Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 289– 300

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Linguistics and Education

j ourna l ho me pag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / l inged

Problematic directives in pedagogical interaction

Hansun Zhang Waring ∗, Barbara L. Hruska1

TESOL/AL Program, Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 W. 120th St., PO Box 66, New York, NY 10027, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 4 July 2012

Keywords:DirectivesPedagogical interactionESOLPre-service and in-service teachersTeacher educationClassroom researchConversation analysisDiscourse analysisEthnography

a b s t r a c t

Directives are integral to teachers’ pedagogical repertoire, and their efficacy crucial to opti-mizing learning outcomes. Based on data from a videotaped tutoring session collected at anafter-school early literacy program, we describe the specific ways in which certain practicesof directives can hinder learner participation and compromise learning opportunities. Theanalysis is done predominantly in the conversation analytic (CA) framework, and ethno-graphic details are utilized to contextualize, elaborate, and enrich the CA analysis. Findingsof this study contribute to the existing work on directives as well as that on teacher practicesin pedagogical interactions.

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Directives are attempts by the speaker to get the hearer to do something, such as questioning, inviting, suggesting,requesting, advising, and the like (Searle, 1976). Such attempts, not surprisingly, are integral to teachers’ pedagogical reper-toire, and their efficacy crucial to optimizing learning outcomes (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008;Emmer, Evertson, & Anderson, 1980). For this paper, the directives we are interested in are those that demand informationand are typically implemented via questions (e.g., “How do you spell manatee?”). The ability to fashion such directives pro-ductively can be a challenge for novice teachers (Chilcoat, 1989; Duffy, Roehler, Meloth, & Vavrus, 1989). One difficult skillfor example, is asking fine-tuned elicitation questions that attend to learners’ emerging understandings (Echevarria et al.,2008; Evertson & Emmer, 1982; Fisher et al., 1980; Wong & Waring, 2010, p. 268). In this paper, we describe the specificways in which certain practices of directives can incur difficulty in learner understanding and thereby hinder learner par-ticipation and diminish learning opportunities. Our aim is to achieve a finer understanding of this important pedagogicalpractice in hopes that greater awareness would lead to greater efficacy. Potential audiences for this work include preserviceand inservice teachers, teacher educators, classroom researchers, and conversation analysts.

1. Background

Two concepts are pivotal to our current inquiry: directive and learning opportunity. In what follows, we synthesize theliterature on each in pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and various approaches to discourse analysis.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 212 678 3795; fax: +1 212 678 3428.E-mail addresses: hz30@columbia.edu (H.Z. Waring), hruska@tc.edu (B.L. Hruska).

1 Tel.: +1 212 678 3795; fax: +1 212 678 3428.

0898-5898/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.06.002

290 H.Z. Waring, B.L. Hruska / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 289– 300

1.1. Directives

Directives are considered a type of speech act that includes command, order, request, beg, invite, advice, etc. by philoso-phers of language (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1976). Some empirical work on directives yields taxonomies that outline the formsof directives (e.g., need statements, imperatives, hints) and how such forms are systematically correlated with varioussocial and situational factors (Ervin-Tripp, 1976). As Goodwin (2006a) writes, “[d]irectives may take alternative forms, andmake different claims about how the recipient is positioned with respect to them. Some directive formats suggest that theaddressee has complete control over whether the requested action will in fact be performed” (p. 137). She found that duringthe children’s game of jump rope, bald imperatives are expected in the midst of the activity while more indirect forms areused at junctures of the play activity (Goodwin, 2006a, p. 137). In her study of physicians’ use of directives, West (1990)found that male doctors use more aggravated forms of directives that stress status difference (e.g., imperatives) while femaledoctors use more mitigated forms (e.g., proposals for joint action) and that the latter are more likely to secure patient compli-ance. By contrast, Goodwin (2006b) shows that girls routinely use aggravated forms of directives when they are positionedas the experts of the jump rope activity.

Other studies have focused on what directives do in interaction. Particularly relevant for the present paper is previousstudies focusing on pedagogical interaction. In her work on how teacher directives in a Chinese heritage language schoolcontribute to language socialization, He (2000) categorizes the directives into instructional directives and disciplinary direc-tives. Instructional directives are used to implement classroom procedures and teaching agendas and tend to be initiatingdirectives, and disciplinary directives are used to discipline students and often done in response to prior talk or behavior (He,2000). Koshik (2010) shows how teachers use designedly incomplete utterances (DIUs) to elicit correction and alternativequestions to prompt the learner to self-correct. In sum, prior work on directives has offered important insights into howdirectives are formulated, how that formulation varies across speakers, and what directives accomplish. The current studycontributes to this literature on directives by detailing certain specific features of directives that might incur difficulties inlearner understandings.

1.2. Learning opportunities

Learning opportunities in pedagogical interaction refer to opportunities that allow new understandings to be negotiatedand implemented in assisted use (cf. Waring, in press). The connection between interaction and learning opportunities issuccinctly articulated by van Lier (1994): “[w]e need to isolate those characteristics of interaction which provide opportuni-ties for learning, and then see how they are embodied in the different kinds of interaction that we can identify” (p. 72). Afterdetailing four types of pedagogical interactions that include transmission (delivery of information), recitation (IRF), transac-tion (information exchange), and transformation, where talk is jointly managed by all participants, van Lier (1994) suggeststhat “as one moves along a continuum from transmission toward transformation, opportunities for learning are likely tobe enhanced” (p. 80). In his study of teacher talk and learning opportunities, Walsh (2002) claims that learning opportuni-ties are facilitated when language use and pedagogical purpose coincide but missed when “there is a significant deviationbetween language use and teaching goals at a given moment in a lesson” (p. 5). For example, doing error-correction in aminimal and straightforward manner would coincide with the pedagogical focus of fluency and thereby facilitate learningopportunities.

