Pedagogic and Instructional Perspectives in Language Education: The Context of Higher Education

by Enisa Mede (Volume editor) Kenan Dikilitaş (Volume editor) Derin Atay (Volume editor)
Edited Collection 388 Pages


Teacher education in higher education has been of great interest as a research area in recent years. The discussion focuses on topics such as tertiary pedagogies, professional development, instructional innovative practices as well as technology and instruction.
Following these topics, the contributors of this collected volume deal with English as a medium of instruction (EMI) and Content and Language Integrated Language (CLIL). They examine the professional development of lecturers and discuss further topics such as English for academic purposes (EAP), English for special purposes (ESP) and English for vocational purposes (EOP). Finally, they explore the use of technology as an instructional tool. This book is designed as a resource that enriches the knowledge of the teachers and aims to empower them to maintain, develop and increase students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills so that teachers can provide better classroom experiences for their students.

Table Of Content

  • Cover
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • About the editors
  • About the book
  • This eBook can be cited
  • Preface
  • Contents
  • List of Contributors
  • Ece Dilber and Kenan Dikilitaş: The Use of DIU in an ESP Setting in Turkey
  • Angela Gallagher and Christine Lechner: ARC: Action Research Communities for Language Teachers
  • Çiğdem Uzunkaya and Hatime Çiftçi: Perceptions of English Language Teachers towards English as a Lingua Franca and Its Pedagogy
  • John Adamson and Darlene Yamauchi: Translanguaging in the Japanese Tertiary Sector: Exploring Perceptions and Practices of English Medium Content and English Language Instructors
  • Zeynep Köylü: Understanding Tertiary Level EFL Instructors’ Codeswitching Behavior
  • Ferah Şenaydın, Beylü Karayazgan and Derin Atay: Utilizing L1 as an External Cognitive Aid to Facilitate L2 Writing
  • Myint Swe Khine and Ernest Afari: Engagement in English Language Learning and Self-Regulation among Students
  • Liss Kerstin Sylvén: Are CLIL Students at an Advantage in the Transition from Secondary to Tertiary Education?
  • Nader Ayish: Attitudes toward Using English as a Medium of Instruction among Emirati Male and Female Freshman Engineering Students
  • Aynur Kesen Mutlu and Yeşim Keşli Dollar: Public Speaking Class Anxiety and Fear of Negative Evaluation: A Study on EFL Learners
  • Gülsüm Çevikbaş and Enisa Mede: The Impact of Quizizz on the Vocabulary Development and Motivation of English Learners
  • Mustafa Polat: Emerging Technologies in Teacher Education Programs: Investigating Pre-Service English Teachers’ Perspectives and Decisions to Adopt Emerging Technologies
  • Pınar Ersin and Derin Atay: Enhancing Intercultural Sensitivity through Erasmus+: Case of Turkish Pre-service Teachers
  • Donald F. Staub and James Buckingham: Making a Place for Digital Badges in Professional Development in ELT
  • Tanju Deveci: The Use of Smartphones for Informal Learning in a Project-Based Course
  • List of Figures
  • List of Tables

List of Contributors

John Adamson

University of Niigata Prefecture, Japan

Ernest Afari

University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain

Derin Atay

Bahçeşehir University, Turkey

Nader Ayish

Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE

James Buckingham

Sultan Qaboos University, Oman

Gülsüm Çevikbaş

İstanbul Kültür University, Turkey

Hatime Çiftçi

Tanju Deveci

Khalifa University, UAE

Kenan Dikilitaş

Bahçeşehir University, Turkey

Ece Dilber

University of Turkish Aeronautical Association, Turkey

Yeşim Keşli Dollar

Texas Tech University, USA

Pınar Ersin

Marmara University, Turkey

Angela Gallagher

University for the Creative Arts, UK

Myint Swe Khine

Emirates College for Advanced Education, United Arab Emirates

Zeynep Köylü

Bakırçay University, Turkey

Christine Lechner

Pedagogical University Tirol, Austria

Enisa Mede

Bahçeşehir University, Turkey

Aynur Kesen Mutlu

Istanbul Medipol University, Turkey

Mustafa Polat

Bahçeşehir University, Turkey

Donald F. Staub

School of Foreign Languages, Izmir University of Economics, Turkey

←15 | 16→

Liss Kerstin Sylvén

University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Ferah Şenaydın

Ege University, Turkey

Çiğdem Uzunkaya

İstanbul Şehir University, Turkey

Darlene Yamauchi

Bunkyo Gakuin University, Japan

Beylü Kara Yazgan

Ege University, Turkey

←16 |

Ece Dilber and Kenan Dikilitaş

The Use of DIU in an ESP Setting in Turkey


Conversation analysis is a rapidly developing area of study in applied linguistics (Schegloff, 1999, pp. 405–406; Seedhouse, 2005, p. 165). Social interactions can be better understood with Conversation analysis, which allows for analysis of both the verbal (use of certain expressions, words and intonations) and non-verbal (gestures, mimics and embodiment) productions (Kääntä, 2012, p. 180). These multimodal meaning creation processes can, in turn, help teachers understand classroom interaction and influence teaching (Seedhouse, 2005) and learning.

