| Summary: | This thesis is an investigation of the differences in language use between teachers and students in content and language integrated classrooms (CLIL) in a Saudi higher education context. It examines the use of the short response tokens "yes", "yeah" and "no" in four subject-specific classrooms where English is used as a medium of instruction. Adopting a social constructivist approach to learning, the study was conducted over two phases, one qualitative, using the principles of conversation analysis, the other quantitative, using corpus linguistics. This approach to analysis highlights the importance of combining conversation analysis with other quantitative methods such as corpus linguistics to enhance understandings of classroom interaction. The use of the two methods helps us to understand the relationship between language, interaction and the orientation to scientific knowledge in CLIL classrooms. The thesis is a contribution to the existing body of knowledge on CLIL. However, unlike what has been done so far (e.g. Dalton-Puffer 2007; Nikhula 2005) this thesis focuses on the interaction inside CLIL classrooms using a micro-analytic account of turn-taking practices, repair and preference organization. By using a conversation analytic perspective, the thesis reflects on the relationship between socialization and learning in CLIL with special attention given to the active role of response tokens in talk-in-interaction as used by teachers and students. Finally, the thesis demonstrates how teachers and students use response tokens differently as a step towards understanding the interactional architecture (Seedhouse 2004) of a CLIL context. The findings show that teachers and students use response tokens to carry out different interactional functions such as dis/agreements, acknowledgements, responses to confirmation checks, and to yes/no questions. However, the findings also show that there are some interactional functions that are exclusive to students such as a response to other-initiated repair and a response to a request to display epistemic access to information. Others, exclusive to teachers, include giving positive/negative evaluation and allocating a next speaker's turn. These functions demonstrate the relationship between interaction and pedagogical focus (Seedhouse 2004) and confirm the teacher’s predetermined institutional role.
|
|---|