The connection between interaction and learning opportunities has also been envisioned via the mediating conceptof participation: if we assume that greater participation leads to greater learning, interaction that promotes participationwould also promote learning. This view is in consonance with the sociocultural perspective that conceptualizes learningas increasing participation (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000; Young & Miller, 2004). Various interactional practices have beenidentified as promoting or blocking participation. Unfinished TCUs (turn-constructional units) (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson,1974), for example, are effective tools for eliciting learning participation in a bilingual third grade class (Lerner, 1995). In aquiz game designed for review purposes in a high school classroom, teacher elicitation delivered in a particular prosody cansucceed in enhancing learners’ interest and participation (Hellermann, 2005). When teachers engage in identify shifts suchas positioning himself momentarily as a learner, classroom interaction can blossom into a full-fledged discussion wheremeaning is jointly explored by all participants (Richards, 2006). In her study of an academic foundations for success (AFS)class created to bring students of different abilities together to explore how to be a successful high school student, Rex (2000)shows how the teacher successfully achieves interactional inclusion using discourse moves of a sociocultural mediator. Bycontrast, using a counter-question in response to learner questions raised during group work can transform the nature ofinteraction from learner-directed to teacher directed, and thereby hinder participation (Markee, 1995). Participation mayalso be curbed by bypassing a learner-initiated topic (He, 2004). Waring (2008) found that in certain contexts, the use ofexplicit positive assessments (EPAs) can deliver the news of “case closed” and thus no further discussion warranted. Equallyobstructive is what she calls “chained IRFs” (Waring, 2009) where a series of IRFs are used consecutively to carry out aninstructional activity. In sum, prior work on learning opportunities has focused on the types of interaction, sometimesmediated by the notion of participation, that facilitate or obstruct learning opportunities. The current study contributesto this existing literature by describing another set of practices that can compromise participation, and thereby learningopportunities.

H.Z. Waring, B.L. Hruska / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 289– 300 291

2. Data and method

Data come from a videotaped tutoring session collected at an after-school early literacy program for kindergarten throughsecond grade ESOL (English to speakers of other languages) students. Mindy, the tutor, was an undergraduate elementaryeducation major. As a monolingual native English speaker in her early 20s, Mindy had no previous formal teaching experienceor training. Nora, the tutee, was a first grade native Spanish speaker from Mexico with strong oral English proficiency. Shewas at a first grade level in English literacy skills. While providing 60-min one-to-one tutorials twice a week for 10 weeks,Mindy was concurrently enrolled in a required fieldwork ESOL practicum course. She was trained in methods of early literacyinstruction for ESOL students and was required to follow a particular format although she was free to decide what and howto teach. This is their sixth tutoring session together and the third formal lesson. The first three lessons were devoted togetting to know each other and conducting assessments.

Mindy was usually cheerful, creative, and willing to be flexible although she always approached the tutorial sessionswith a prepared lesson plan as required by the program supervisor. Nora tended to be strong-willed and like to do thingsher own way, but she was making consistent progress in literacy development and was usually engaged in Mindy’s lessons.In the approximately 10-min interaction used for this paper, Mindy is trying to help Nora spell the word “manatee,” wherethe focus of the lesson is on spelling words ending with “ee.” Spelling the word “manatee” was not in Mindy’s originallesson plan. She added it at Nora’s request in order to maintain her interest as the latter had been previously engaged witha manatee figurine used to introduce the lesson. In fact, Mindy had quite deftly transitioned Nora from activity to activity inthe first part of the lesson, securing her cooperation and ongoing engagement by allowing Nora to have input and choice asthe lesson progressed (Waring & Hruska, 2011).

Although the analysis is done first and foremost in the conversation analytic (CA) framework (see ten Have, 2007 for athorough introduction), ethnographic information is utilized to contextualize, elaborate, and enrich the CA analysis, and inparticular, it is used in our overall discussion of the implications of the findings. Attempts to combine CA and ethnographyhave long been an issue of much interest and debate (Fitch, 1998; Moerman, 1988; Nelson, 1994; Sanders, 1999; Waring,Creider, Tarpey, & Black, in press). CA is an analytical tool designed to uncover the tacit methods and procedures of socialinteraction by conducting detailed analysis of naturally occurring data transcribed from audio or video recordings (seeAppendix for transcription notations). Analysis begins with the meticulous inspection of single instances. The goal is touncover the meaning of interaction from the participants’ perspective, and this is done by close scrutiny of how each turn isproduced and received as evidenced in such minute details as pause, prosody, word choice, timing, sequential position andthe like. The application of CA to applied linguistics has gained some momentum since the beginning of this century (e.g.,Markee, 2000; Seedhouse, 2004; Waring, 2011).

The line-by-line analysis yielded by an initial CA treatment was then considered from the vantage point of one authorwho is intimately familiar with the study context. As the creator and supervisor of the program, she understood the programintent, the school context, the developmental level of the students and student teachers, and the instructional materials.As the course instructor, she was responsible for the initial and on-going training of the student teachers. She was alwayson-site during lesson delivery and provided observational feedback on teaching as well as commentaries on written work.In addition, she was able to draw from a broad educational context of 20 years of K-12 teaching and seven years of teachertraining. Such depth of experience is grounded in a synthesis of classroom-based field notes of 300 preservice teachersover 8 years of observation in two major US urban settings, thirty five videotaped recordings of preservice teachers duringlessons, 100 videotaped post-observation conferences between preservice teachers and supervisors, and 300 preserviceteacher written lesson plans and lesson reflections. Drawing upon this rich resource of ethnographic background bringsmuch breadth and depth to our understanding of the initial CA findings.