Teachers can elicit information from learners in different ways. It is argued that teachers use Designedly Incomplete utterances (DIUs) (Koshik (2002) as a pedagogical resource (Sert & Walsh, 2013). DIUs often appear in classroom talk and are dependent on the context of interaction in which they occur. Sert and Walsh (2013) underline the importance of language teachers’ strategies and suggest that effective language use might relies on the employment of interactional resources, such as DIU, which can facilitate language learning through student participation and engagement.

Inevitable aspects of teaching-learning process (Goodwin, 2007), participation and engagement in the classroom are promoted by teachers, critical sources of input (Vickov & Jakupčević, 2017, p. 653) as well as by their classroom practices and their implementation of classroom discourse (Arnold & Fonseca-Mora, 2007, p. 110). Teachers play a significant role in establishing communication patterns (Walsh, 2002) which might facilitate participation. These patterns foster communication through recognition and appreciation of learners (Arnold & Fonseca-Mora, 2007; Waring, 2011) especially when they are nominated to answer, praised and encouraged to engage.

To investigate the nature of participation and engagement, we examined the DIUs in the transcribed conversations between the teacher and the learners.

Designedly Incomplete Utterances

Initially defined as a kind of word search by Lerner (1995, p. 122), incomplete utterances were later termed as DIUs by Koshik (2002). DIUs are often used instructional strategies and sequences (Margutti, 2010) and constitute an important aspect of teacher questions which elicit answers and ascertaining student ←17 | 18→knowledge and learning (Çakır & Cengiz, 2016, p. 61). DIUs might contribute to the questioning process since the teacher elicits student knowledge by urging them to complete an utterance and initiates self-correction of verbal errors.

Netz (2016) describes DIUs as a type of display questions without interrogative form, which still function as questions. DIUs help make answers transparent through prosodic features such as raising intonation towards the end of the sentence and vowel lengthening at the end of the sentence (Koshik, 2002; Margutti, 2010). DIUs make salient the missing information in the utterance (Lerner, 1995) and help learners recall that information, a role that makes the learner a knowing one (Margutti, 2010).

By leaving the utterance incomplete, the teacher encourages students to fill in the empty slot (Margutti, 2010), which might provide motivation for the students to participate without extended pauses and as fluently as possible (Lerner, 1996). DIUs therefore could accelerate the rate of interaction and assigns learners key responsibilities in pedagogical conversations. DIUs have several pedagogical functions, which we present below.

Functions of “DIUs”

As Hints

DIUs are viewed as one type of elicitation technique by Koshik (2002) as a pedagogical resource, also termed as “cued elicitation” (Mercer, 1995, p. 26). Margutti (2010), more specifically, describe DIUs as a means of

soliciting student knowledge through utterance completion

requesting recalling through teacher hinting

conveying implicit requests for completion.

However, Margutti also notes that teachers need to allot enough time so that the students can gather their thoughts and participate to prevent failure and discouragement. Teachers hint at learner engagement employing DIUs through pauses and other features of prosody, implying implicit requests for completion and are designed to hint that the utterance is not finished (Margutti, 2010).

As a Repair Strategy

DIUs are also employed in EFL classes as a means of conversational repair for students’ language use. Teachers form DIUs by repeating a part of students’ utterance with a sound stretch in the last syllable, slowing at the end of the utterance, or continuing intonation before the part that needs correction so that ←18 | 19→students can initiate correction (Koshik, 2002) and to target oral errors for student self-correction in language classes (Omaggio Hadley, 1993 cited in Koshik, 2002, p. 306). Keating (2009) states that self-correction invites negotiation due to the repetitions and self-interruptions by its nature, which gives the inclusivity of speaker a different point of view.

One of the central issues in language teaching is the ways teachers repair student outcome. Harmer (2007) suggests that correction is a highly personal business and is standing out among other classroom interactions. Knowing when to implement DIU is important because when the language error is not the focus of the lesson, trying to deal with it can interrupt the flow of the activity and make the students stray away from the topic. DIUs, however, do not interrupt the ongoing activity because they are designed as part of it (Lerner, 1996, p. 248).

