The Case of the Missing “No”: The Relationship between Pedagogy and Interaction
Abstract
This article reviews the relationship between pedagogy and interaction by analysing numerous extracts from Second Language (L2) classroom lessons using a Conversation Analysis (CA) methodology. The particular case examined involves the preference organisation of repair in form and accuracy contexts. In general, pedagogical recommendations tend to assume that the L2 classroom does not have an interactional structure of its own. However, in the particular case here, the pedagogical message works in direct opposition to the interactional message. The relationship between pedagogy and interaction is necessarily reflexive; I conclude that it would be preferable for pedagogical recommendations to work in harmony with the interactional organisation of the L2 classroom, rather than in opposition to it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Option 1 may help prevent pidginization by encouraging learners to focus on accuracy from the start.
“The advantage of this option is that it may help to prevent pidginization, which some commentators such as Seedhouse (1997) suggest occurs in a pure task-based approach, by encouraging learners to focus on accuracy from the start.”
From Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks (2019) · cites this paper as Seedhouse (1997)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development
Ellis, R. (2009) · L2 Journal · doi:10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054 · Cited by 659 · see citing works
Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward
Ellis, R. (2017) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444817000179 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks
Ellis, R. (2019) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168818765315 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Mertzman, T. (2008) · Journal of Research in Reading · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00356.x · Cited by 25 · see citing works
- Authors
- Seedhouse, P.
- Affiliations
- University of York (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Seedhouse, Paul
- ORCID
- Seedhouse, Paul
- Venue
- Language Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-09
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 547-583
- ISSN
- 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9922
- OpenAlex
- W4249609167
- Cited by
- 122
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 7.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Learning (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- second language classroom interaction, pedagogical recommendations, classroom discourse
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