3. Analysis

As we join Mindy and Nora in the data below, the smooth navigation that Mindy has achieved earlier in the lesson (Waring& Hruska, 2011) begins to disintegrate. As shown in our earlier paper, when Nora made various s distracting moves such asuttering silly sound strings, disengaging gaze, or producing whiney gestures and body movements, Mindy deployed a rangeof resources including aligning with Nora’s world, maximizing Nora’s participation, and mitigating opposition in successfullymanaging Nora’s resistance and accomplishing the transition from one lesson segment to the next. The analysis below shows,on the other hand, that what initially appears to be Nora’s inability to understand questions or follow directions turns outto be more of a problem of a different kind—the nature of Mindy’s directives. In what follows, we describe specific featuresof such directives with regard to clarity and relevance. An initial CA analysis is followed up with an ethnographic accountaddressed to the discussion of each feature.

3.1. Clarity of the directives

One clarity issue involves ambiguous reference or wording. In the following segment, Mindy and Nora have just finishedreviewing the words that end in “ee,” and Nora has demonstrated her competence in matching the figurines of “tree,” “bee”and “manatee” with the actual words in a book. They each have a small whiteboard and marker for this task and a common

292 H.Z. Waring, B.L. Hruska / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 289– 300

Fig. 1. Extract 1 Line 06.

eraser. They have begun to spell “manatee” letter by letter and have so far completed “m-a-n-a-t” with two more letters togo (Note: “B” refers to “board” in the transcripts below):(1)01 Mindy: {((picks up B and tilts to N direction)) mana:,02 [{tee::?-((glances at N’s B and withdraws own))}03Nora: $[mh↑hmm[nnnnn]-((back to seat))$04 Mindy: → [Okay,] wha[t did-]05 Nora: [(yeh.)]06 Mindy: what did all {these- ((reaches for tree))}07 [((picks up and repositions tree))}08 Nora: [tre[e:::::::]09 Mindy: [letter-] what did they {end in.-((brings closer10 green book with “tree” and “bee” and “me”))}11 Nora: tree: -((looks to green book))12 Mindy: [How did they e:nd. ((points to book))]13 Nora: [((N begins to look down and start writing))]14 ((writes while M looks))-(5.0)15 Mindy: How d- ho- okay so, write down16 [the tree: the bee,]-((refers to book))

In line 04, Mindy begins a directive sequence with a wh question. She quickly comes to a cut-off and initiates self-repairwith the insertion of “all,” thereby switching the focus from “manatee” to “ee” words in general. The pronoun “these” in line06 would thus refer to words such as “tree” or “bee,” but this word reference clashes with her nonverbal gesture of reachingfor “tree” the object (see Fig. 1), which is quickly repaired with a cut-off and “letter,” although, like “tree” the object, a letterwould not end in anything either. Another cut-off ensues as Mindy redoes the question in its entirety: “what did they end in,”substituting “letter” with “they” and bringing closer the green book with the “ee” words. By the time this five-word directiveis completed, it has undergone three self-repairs. In her attempt to fill the X slot of “what did X end in” then, Mindy goesfrom what was mostly likely to be “manatee” to “all these,” to “letter,” and finally, “they.” That Nora is closely monitoringthese quick oscillations is in part captured in the frame below, where she brings her gaze to the “tree” precisely at the timewhen Mindy reaches the “tree,” and she utters “tree” immediately thereafter in line 08. The multiple changes in a shortdirective as well as Nora’s close monitoring of such changes may be creating obstacles to Nora’s efforts to comply.

That Nora indeed displays trouble understanding Mindy’s directive can be observed in the next few lines. By the time thedirective is heard in its entirely without a glitch, Nora responds with “tree” in line 11, which is clearly not a fitted answerto “what did they end in,” but with her gaze on the book, the repetition of “tree” may suggest that she is finally making theconnection that the teacher is referring to the actual words in the book, not the figurines on the desk. Still, Nora’s difficultyis further evidenced in Mindy’s attempt to rephrase her original directive in line 12 as well as Nora’s conduct of writing“tree” rather than the “ee” ending sought by Mindy. (It is not clear from the video what Nora is writing exactly but inferablefrom Mindy’s later uptake.) One might argue, as one reviewer points out, that Nora is responding to Mindy’s directive inthe best way she could, gathering from the latter’s nonverbal gestures that involves the figurine “tree” and the book withthe words “tree” and “bee” that Mindy may be asking her to write down these words. Note that either “what did they endin.” or “How did they e:nd.” is designed in such a way that makes a wide range of unrelated answers potentially acceptable:“in happiness,” “quietly,” “with a comma” etc. In other words, it is still not entirely clear what Mindy is after. Rather thanfurther pursuing a project that seems to have reached a dead end, however, Mindy temporarily shifts her agenda to buildon, rather than reject, the task that Nora has now initiated, i.e., writing down “tree” and “bee.”

Briefly, in Excerpt 1, we have observed some lack of clarity in Mindy’s directive and Nora’s difficulty in responding to thatdirective in a way that aligns with Mindy’s goal despite her close attention and best efforts. Specifically contributing to the

H.Z. Waring, B.L. Hruska / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 289– 300 293

Fig. 2. Extract 2 Line 10.

problem are (1) the multiple self-repairs in a short question; (2) the conflicting verbal and nonverbal referents for “these”;(3) the question design that fails to adequately limit the range of acceptable answers.