When repairing, DIUs function more differently than when they are used for elicitation in the shape of sentence completion. Repair with DIUs can be in the shape of repetition or echoing (Harmer, 2007) of the student outcome, coupled with intonation and expression hinting that something is not right and needs correcting. The students should know that, at minimum, they are being prompted to display knowledge on the issue (Koshik, 2002; Margutti, 2010).

Impact of DIUs on Student Participation

Classrooms are institutional settings where learning and teaching practices manifest themselves in interactions between students and teachers (Sert & Walsh, 2013). A central finding is that participation is key to the process of learning in interaction (Sert & Walsh, 2013; Seedhouse and Walsh, 2010, cited in Sert & Walsh, 2013; Nunan, 2003; Sert, 2017) state the importance of learner participation by pointing out the fact that in conversation-analytic approach to learning in language classrooms, learning is seen as emerging from participation. They state that learning is not seen as a cognitive state, rather can be defined as a change in a socially displayed cognitive state achieved on turn-by-turn basis. By facilitating student agency, learners are given the opportunity to take on different identities in which they can exploit the language according to their benefit and thus be given more of a learning opportunity than a student would be in a classroom strictly following certain rules about teacher and student roles. As opportunities of learning increase in a classroom, depth of learning also increases from which students can benefit (Van Lier, 1996, p. 184).

As a pedagogical source, DIUs also appear to be helpful in student participation in an observable way. Student engagement is key to successful learning and teaching experiences in language classrooms (Sert & Walsh, 2013; Walsh, 2006; ←19 | 20→Waring, 2008; Waring & Hruska, 2011). In order for a DIU to be successful in pedagogic settings, a high level of collaboration between teacher and students is demanded (Margutti, 2010). DIUs provide students with ample opportunities to realize a need for a turn constructional unit (TCU) or utterance repair (Koshik, 2002). Sert and Walsh (2013) also suggest that Designedly Incomplete Utterances (DIUs) can inspire interaction and lead to further participation in class. In their study, they indicated that a student who claimed insufficient knowledge, keeps participating after the teacher’s initiation of a DIU and is engaged in ongoing interaction. The DIU appears to be fruitful in that they do contribute to the progress of talk and foster student participation (Sert & Walsh, 2013).

Margutti (2010) suggests that classroom questions, DIUs being a form of incomplete questions, achieve, maintain, and sustain students’ participation in the activity underway. By signaling that some missing information is asked of the students creates an encouraging atmosphere for students and shows to the students that the teacher believes that they can in fact complete the turn, which encourages students to participate.

Netz (2016) states that DIU that is used for hinting can function more than just as clues for elicitation. They urge and push the students for completion. Although, it cannot be claimed that DIU practices lead to language acquisition or learning, they do increase student participation (Sert & Walsh, 2013). Due to the fact that successful classroom interaction depends on learners’ engagement and participation, (Sert & Walsh, 2013; Margutti, 2010), it is very important that teacher creates opportunities for learners to become the knowing recipient (Waring, 2011).


Research Design

In order to conduct this study, one speaking class was examined and analyzed in an ESP setting. The focus of the analysis emerged from the data as in exploratory research practices. So the emerging research focus was DIU as a specific teacher strategy that teachers use in their classroom interaction with students to elicit student responses and check learning. Conversational Analysis (CA) was used as the method in the analysis of the classroom interactions in this research since it provides an understanding of how people interact with one another using the language (Sert, et. al., 2015, p. 5). It also documents micro moments of interaction and clarifies how interaction is managed between individuals (Sert & Walsh, 2013). In addition, it provides a number of methodological advantages for a qualitative research (see Sert, 2017). CA, for example,

←20 | 21→

contributes to understanding the nature of interactions without losing its objectivity (Sert, et al., 2015)

provides readers with reliable data and transcription (Seedhouse, 2005, p. 179)

ensures validity by providing data analyzed through an emic perspective (Seedhouse, 2005)

Data and Context

The participants are the students of civil aviation cabin services program at the vocational school of Turkish Aeronautical University in Selçuk/İzmir. There are 16 students in the classroom and their ages vary between 18 and 23. They have lessons such as business English (beginning in the second term of the first year and continuing throughout the second year), grammar, reading (only in the first year), writing (in the second year) and speaking lessons (both years). The participants are in their final year. The students have four-hour speaking lessons a week, each lesson being 40 minutes long. Lesson materials that were used for speaking lessons were books, worksheets and lessons audios of the books. The teacher in the extracts- a graduate of the department of English Language Teaching- is also the researcher of this study. During the recording of the extracts, she is working her 4th year as a lecturer. The participants were chosen according to their convenience. There were two cabin classes; however, the one recorded for this research consisted of students who consented to participating in the study. Speaking lessons were designed according to principles of ESP, involving language content and skills that they need in their future career. That is why specially designed materials were used in these lessons; that is, the context of the lessons subsumes cabin services and civil aviation. In the first term of the first year, the speaking lessons were designed to help students reach a basic level of L2 speaking. In the second term of the first year, the content of the lessons changed into ESP format including aviation.

