pro-duced by the learners through the unequivocal yeses without any delayin line 08. Note also that the UC question is produced with the directobject “what I mean,” which refers anaphorically back to the just-com-pleted explanation, thus specifying the target of understanding.

Finally, in some cases, the singular pursuit of understanding displayis seen in the teachers’ seeking of evidence, not just claim, of under-standing. In Extract 16, the teacher finishes giving her instructionsfor the activity of producing hypothetical questions in lines 01–05. A2.0-second problem-implicative (i.e., the students do not begin theactivity immediately) gap follows, after which the UC question is pro-duced. Again, the question comes with a specification of the target


of understanding in the form of a second TCU: “so uh now what dowe have to do?,” which demands not just a claim, but a display, ofunderstanding:

Extract 16: what do we have to do A-3

01 T: ((lines omitted)) I want you to think about02 >undesirable situations in< the future. So ↑this is03 (.) you kind of have to imagi:ne, or maybe you04 already kno::w something will happe:n. That you-05 you’re not very happy º(with)º.06 (2.0)07 T: → Does everybody understand?=so u::h >now what08 do we have to do?<09 L: >Huh?<10 (0.2)11 L: [U:h ]12 T: → [Can] you repeat the instructions?13 Junko: We have to brainsto:rm (.) about the:: (.) past, (0.2)14 the present, the future,15 T: ºYeah.º

After some visible trouble seen in the learners’ responses in lines09–11, in partial overlap with the learner’s “Uh” in line 11, the teacherproceeds to issue a directive to repeat the instructions just given.

Thus, after teacher explanation or instruction, the teachers pursuea singular goal of ensuring that the just-given explanation or instruc-tion has indeed been adequately understood. Such pursuit is perhapsnot surprising. Learner understanding of instructions is integral to suc-cessful task completion, and offering and ensuring the clarity of expla-nations is a centerpiece in pedagogical talk. Put otherwise, the abilityto deliver explanation or instruction effectively is central to teachertalk and emblematic of teacher competence. As such, one possibleexplanation for the learner preference for no-problem within this partic-ular sequential environment lies in certain competing concerns intrin-sic to the classroom ecology. To wit, yes-problem can imply a negativeassessment of the teacher instruction or explanation. By deliveringsuch a response as dispreferred, the learners display their concern forpreserving the teacher’s identity as a competent professional. On theother hand, yes-problem can also be taken as a signal of problematiclearner competence in grasping such instructions or explanations. Inother words, admitting to not understanding the instruction or expla-nation may be detrimental to either self or the instructor.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In this article, I have shown that within my particular data set, thelearners orient to the UC questions as preferring no-problem, as

TESOL QUARTERLY744

evidenced in their delivery of no-problem responses in the preferred for-mat and yes-problem ones in the dispreferred format. This pattern isthen partially accounted for in my descriptions of the teacher manage-ment of the UC questions in the two different sequential environ-ments. In the activity-boundary cases, the teachers produce the UCquestions as part of both understanding-check and possible activityclosing. This is seen in the transition-relevant slot in which these ques-tions are produced, the summative and formulaic nature of the ques-tions, and the teachers’ subsequent talk that moves closer to activityclosing. In the post-explanation or -instruction cases, the teachersmaintain a singular focus on their pursuit of learner understanding.As noted previously, the UC question is formatted with certain specifictargets of understanding, and the teachers pursue explicit learneracknowledgment or display of understanding. Thus, although in theactivity-boundary cases learner preference for no-problem convergeswith the UC question’s possible activity-closing agenda, it divergesfrom the question’s pursuit for yes-problem in the post-explanationor -instruction cases. In addition, in both environments, learnerproduction of yes-problem can incur negative attributions to their owncompetence and, in the post-explanation or -instruction cases, to theteacher’s professional competence as well.

As mentioned earlier, the extracts chosen for this article includeinstances from all eight classes and represent the full range of prac-tices surrounding the use of UC questions in my data set. Given therelative heterogeneity of the data regarding the level of the class aswell as participant characteristics such as gender, first language, andthe extent of teaching experience, it is perhaps safe to say that whatwe are observing here is not an idiosyncratic phenomenon or one thatcan be attributed exclusively to a particular contextual variable, at leastnot within this particular data set. At the same time, however, there isno basis for claiming that these findings are generalizable to or repre-sentative of teacher practices or learner orientations in adult ESLclasses elsewhere—not in the sense of “the traditional ‘distributional’understanding of generalizability” (Perakyla, 2004, p. 296).