The next segment contains another reference problem except that in this case the problematic item is not a pronoun buta noun. Nora has just finished writing “tree” and “bee” on her board next to the unfinished “manatee.” Mindy’s directive of“underline the similarities” is given when Nora’s gaze is neither on Mindy nor on what she is pointing to on the board:

(2)01 Nora: ((writes)) o↓:::h ((erases and finishes writing))02 Mindy: → [Okay so underline the] [similarities.-((pen over words))]03 Nora: [((looks to the green book))] [((moves to manatee on B)) ]04 Mindy: → [W h a t’s t h e sa ]=05 Nora: [((turns to what M is pointing to))]06 Mindy: = [me in the word ] [“tree:” and “bee.” ]07 Nora: [((back to manatee again))] [((turns to tree and bee))]08 (0.2)09 Mindy: → Un[derline it.10 Nora: [((draws one long line under everything she wrote))-11 (the le::tters?)12 Mindy: → What letters. What letters {are the same in each word.-13 ((points successively to ‘tree’ and ‘bee’))}14 Nora: u:h15 Mindy: ((draw line between “manatee” and the other words))16 Nora: t:, t:, ((points to t in ‘manatee’ and then in ‘tree’ with pen))17 {(1.0)-((looks to M))} e:, e:, -((points to e in ‘bee’ and then ‘tree’))18 ((points shaky pen and closes in on “manatee” again))

Note that “similarities” without a post-modifier such as “between x and y” is a rather vague characterization of whatMindy is trying to elicit from Nora. As no immediate response is forthcoming from Nora, Mindy unpacks “similarities” into“What’s the same in the word ‘tree’ and ‘bee.”’ (lines 04 and 06), which explicitly locates the two relevant words but producesa new source of ambiguity: the question could mean either what letters the two words have in common or what letter isrepeated in each word. Meanwhile, Nora shifts her attention back and forth between the unfinished “manatee” and the twowords Mindy is pointing to. After a brief gap in line 08, Mindy begins to repeat her imperative using the singular “it” for theearlier plural “similarities,” further entangling the issue.

That Mindy’s directive is unclear to Nora is not only shown in her indiscriminating underlining (line 10) (see Fig. 2), whenshe underlines all of the letters instead of the “ee” ending that Mindy was targeting, but also in her repair initiation “theletters?” (line 11), and her difficulty persists as Mindy reformulates the directive in line 12. As Nora gears up for answering(line 14), Mindy draws a line separating the unfinished “manatee” and the other “ee” words, suggesting that “manatee” isnot relevant here. Nora, on the other hand, starts to pick out similar letters across all three words: There is a “t” in “manatee”and one in “tree;” there’s an “e” in “bee” and one in “tree”! These are clearly not the response of “ee” Mindy has been seekingall along. Again, Mindy’s directives here are not only produced as unfocused but also treated as such by Nora. Each of hernext attempts to pursue compliance generates a new source of difficulty. What contributes to this confusion in part appearsto be the unspecified references (e.g., similarity with regard to what) or the conflicting messages (e.g., singular “it” vs. plural“similarities”).

The next extract illustrates a different kind of lack of clarity unrelated to vague wording, unspecified references, orconflicting messages. Prior to the segment, Mindy has drawn seven short lines on Nora’s board for her to write the sevenletters of “manatee” on, and the last two letters are yet to be spelled. To prompt Nora to finish, Mindy refers back to the titleof the book, in response to which Nora adds an extra blank and starts to write “bee” in the final three spaces (lines 01–10):

294 H.Z. Waring, B.L. Hruska / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 289– 300

Fig. 3. Extract 3 Line 04.

(3)01 Mindy: → ((lines omitted)) do you remember what< two02 letters those we:re?-((N looks down the whole time))03 Nora: ()?04 Mindy: ((close mouth, gazes away from N, down to desk in ‘frozen” motion))-(0.8)05 ((reaches for book))06 Nora: [O::::h-((prepares to write))07 [{This is the title of our book.-((picks up book))}08 Mindy: [The tree the bee and me:]09 Nora: [((adds one blank)) ] ((writes b))10 Mindy: W↑[oo.11 Nora: [((writes e-{e))-bee.}12 Mindy: ma:natabee?13 Nora: ma:ntab[ee?14 Mindy: → [We’re looki:ng for ma:natee. {We- we15 don’t need that extra- letter.=I gave you enough16 letters-((erases “bee”))} {to spell the wo:rd.17 -((redraws the spaces))}18 → [>Look at- look at< the title of this book. ]19 Nora: [((moves eraser aside and positions to write))]20 ((draws another space while M watches))=21 Mindy: =We don’t n↑eed th[at.22 Nora: [>Oh.<23 Mindy: ((erases)) I gave you enough spaces. {((shows green24 book))-Can you te::ll what they have in common.25 = and what they end in.}26 Nora: ((draws three spaces on the next line)) Oh the: (0.5) the:27 tree, ((draws one more space))28 Mindy: How does “tree” end.=What’s- where are the two29 last letters.

That Nora’s response to Mindy’s initial elicitation in lines 01–02 is not on target can be seen in what Mindy does bothnonverbally and verbally in the next few lines. Her looking away and down to the desk with her mouth closed in frozenmotion (instead of providing any feedback to Nora’s response) (see Fig. 3) appears to be a moment of re-strategizing, if youwill, the outcome of which is her reference back to the book in line 07. Note that as soon as Mindy reaches for the book, Noralets out a “change of state” token “oh” as she prepared to write (line 06). What she proceeds to do specifically, however, isadding an extra space and uses the three blanks for writing down “bee” – a word from the book. As one reviewer pointsout, she seems to understand that she needs to somehow spell “bee” with “manat” and goes as far as adding more space toaccommodate this goal. So, although for Mindy, calling attention to the “ee” words in the book is a step toward helping Noraspelling the final “ee” in “manatee,” this connection seems completely lost on Nora, who proceeds to treat the words in thebook now as the focus of her task. In other words, as Mindy directs Nora’s attention to the book in the service of spelling“manatee,” the latter reinterprets her task as having now become the spelling of the words in the book. This tension between“manatee” and the words in the book remains unresolved as Mindy continues to switch her focus between the two (lines14 and 18), and Nora continues her attempts to spell the words in the book (lines 20, 26–27).

