Article published In: Teacher-Student Engagement Patterns in CSL Classrooms and Beyond: Video-based multimodal analyses
Edited by Hongyin Tao and Yan Zhou
[Chinese as a Second Language (漢語教學研究—美國中文教師學會學報) 59:3] 2024
► pp. 385–411
Navigating claims of insufficient knowledge in one-on-one Chinese tutoring
A special case of teacher-student engagement
Published online: 2 May 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/csl.00065.tsa
https://doi.org/10.1075/csl.00065.tsa
Abstract
This study examines the occurrence of claims of insufficient knowledge in one-on-one college-level Chinese
tutoring sessions, drawing on 12 hours of videotaped data. Using conversation analysis, it examines the progression of these
claims, the multimodal resources employed, and tutors’ responses. Two sequential patterns emerge: (1) claims during vocabulary
checks and (2) claims following knowledge-sharing questions. In both patterns, tutees occasionally express direct claims. However,
they more often engage in reflective processes, accompanied by embodied displays, before articulating a claim of insufficient
knowledge. In the second pattern, they sometimes specify inaccessible aspects, leading to partial claims. Tutors act as facilitators,
providing timely support to bridge knowledge gaps and maintain engagement. This study enhances understanding of epistemics,
multimodal resources, and participation, shedding light on a specialized yet understudied aspect of teacher-student interaction in
Chinese as a Second Language learning.
摘要
本研究探討一對一大學華語輔導課程中,學生提出知識不足聲明(claims of insufficient knowledge, CIK)的互動序列情境。基於12小時的錄影資料,研究採用會話分析(conversation
analysis,
CA)方法,本文深入分析學習者如何展現知識不足的行動,以及輔導老師如何回應這些聲明,同時關注互動中師生運用的多模態資源。本文揭示兩類典型的互動情境:(1)學習者在詞彙確認過程中提出的知識不足聲明,以及(2)學習者在知識分享型問題後的知識不足聲明。結果顯示,學習者有時會直接以搖頭或「我不知道」來表達,但更多時候他們會展示反思過程,伴隨具體的身體動作,最終以知識不足作為總結性表達。此外,在分享型問題情境中,學習者會聲明部分不知,並說明他們所欠缺的資訊面向。在這些互動中,輔導老師持續扮演協助者角色,通過及時支援填補知識差距,維持學習者的互動參與。這項研究深入探討了知識情態、多模態資源和參與機制,突顯它們在形塑一對一華語輔導互動中的作用。
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Epistemics, knowledge checks, and claims of insufficient knowledge
- 3.Data and method
- 4.Analysis
- 4.1In response to the tutor’s vocabulary checks
- 4.2In response to questions designed to prompt knowledge sharing
- 4.3Summary
- 5.Discussion and conclusion
- Acknowledgements
References
References (39)
Belhiah, H. (2009). Tutoring
as an embodied activity: How speech, gaze and body orientation are coordinated to conduct ESL tutorial
business. Journal of
Pragmatics, 41(4), 829–841.
Bolden, G. B. (2009). Beyond
answering: Repeat-preface responses in conversation. Communication
Monographs, 76(2), 121–143.
Drew, P. (1992). Contested
evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for
rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk
at work: Interaction in institutional
settings (pp. 470–520). Cambridge University Press.
Duran, D., & Jacknick, C. M. (2020). Teacher
response pursuits in whole class post-task discussions. Linguistics and
Education, 561, 1–13.
Duran, D., & Jakonen, T. (2022). Mobilizing
‘context’: Vocabulary checks in ESL tutoring
sessions. System, 1071, Article
102816.
Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation
Analysis. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 191, 283–307.
He, A. W. (2004). CA
for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom. The Modern Language
Journal, 88(4), 568–582.
Heritage, J. (2012). The
epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and
Social
Interaction, 45(1), 30–52.
Huang, S. (2013). Chinese
grammar at work. John Benjamins.
Hutchby, I. (2002). Resisting
the incitement to talk in child counselling: aspects of the utterance ‘I don’t know’. Discourse
Studies, 4(2), 147–168.
Jakonen, T., & Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic
search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied
Linguistics, 36(1), 73–94.
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side
Sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies
in social
interaction (pp. 294–338). Academic Press.
(2004). Glossary
of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation
analysis: Studies from the first
generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.
Keevallik, L. (2011). The
terms of not knowing. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The
morality of knowledge in
conversation (pp. 184–206). Cambridge University Press.
Kim, Y. (2019). ‘What
is Stoyr-steruh type?’: Knowledge asymmetry, intersubjectivity, and learning opportunities in
conversation-for-learning. Applied
Linguistics, 40(2), 307–328.
Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly
incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction
sequences. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 35(3), 277–309.
Lee, Y.-A. (2007). Third
turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of
Pragmatics, 39(6), 1204–1230.
(2008). Yes-no
questions in the third-turn position: Pedagogical discourse processes. Discourse
Processes, 45(3), 237–262.
Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom
talks: An introduction. The Modern Language
Journal, 88(4), 491–500.
Mortensen, K. (2008). Selecing
next speaker in the second langauge classroom: How to find a willing next speaker in palnned
activities. Journal of Applied
Linguistcs, 5(1), 55–79.
Okada, Y., & Greer, T. (2013). Pursuing
a relevant response in oral proficiency interview role
plays. In S. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing
second language
pragmatics (pp. 288–310). Springer.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Issues
of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction and co-participant
context. In E. H. Hovy & D. Scott (Eds.), Computational
and conversational discourse: Burning issues— an interdisciplinary
account (pp. 3–35). Springer Verlag.
Scheibman, J. (2000). I
dunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don’t in American English
conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics, 105–124.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The
interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis
perspective. Blackwell.
Seo, M.-S., & Koshik, I. (2010). A
conversation analytic study of gestures that engender repair in ESL conversational
tutoring. Journal of
Pragmatics, 42(8), 2219–2239.
Sert, O. (2013). ‘Epistemic
status check’ as an interactional phenomenon in instructed learning settings. Journal of
Pragmatics, 45(1), 13–28.
Sert, O., & Walsh, S. (2013). The
interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English language
classrooms. Language and
Education, 27(6), 542–565.
Stivers, T., & Enfield, N. J. (2010). A
coding scheme for question-response sequences in conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics, 42(10), 2620–2626.
Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A
preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in
Society, 351, 367–392.
Tao, H. (2015). Profiling
the Mandarin spoken vocabulary based on corpora. In W. S.-Y. Wang & C. Sun (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of Chinese
linguistics (pp. 336–347). Oxford University Press.
(2016). Disputed
memory and the social interactive functions of remembering/forgetting expressions in Mandarin
conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics, 1061, 184–202.
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar
in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge University Press.
Wang, W. (2021). The
question-response system in Mandarin
conversation. Pragmatics, 31(4), 589–616.