Pomerantz (1990) draws on the distinction between empirical gen-eralization and analytical generalization (Yin, 2003): “It should beclear that conversation analysis is not achieving ‘empirical generaliza-tion’” (p. 233). Whereas empirical generalization involves generalizingfrom a sample to a population, in analytical generalization each case isrelated to a “theory.” That is, by analyzing individual instances, themachinery that produced these individual instances is revealed (Ben-son & Hughes, 1991, pp. 130–131). Each instance is evidence that “themachinery for its production is culturally available, involves members’competencies, and is therefore possibly (and probably) reproducible”


(Psathas, 1995, p. 50). Additional instances provide “another exampleof the method in the action, rather than securing the warrantability ofthe description of the machinery itself” (Benson & Hughes, 1991, p.131). The value of CA is that “we have identified a method (assumingsufficient evidence to support non-idiosyncratic use) and proposedhow it works sequentially and interactionally,” and “subsequentresearch can establish patterns of occurrences” (Pomerantz, 1990, p.233). The concept of possibility is a key to the question of generalizabil-ity in CA research (Perakyla, 2004, p. 297). When applied to the cur-rent study, this means that these findings are not generalizable asdescriptions of what other teachers and learners in an adult ESL classdo, but they are generalizable as descriptions of what any otherteacher or learner in an adult ESL class can do, given that he or shehas the same array of interactional competencies as the participants inthis study.

The findings of this study contribute to existing work on prefer-ence, yes-no questions, and in particular teacher questions. First, asalready noted, the same yes-no questions may be deployed in the ser-vice of both checking understanding and closing down a sequence, asin the activity-boundary cases. Second, the findings complement theexisting literature on the context-specific nature of preferences. Dur-ing oral proficiency interviews, unlike in ordinary conversation, forexample, test-takers’ self-deprecation remarks are not responded to bythe interviewers with disagreement (e.g., Lazaraton, 1997). The prefer-ence structure in the language classroom clearly comes with its owndistinct set of complications illustrative of the specific concerns andcharacteristics of classroom interaction. As noted earlier, learner pref-erence for no-problem may in part be accounted for by the participants’competence concerns. Third, by detailing the use of yes-no questionsin performing understanding-check and possible activity closing in thelanguage classroom, the findings also extend the existing work on thefunctions of yes-no questions in American English, which, according toStivers (2010), perform a range of social actions such as information/confirmation request, other-initiation of repair, suggestion/offer/request, and assessment (p. 2776). Finally, the findings of this studycontribute to the literature on teacher questions in second languagepedagogy. Although the UC question may be considered a type of ref-erential question, calling it a referential question clearly does not cap-ture the essence of its interactional utilities. As has been shown, theUC questions can accomplish different interactional tasks in differentsequential environments. Some of these questions can be multifunc-tional and thus comprise a source of ambiguity for learners. Teachersand learners can display divergent orientations to the same UC ques-tions and treat silence in drastically different ways.

TESOL QUARTERLY746

A number of pedagogical implications may be derived from thisstudy’s findings. First, given that understanding-check may be donedifferently in different sequential environments, the relevant issue,when it comes to classroom practices, is not simply what questions toask in order to check understanding, but in what format and underwhat circumstances UC questions are asked and how they may be man-aged differently or incur different responses relative to the local con-tingencies.

Second, insofar as clarity is an important criterion in measuring theeffectiveness of teacher questions (Ur, 1996, p. 230), understandingthe double function of UC questions at activity boundaries allows forpinpointing at least some sources of ambiguity in teacher questions,and that understanding can become the basis for modifying instruc-tional practices. Can the goals of checking understanding and doingactivity closing, for example, be accomplished separately? What aresome of the ways to make each goal clear to the students? Is activityboundary the optimal position for conducting understanding-check, orshould such a check be built into the ongoing interaction as theteacher constantly monitors for potential understanding problems?

Third, if silence typically precedes yes-problem responses, treating suchsilence as signaling no-problem amounts to a misreading of learner under-standing. Teachers may be advised to curb their urge to move on duringactivity boundaries and offer a more generous space for silence orbecome more proactive in their attempt to elicit the voicing of potentialunderstanding problems. Finally, the overall preference for no-problemexhibited in learner responses, regardless of sequential environments,does not seem conducive to creating an open atmosphere that encour-ages critical enquiries. Awareness of such a preference and its underly-ing learner concerns can place teachers in a better position to addressits potential negative effects. How can questions be designed, for exam-ple, in a way that displays a sensitivity to those concerns and therebyminimizes the orientation toward no-problem? Just as physicians need towrestle with the issue of how different question designs may be fitted tothe specific aspects of the medical visit (Heritage, 2010), teachers havesimilar problems to consider and similar decisions to make. We haveonly begun to unravel the larger jigsaw puzzle of teacher questions, andinspecting practices such as “Any questions?” is but one small steptoward solving the great mystery of teacher talk.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research would not have been possible without the generosity of the ESLteachers and their students who allowed my camera to “eavesdrop” as they went