As can be seen, what dissolves the focus of Mindy’s directive here is her pendulum swing, in her pursuit of a targetedresponse, between the task at hand and what Nora appears to view as a different, unrelated undertaking. In other words, weare speaking of the clarity issue from Nora’s perspective even though for Mindy perhaps, every move she makes is clearlyfocused on helping Nora spell the final two letters of “manatee.” One might therefore argue that had Mindy taken the timeto explain the reason for bringing in the book, Nora would have had an easier time focusing on the “manatee” task. In otherwords, the relevance of the directive is left unexplained, which is the focus of our next section.

H.Z. Waring, B.L. Hruska / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 289– 300 295

Before we move on, it is important to note that the above analysis may be elaborated in light of a number of ethnographicinsights. First, when Mindy drew seven blanks for the seven letters of “manatee,” it was an attempt to provide Nora witha one-to-one correspondence cue (i.e., one letter for each line), which is a common spelling scaffolding technique. As such,Nora’s later disregard for the seven lines, as evidenced in her adding of a line to accommodate “b-e-e” as the last three lettersthat result in “manatbee,” displays her specific lack of understanding of the one-to-one correspondence. Second, as we haveseen, Mindy’s use of ambiguous pronouns is problematic for Nora. It is, in fact, common for English language learners tobecome confused in such circumstances, and it is typical for novice teachers to be unaware of such confusion. Teachersramble on about “he,” “she,” “it,” “they,” “these” and “those” while students are left to sort out what is being referenced. Thedifficulty is compounded when the pronouns may occur in a different location in English than in their native language(s).Often, teacher training texts suggest that teachers use proper nouns and nouns instead of pronouns for clarification whenworking with ESOL students (Reiss, 2001), which would have clarified Mindy’s directives. Third, novice teachers may notrealize that ESOL students cannot always tell the difference between movements that are scaffolding language, and thosethat are extraneous to the words currently being uttered. When Mindy reaches for the tree and other figurines to group themtogether (see Extract 1), for example, she is unaware that Nora is following her movements and attempting to associate themwith what Mindy is saying. It is often difficult for students to decipher what to attend to and what is important and relevantto the teacher’s language and the task at hand. Such confusion as we observe in Extract 1 is also evident among other noviceteachers and their students in this context. Finally, throughout the exchanges, Mindy does not appear to understand thather own ambiguous language is the source of Nora’s seemingly inappropriate responses. Her command that Nora “focus”in Extract 3, for example, implies that the problem is Nora’s lack of attention rather than the nature of her own directives.This, too, is typical of teachers at this level of development, who sometimes appear unable to think outside their own lineof reasoning or take the students’ perspectives.

3.2. Relevance of the directives

Aside from issues of clarity, directives can also become problematic when their relevance is left unexplained. Recall thatin Extract (1), Mindy produces multiple self-repairs in her formulation of “what did they end in.” Her initial switch fromthe specific word “manatee” to “ee” words in general without an account, in fact, jumpstarted a 7-min long odyssey whereshe encountered multiple difficulties in getting Nora on board with her agenda. Throughout the process, Nora clearly doesnot see the relevance of spelling “tree” and “bee” in helping her spell “manatee,” which appears to dampen her interest incomplying with any of Mindy’s directives related to “tree” or “bee” since her goal is to finish spelling “manatee”: she wouldattend to the unfinished “manatee” by pointing to it or bending to touch it with her pen. Immediately prior to the segment,Nora has just finished drawing a long line across the board in response to Mindy’s directive “Underline it.” (see Extract 2above). Mindy is now trying to get Nora to notice the “ee” ending common to “tree” and “bee”:

(4)01 Mindy: → Wh-What letters are the same in each word.02 Nora: u:h03 Mindy: ((points/draw line between “manatee” and the other words?))04 Nora: t:, t:, ((points to t in ‘manatee’ and then in ‘tree’))05 {(1.0)-((looks to M))} e:, e:,06 → ((points shaky pen and closes in [on “manatee” again))07 Mindy: [So::[: both-]08 Nora: [m:::::::]09 → ((puts X on the unfinished “manatee”))10 Mindy: Don’t x that? Okay, we’re gonna focus. Where tree11 is >spelled what-< what letters make up the word12 [“tree.”13 Nora: [((erases and stops))-m↑anatee not th↓e::re,14 ((more erasing))15 Mindy: [We’re gonna w↑ork on ma>natee]16 [we’re gonna< get there.]17 Nora: → [.HHHHH] O::[:::h-((looks down at B))]18 Mindy: [so- How d’y spell. ] tree.19 Nora: ◦ ma:nat(h)[e::◦ - ((heads for more erasing))]

Mindy’s directive in line 01 fits into her larger move, one that was unaccounted for, from “manatee” to the spelling ofother “ee” words in order to notice a pattern, and the relevance of the specific directive here is also left unaccounted for, i.e.,no explanation is given for why the letters in “tree” are “bee” are being worked on. We have noted the ambiguous wordingin “what letters are the same” in line 01(Extract 2) and will not repeat that analysis here (lines 01–05). What we would liketo highlight is that immediately after offering her responses, Nora closes in onto the unfinished “manatee” again (as Mindytries to formulate an upshot or highlight the similarities between the words) and proceeds to cross it out. This is Nora’s4th attempt to get back to “manatee,” but by crossing it out, she appears to be asserting her understanding that spellingthe “manatee” is now completely out of the picture and that whatever they are doing bears no connection to “manatee”whatsoever. She is, therefore, engaging in the task as she understands it although it is no longer the one she is interested in.