The data were collected through video-recordings of the speaking lessons. The participants’ names have been anonymized. The teacher took the consent of the students before starting the recordings. Also, the teacher’s petition to record the lessons was approved by the school principal. The lessons were recorded once in two weeks. A camera was used in order to record the lessons. The camera was located on top of the white board thanks to which the students are facing the camera, but the teacher’s face is rarely visible due to the fact that she is addressing to the class almost throughout the entire extract. Six-hour data were recorded. This six-hour data were collected within a three-month period of time.

←21 | 22→

Data Analysis

After the data collection procedure was completed, the recordings were watched many times in order to represent the classroom interaction accurately by the researcher who was also the teacher in the videos. In order to analyze the six-hour data, a computer software program called ‘Audacity’ was used. The video recordings were transmitted to audio files, which were later uploaded to this program in order to transcribe the classroom talk in detail. Data were analyzed using a conversational analytic framework.

The data consisting of 30 extracts were transcribed in minute detail following Jefferson (2004) transcription conventions, one of which was selected randomly and shared with intercoders at the Hacettepe University Micro Analysis Network (HUMAN) Research Center in Turkey. They read through the extract and accepted to simultaneously analyze it with us. They invited us to a data session in February 2017. During the session, we found that the researcher frequently used DIUs for two main reasons which include hints and repairs. With this initial analysis in mind, we watched all the videos and explored all uses of DIUs in the recorded lessons. There were only some technical limitations for this research. The first one was the recording. Due to the deficiency of some classroom tools, only one camera could be used and that was pointed towards the classroom. Secondly, from time to time the camera shot down due to a dead battery, which was realized at the end of the lesson. Despite those limitations, good amount of data were recorded, which enabled a smooth and successful transcription and analysis.


The classroom interaction extracts analyzed below were taken from different parts of the lessons; some show the very beginning and some others during the practice. The analysis extracts are orderly; from the oldest to the newest. In all extracts, teacher’s use of DIU and the students’ take on them can be seen. Use of DIU as hints and repair are presented separately in different extracts (see extract 1, 2). The teacher’s management of DIU while initiating it and after each student response to it are also presented in the extracts with her use of gestures, too.

Extract 1

Before this extract, the teacher distributed worksheets to the students where they match pictures with their definitions. The extract presents the last stages of the elicitation phase of the lesson. One of the students can’t match, so the teacher ←22 | 23→initiates correction by repeating what the student answers, thus hinting. Then, the lesson moves on with the teacher’s initiation of DIU.

01 T: yes ikbal

02 L4: date

   +L2 raises his hand

03 T:   (0.6) date? (.) seven?

   +T looks at the worksheet, takes a step

               back and looks at the class

04 (0.7)

05 T:   let’s sa:y onurhan?

   +L2 raises his hand

              +T looks at L2 and points at him

06 L2: (0.4) seat number.

07 T: (.) very good. and the last one i:::s?(.)

   +T nods at him

              +L4 raises her hand

08 L4: gate number.

09 T: gate number. Very good. Okay.(0.5) so:::

10     (0.4)you know (0.4) what information is on a

11     boarding pass now. yeah? (0.4) did you know them

12     before? (0.5)

    +L4 nods

13 L5: yes?

14 T: >did you know them before?< okay, did you see: a

15 boarding pa:ss (0.4) whi:le you were doing your

16 internship? (0.3) in the summer? (0.9)

17 L5: of course?

Biographical notes

Enisa Mede (Volume editor) Kenan Dikilitaş (Volume editor) Derin Atay (Volume editor)

Enisa Mede is Associate Professor at the department of English Language Teaching (ELT) at Bahçeşehir University, Istanbul (Turkey). Her research interests include program design and evaluation in second/foreign language education, bilingual education and first/second language development in young learners. Kenan Dikilitaş is Associate Professor at the department of English Language Teaching at Bahçeşehir University, Istanbul (Turkey). His research interests include English language teacher education with a focus on pre- and in-service teacher development. Derin Atay is Professor at the department of Foreign Language Education at Bahçeşehir University, Istanbul (Turkey). Her research interests include teacher research, culture in language education, pre- and in-service teacher education and critical thinking in education. She has authored numerous articles in indexed journals and book chapters and conducted teacher professional development seminars.


Title: Pedagogic and Instructional Perspectives in Language Education: The Context of Higher Education