about their classroom business. Both Jean Wong and Michael Vlahovic providedimportant feedback on earlier versions of this article. I would also like to acknowl-edge a number of productive conversations with Michael Vlahovic, who offeredvaluable insights into the relevance of this project to the practical concerns ofCEP teachers. My analysis is stronger and my arguments clearer because of theincisive comments made by the two anonymous reviewers, for which I am verygrateful. Finally, I would like to thank the editor Alan Hivela for pushing me tomake explicit some of the CA assumptions and methodological procedures thatare typically left unexplained and unquestioned.

THE AUTHOR

Hansun Zhang Waring is assistant professor of linguistics and education at Teach-ers College, Columbia University, where she teaches conversation analysis, dis-course analysis, and a doctoral seminar in discourse. Her work on secondlanguage classroom interaction has appeared in The Modern Language Journal, Lan-guage Learning, Language and Education, Classroom Discourse, and Language Awareness.

REFERENCES

Allen, P., Frohlich, E., & Spada, N. (1984). The communicative orientation of lan-guage teaching: An observation scheme. In J. Handscombe, R. A. Orem, & B.P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL ‘83 (pp. 231–252). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Banbrook, L., & Skehan, P. (1990). Classrooms and display questions. In C. Brum-fit & R. Mitchell (Eds.), Research in the language classroom (pp. 141–152). HongKong: Modern English Publications & The British Council.

Beach, W. (1993). Transitional regularities for “casual” “okay” usages. Journal ofPragmatics, 19, 325–352. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4

Benson, D., & Hughes, J. (1991). Method, evidence and inference—Evidence andinference for ethnomethodology. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and thehuman sciences (pp. 109–136). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Brock, C. A. (1986). The effect of referential questions on ESL classroom dis-course. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 47–59. doi:10.2307/3586388

Button, G. (1990). On varieties of closings. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interactional compe-tence (pp. 93–148). Washington, DC: International Institute of Ethnomethodol-ogy and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.

Cullen, R. (1998). Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal, 52, 179–187. doi:10.2307/3586388

David, O. F. (2007). Teacher’s questioning behavior and ESL classroom interac-tion pattern. Humanity and Social Sciences Journal, 2, 127–131.

Day, R. R. (1990). Teacher observation in second language teacher education. InJ. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 43–61).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional set-tings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

He, A. W. (2004). CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom.Modern Language Journal, 88, 568–582. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-19-.x

Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon, Eng-land: Multilingual Matters.

TESOL QUARTERLY748

Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.),“Why do you ask?” The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 42–68).Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Heritage, J., Robinson, J., Elliott, M., Beckett, M., & Wilkes, M. (2007). Reducingpatients’ unmet concerns in primary care: The difference one word can make.Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1429–1433. doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0279-0

Ho, D. G. E. (2005). Why do teachers ask the questions they ask? RELC Journal,36, 297–310. doi:10.1177/0033688205060052

Jacknick, C. M. (2011). Breaking in is hard to do: How students negotiate class-room activity shifts. Classroom Discourse, 2, 20–38. doi:10.1080/19463014.2011.562656

Jefferson, G. (1983). Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. Tilburg Papers inLanguage and Literature, 28, 1–28.

Kasper, G. (1997). “A” stands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner.Modern Language Journal, 88, 307–312. doi:10.2307/329304

Kasper, G. (2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learn-ing: Inside the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics,47, 11–36. doi:10.1515/iral.2009.002

Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation analytic approach to second lan-guage acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second languageacquisition (pp. 117–142). New York, NY: Routledge.

Koshik, I. (2002). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which conveyreversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1851–1877. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00057-7

Koshik, I. (2005). Alternative questions used in conversational repair. DiscourseStudies, 7, 193–212. doi:10.1177/1461445605050366

Koshik, I. (2010). Questions that convey information in teacher-student confer-ences. In A. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), “Why do you ask?” The function of questionsin institutional discourse (pp. 159–186). Oxford, England: Oxford UniversityPress.