296 H.Z. Waring, B.L. Hruska / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 289– 300

Fig. 4. Extract 4 Line 13.

Nora’s conduct is treated by Mindy with disapproval and dismissed as “unfocused” as the latter presses on with her nextquestion that focuses specifically on the spelling of “tree.” Note that Mindy has now gone from “write down ‘tree’ and ‘bee,’to ‘underline the similarities’ and to “how do you spell ‘tree’.” Before she even finishes the question, Nora starts erasing theunfinished “manatee” and pronounces it gone (line 13) (see Fig. 4). As shown, as Mindy presses on with her agenda, so doesNora.

In line 15, Mindy again reassures Nora, as the latter does more erasing, that “manatee” has not been forgotten. As Mindybegins her second turn-construction unit, Nora continues to play in her created world of the disappeared “manatee” bydisplaying astonishment with the large inbreath and the extended “o::::h.” As shown, Mindy persists in her questioningregarding the spelling of “tree” (line 18), to which Nora only responds with one final sotto voce lament for the manatee as shereaches for more erasing (line 19). Again, as Nora “lets go” of the “manatee,” she is also displaying her (mis)understanding ofwhat the task has now become. Thus, one might argue that she is complying with the directive as she understands it althoughthat understanding is not in line with what Mindy intends. As can be seen in this extract, the relevance of answering a questionabout the letters in words such as “tree” and “bee” is not made explicit to Nora, and that absence of explanation seems toplay a crucial role in the directive’s failure to engage Nora in the way targeted by Mindy.

Another exemplar for not explaining the relevance of a directive can be found in the next extract, where Mindy asks Norato circle the “ee” in “bee.” Prior to the segment, Nora has just circled the “ee” in “tree.” Again, Mindy’s agenda appears tobe to help Nora recognize the double e pattern in certain words so that she would be able to finish spelling “manatee,” andagain, that line of thinking is not made clear to Nora:

(5)01 Mindy: an then- (0.5) is there an “ee” in “bee”?02 Nora: ((looks)) mm h[m-((nods))03 Mindy: → [Circle it.04 Nora: ((circl[es))05 Mindy: [just the “ee.” -((points to B))06 Nora: [((still circling))]07 Mindy: [((looks at N))- $ silly.]There’s no”b” in “tree:.,”$08 Nora: [ye(hh)h.]-((smiles, looks at M, and sits back))09 Mindy: [Okay, s]o what- wo- >we’re trying to spell<10 “manatee” ri::ght?-((N slides down as she looks down and closes pen))11 (0.8)12 How do we begin it. M::ma::na,

The point of discovering the “ee” pattern through circling so that she could eventually finish spelling “manatee” is notone that Nora has registered. She over-circles “bee” despite her success in circling just the “ee” in “tree.” For Nora, it appearsto be circling for the sake of circling rather than identifying the double e endings. In line 09, Mindy has an opportunity toexplain the relevance of the just-completed circling task by, for example, highlighting “ee” as the common feature between“tree” and “bee” and one shared by “manatee” as well. That opportunity is missed, however, as she abruptly brings the focusback to “manatee” in lines 09–10. That Nora is not registering any connection between her current task and “manatee” isfurther evidenced in her lack of response (see 0.8 s gap in line 11) to Mindy’s elicitation. Nora seems to have completely lostinterest in “manatee” by that time, as shown her bodily gesture of sliding down as well as her downward gaze (see Fig. 5).After the gap, and Mindy opts for current-speaker-continues (Sacks et al., 1974) in line 12. In other words, the absence ofaccount has not only made it difficult for Nora to carry out the immediate directive of circling “ee” but also disengaged herfrom the larger task of spelling “manatee.”

H.Z. Waring, B.L. Hruska / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 289– 300 297

Fig. 5. Extract 5 Line 10.

Fig. 6. Extract 6 Line 22.

The reader might be interested to know that Mindy, with great relief and celebration (see Fig. 6), did eventually succeedin getting Nora to complete the spelling of “manatee.” And one might argue that this eventual success is in part a result ofthe painstaking negotiations and multiple attempts of “trial-and-error” we have observed so far:

(6)01 Mindy: → How does “tree” end.=What’s- where are the two02 last letters.03 Nora: “ee”?=04 Mindy: =>What about-< “bee.”05 (0.5)06 Nora: uh bee.07 Mindy: → >Wh- what two letters [that< end it.]08 Nora: [“e.” ] “e.”-((points to09 book))=10 Mindy: =>What do you think< “m↑anatee” ends in.11 Nora: ((looks at own B))12 Mindy: M↑anatee.-((points to manatee picture in book))13 Nora: ((looks at book))-N↑o:: (),14 Mindy: Th↓ere’s- two l↑etters at the ↑end.15 Nora: ((knocks pen on desk))16 Mindy: → They’re the sa:me letters that [en-17 Nora: [Oh oh oh,-((looks and18 points at book))((lines omitted))19 Mindy: → it’s the sa:me ending as20 the[::se-] -((points to book))21 Nora: [“t:”]“e e.”[“t e e”-((staccato moves)) ]22 Mindy: [A(hhhh)w!((throws head back))]23 $↑yes.$ [Put it ↑i::n.-((points to B))]24 Nora: [hheh heh heh hhh ]

Note that Mindy’s wording for her directives has become much more focused at this time (“two last letters” as opposedto “how do they end”) (lines 01 and 07), and Nora displays no difficulty supplying the responses. In addition, the connection

298 H.Z. Waring, B.L. Hruska / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 289– 300

between “manatee” and the other two “ee” words is finally made explicit (lines 16–18), thereby rectifying the earlier absenceof account for “degressing” away from the spelling of “manatee.” Thus, we have a nice example of the speed with whichNora makes the connections when the directions become clear.

Again, a number of ethnographic insights can grant us greater access to the nature of the conduct as described in theabove CA analysis. First, Nora’s behavior of sliding down in her chair (Extract 6) or putting her head down on the desk is aform of disengagement evident in other sessions with Nora, and it is usually an attempt to close or shift the current lessonfocus established by Mindy. Second, launching a task without providing any account for it is, again, behavior typical of noviceteachers. They are often observed to be plunging into a lesson without offering any clear goal or rationale. They struggle withforming and articulating clear lesson objectives and are not always able to clearly convey these objectives to their students,leaving students either aimlessly meandering through tasks or completely in the dark as to what they are to be doing andwhy.

4. Discussion

In this paper, we have shown how certain issues of clarity and relevance can render directives problematic and incurunderstanding difficulties in pedagogical interaction. A range of practices can reduce the clarity of a directive, such asmultiple self-repairs, unspecified references, conflicting messages, question designs that fail to adequately limit the range ofacceptable answers or the quick alternation of foci in pursuit of a response. This quick alternation is particularly problematicwhen it is not accounted for. As shown, this is another major issue in the “manatee” episode as Mindy made a quick switchfrom the spelling of “manatee” to the spelling of other words that end in “ee” without making explicit the rationale for sucha switch, i.e., spelling “tree” and “bee” as an intermediate step toward finishing the spelling of “manatee.” Mindy’s agendaappears to be helping Nora not just to finish spelling “manatee” but also recognizing the pattern of “ee” words, the objective onher written lesson plan. Unfortunately, Mindy’s internal logic was never explicitly articulated or adequately communicatedto Nora, and that failure to explain the relevance of her directives creates major obstacles to Nora’s understanding of andengagement in the task as intended by Mindy. We have also shown that what is analyzable as a problematic directive isalso treated by Nora as such. We have observed Nora’s lack of understanding or misunderstanding in her responses to thedirectives despite her fine-grained attention and conscientious efforts. We have also caught a glimpse of her disengagementafter prolonged lack of understanding of the relevance of the task. Examples of Nora’s responses include: not recognizingthe significance of the lines, attempting to write something on the lines even though it wasn’t the target word, ignoring thelines, erasing the lines, and then performing her own disappearing act by sliding down in the chair away from the lines, thewhiteboards, and “manatees” altogether.

We argue that Nora’s difficulty in understanding as incurred by the problematic directives compromises the extent towhich she can participate in the pedagogical task as designed by Mindy, and by extension, diminishes what could otherwisehave been a more productive learning opportunity. Indeed, Nora did eventually learn to spell “manatee,” and what wewitness in the bigger picture is how Mindy and Nora work together over time to jointly accomplish the task successfully.Based on our detailing of the specific practices that appear to have constituted obstacles to Nora’s understanding, however,we suspect that the goal could have been achieved with greater efficacy and that the pedagogical resources could havebeen expended more productively within the limited time frame of the tutoring session. When teacher directives manageto perplex rather than illuminate, the opportunities that allow new understandings to be negotiated and implemented inassisted use can be diminished, if not entirely missed.

What transpired between Mindy and Nora provides an example of why teacher training literature often cites the effec-tiveness of explicitly stating lesson goals or objectives (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Chilcoat, 1989; Fisher et al., 1980; Rosenshine,1987) with special emphasis for teachers working with ESOL students (Echevarria et al., 2008). When students do not knowwhat they are supposed to be doing or why, they can be constructing their own agendas in an attempt to make sense of atask while never understanding what the overall lesson objective is and how to tell when it is accomplished. Our findingssupport the call for teacher explicitness in this area (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). In particular,lesson vagueness (Smith & Cotten, 1980) has been shown to negatively affect student achievement and attitudes about alesson. Corbett and Wilson (2002) report that student prefer teachers who are able to provide clear assignment explanations.In this lesson, we see how what started out as a spelling lesson could have disintegrated into a classroom management issuewhere the student would be blamed for misbehavior that was in part the teacher’s own doing, which is a typical scenario inclassrooms with students of all age levels.

From a teacher education perspective, our findings offer a number of practical implications for preservice and inserviceteachers as well as teacher educators in a variety of pedagogical contexts. First, a microscopic look into problematic directivesmakes evident the precise junctures where miscommunication occurs during teacher–student interaction and clarifies ourunderstanding of what leads students to behave in unexpected ways. It also brings to light the precise junctures wheresuccessful directives are implemented. As shown, Mindy finally arrived at a clear explanation and achieved the desiredresults. Such understandings can help us “read” future student responses in new ways, looking to our own language as asource of confusion rather than assuming that fault lies with the student, and carefully fashion our directives in ways thatmaximize compliance. Second, understanding how directives may misfire also enables us to identify the specific areas inwhich novice teachers need to expand their instructional repertoires, e.g., what might a teacher educator propose as analternative to an ineffective strategy? Seedhouse (2008), for example, shows how experienced teachers deliver instructions

H.Z. Waring, B.L. Hruska / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 289– 300 299

successfully while trainee teachers manage to confuse the students. Third, like counter-questions or the bypassing of topicinitiations (e.g., He, 2004; Markee, 1995), directives are but one among other interactional resources that may cause problemsin teacher-learner interactions. It is important to enhance novice teachers’ awareness of how such resources can hinderparticipation and compromise learning opportunities. Lastly, the issue of problematic directives may be particularly pertinentto our work with ESOL students whose language proficiency may come into play (Johnson, 1992). When ambiguous referencesor extraneous non-verbal gestures are used, for example, how might such actions affect students in the early stages of learningEnglish?