Lazaraton, A. (1997). Preference organization in oral proficiency interviews: Thecase of language ability assessment. Research on Language and Social Interaction,30, 53–72. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3001_2

Lee, Y.-A. (2006). Respecifying display questions: Interactional resources for lan-guage teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 691–713. doi:10.2307/40264304

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and thenegotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141. doi:10.1093/applin/4.2.126

Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and

functions of teachers’ questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Class-room oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268–285). Cambridge,MA: Newbury House.

Markee, N. P., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. Modern Lan-guage Journal, 88, 491–500. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-14-.x

Mehan, H. (1979). “What time is it, Denise?” Asking known information questionsin classroom discourse. Theory Into Practice, 28, 285–294. doi:10.1080/00405847909542846

Mori, J., & Zuengler, J. (2008). Conversation analysis and talk-in-interaction in theclassroom. In M. Martin-Jones, A. M. de Mejia, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.),Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 3: Discourse and education (2nd ed.,pp. 15–27). New York, NY: Springer.


Mortensen, K. (2009). Establishing recipiency in pre-beginning position in thesecond language classroom. Discourse Processes, 46, 491–515. doi:10.1080/01638530902959463

Nunn, R. (1999). The purpose of language teachers’ questions. International Reviewof Applied Linguistics, 37, 23–42. doi:10.1515/iral.1999.37.1.23

Perakyla, A. (2004). Reliability and validity in research based on naturally occur-ring social interaction. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method,and practice (2nd ed., pp. 283–304). London, England: Sage.

Pica, T., & Long, M. (1986). The linguistic and conversational performance ofexperienced and inexperienced teachers. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn(pp. 85–98). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some featuresof preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.),Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.

Pomerantz, A. (1990). On the validity and generalizability of conversation analyticmethods: Conversation analytic claims. Communication Monographs, 57, 231–235.doi:10.1080/03637759009376198

Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives andthe structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967. doi:10.2307/1519752

Raymond, G. (2010). Grammar and social relations: Alternative forms of yes-no-type initiating actions in health visitor interactions. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich(Eds.), “Why do you ask?” The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp.87–107). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language class-rooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequencesin conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization(pp. 54–69). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest systematics forthe organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.doi:10.2307/412243

Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiatedrepair. Discourse Processes, 23, 499–545. doi:10.1080/01638539709545001

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction (Vol. 1). Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.

Shomoossi, N. (2004). The effect of teachers’ questioning behavior on EFLclassroom interaction: A classroom research study. The Reading Matrix, 4, 96–104.

Spada, N. (1990). Observing classroom behaviors and learning outcomes in differ-ent second language programs. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second lan-guage teacher education (pp. 293–310). Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of the question-response system in American Eng-lish conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2772–2781. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011

ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

TESOL QUARTERLY750

Thompson, J. (1997). Training teachers to ask questions. ELT Journal, 51, 99–105.doi:10.1093/elt/51.2.99

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London, England: Long-man.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom observation tasks: A resource book for language teachersand trainers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. New York, NY: Routledge.Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language class-

room: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. Modern Language Journal, 92,577–594. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00788.x

Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF: A single case analysis. Language Learning,59, 796–824. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00526.x

Waring, H. Z. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities. Classroom Dis-course, 2, 201–218. doi:10.1080/19463014.2011.614053

Wong, J. (2004). Some preliminary thoughts on delay as an interactional resource.In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 114–131).London, England: Continuum.

Wootton, A. J. (1989). Remarks on the methodology of conversation analysis. InD. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 238–258). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.

Wu, K.-Y. (1993). Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited. RELCJournal, 24(2), 49–68. doi:10.1177/003368829302400203

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London, England:Sage.


APPENDIXCONVERSATION ANALYSIS TRANSCRIPTION

NOTATIONS

(.) untimed perceptible pause within a turnUnderline stressCAPS very emphatic stress↑ high pitch on word. sentence-final falling intonation? yes-no question rising intonation, phrase-final intonation (more to come)- a glottal stop, or abrupt cutting off of sound: lengthened vowel sound (extra colons indicate greater lengthening)= latch→ highlights point of analysis[ ] overlapped talk°soft° spoken softly/decreased volume> < increased speed(words) uncertain transcription.hhh inbreath$words$ spoken in a smiley voice((words)) comments on background, skipped talk, or nonverbal behavior{(( ))-words.} { } marks the beginning and ending of the simultaneous

occurrence of the verbal/silence and nonverbal; the absence of{ } means that the simultaneous occurrence applies to the entire turn

T teacherL unidentified learnerLL learnersBB black/whiteboardTB textbook

TESOL QUARTERLY752

any questions- investigating the nature of understanding-checks in the language classroom

Documents