In conclusion, prior literature on directives has greatly advanced our understandings of the forms, functions, and dis-tributions of directives. Relatively little work has focused on how directives may incur confusion. By providing a detailedlook into some of Mindy’s directives and highlighting the features related to clarity and relevance, we hope to have offeredan initial glimpse into some of the issues that may render directives problematic from the outset. In addition, as outlinedearlier, the literature on interaction and learning opportunities has generated important insights into some conceptuallyuseful features of learning-conducive interactions such as participation or transformation. By taking a microscopic look intoan interactional practice such as directives, we hope to have contributed to our understanding of classroom interactionalcompetence (Walsh, 2006, 2011), and in particular, the small body of existing work in specifying the link between interactionand learning opportunities not just conceptually, but empirically.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the detailed and productive feedback provided by the two anonymous reviewers. Thanks totheir dedication and expertise, the manuscript is stronger both conceptually and stylistically.

Appendix A. CA 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(()) 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.

References

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford Press.Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Chilcoat, G. W. (1989). Instructional behaviors for clearer presentations in the classroom. Instructional Science, 18, 289–314.Corbett, D., & Wilson, B. (2002). What urban students say about good teaching. Educational Leadership, 60(1), 18–22.Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., & Vavrus, L. G. (1989). Conceptualizing instructional explanation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 2(3), 197–214.Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. New York: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Anderson, L. M. (1980). Effective classroom management at the beginning of the school year. The Elementary School Journal,

8(5), 219–231.Evertson, C. M., & Emmer, E. T. (1982). Effective management at the beginning of the year in junior high classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4),

485–498.Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5(1), 25–66.Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L. S., & Dishaw, M. M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student

achievement: An overview. In C. Denham, & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 7–32). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Fitch, K. L. (1998). Text and context: A problematic distinction for ethnography. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31, 91–107.Goodwin, M. H. (2006a). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status, and exclusion. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Goodwin, M. H. (2006b). Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text and Talk, 26, 513–542.He, A. W. (2000). The grammatical and interactional organization of teacher’s directives: Implications for socialization of Chinese American children.

Linguistics and Education, 11(2), 119–140.He, A. W. (2004). CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 568–582.Hellermann, J. (2005). The sequential and prosodic co-construction of a ‘quiz game’ activity in classroom talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(6), 919–944.Johnson, K. E. (1992). Learning to teach: Instructional actions and decisions of preservice ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 507–535.Koshik, I. (2010). Questions that convey information in teacher-student conferences. In A. Freed, & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), “Why do you ask?”: The function of

questions in institutional discourse (pp. 159–186). New York: Oxford University Press.

300 H.Z. Waring, B.L. Hruska / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 289– 300

Lerner, G. H. (1995). Turn design and the organization of participation in instructional activities. Discourse Processes, 19, 111–131.Markee, N. (1995). Teachers’ answers to students’ questions: Problematizing the issue of making meaning. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 63–92.Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Nelson, C. K. (1994). Ethnomethodological positions on the use of ethnographic data in conversation analytic research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,

23, 307–329.Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In James P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory

and second language learning (pp. 155–177). New York: Oxford University Press.Reiss, J. (2001). ESOL strategies for teaching content: Facilitating instruction for English language learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Rex, L. A. (2000). Judy constructs a genuine question: A case for interactional inclusion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 315–333.Richards, K. (2006). Being the teacher: Identity and classroom conversation. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 51–77.Rosenshine, B. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(34), 34–36.Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 326–391). New York: Macmillan.Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Sanders, R. E. (1999). The impossibility of a culturally contexted conversation analysis: On simultaneous, distinct types of pragmatic meaning. Research on

Language & Social Interaction, 32, 129–140.Searle, J. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Inc.Seedhouse, P. (2008). Learning to talk the talk: Conversation analysis as a tool for induction of trainee teachers. In S. Garton, & K. Richards (Eds.), Professional

encounters in TESOL: Discourses of teachers in teaching (pp. 42–57). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Smith, L. R., & Cotten, M. L. (1980). Effect of lesson vagueness and discontinuity on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,

670–675.ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.van Lier, L. (1994). Language awareness, contingency, and interaction. AILA Review, 11, 69–82.Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3–23.Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. London, New York: Routledge.Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London & New York: Routledge.Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal,

92(4), 577–594.Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF: A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59(4), 796–824.Waring, H. Z. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities. Classroom Discourse, 2(2), 201–218.Waring, H. Z. “How was your weekend?”: Developing the interactional competence in managing routine inquiries. Language Awareness, in press.Waring, H. Z., Creider, S., Tarpey, T., & Black, R. Understanding the specificity of CA and context. Discourse Studies, in press.Waring, H. Z., & Hruska, B. (2011). Getting and keeping Nora on board: A novice elementary ESOL student teacher’s practices for lesson engagement.

Linguistics and Education, 22, 441–455.West, C. (1990). Not just “doctors’ orders”: Directive-response sequence in patients’ visits to women and men physicians. Discourse & Society, 1(1), 85–112.Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. New York: Routledge.Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4),

519–535.