CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningLinguistics and Language AnalysisCommunication in Education and Healthcare

Teachers’ Classroom Interactional Competence: Scale Development and Validation

Open access
Tajeddin, Zia, Kamali, Jaber·2023·Language Teaching Research Quarterly
DOI 10.32038/ltrq.2023.35.01
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Interactional competence has recently gained considerable attention in language education. As an aspect of this competence, classroom interactional competence has been in the limelight since Walsh’s (2006) delineation of this concept. However, there is no survey tool to measure teachers’ classroom interactional competence. To bridge this gap, the present study describes the development and validation of a teachers’ classroom interactional competence (TCIC) scale. An outline of the relevant literature related to classroom interactional competence is provided, along with the process of scale development and validation. An exploratory factor analysis of the data from a large sample of language teachers (N = 564) resulted in a 46-item scale that constituted nine factors, namely visual organizers, sociocultural interaction, questioning, interactional patterns, repair, language modification, turn taking, managerial interaction, and rhetorical script. The implications of the scale for the measurement and, in turn, the enhancement of teachers’ classroom interactional competence are discussed.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study develops and validates a Teachers’ Classroom Interactional Competence (TCIC) scale for EFL teachers using exploratory factor analysis on 564 teachers. The final scale has 46 items across nine factors: visual organizers, sociocultural interaction, questioning, interactional patterns, repair, language modification, turn taking, managerial interaction, and rhetorical script.

Key findings

  • The 59-item TCIC scale was subjected to principal axis factoring; a 9-factor solution with 46 items explained 42% of common variance, with KMO = 0.81 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, X²(1711) = 14826.12, p = .00.
  • The nine factors and item counts were: visual organizers (9 items), sociocultural interaction (7), questioning (5), interactional patterns (6), repair (3), language modification (4), turn taking (3), managerial interaction (5), and rhetorical script (4).
  • Pilot reliability was Cronbach’s alpha = .88. Item means ranged from 3.10 to 5.61 across factors; questioning had the lowest means (3.10–3.53), while visual organizers, repair, and managerial interaction generally had means around 4.8–5.6.
  • Items that did not cluster around any construct were deleted; the paper reports that the final scale lacks some CIC aspects, including selecting topics in managerial interaction, level adaptation in language modification, error correction/focus-on-form in repair, social clarification in sociocultural interaction, individual and peer interaction in interactional patterns, rhetorical questions, and clarification requests in questioning.

Methods

  • Participants were 564 EFL teachers (240 male, 324 female), aged 19–35, with teaching experience from 6 months to 15 years; 437 completed online Google Forms and 127 received print copies, with snowball sampling also used.
  • Scale development followed Dörnyei’s instrument development stages; an initial 61 items were reduced to 59 after expert review and teacher think-aloud scrutiny, using a 6-point Likert scale. The scale was piloted with 53 teachers before administration to the full sample.
  • Analysis used principal axis factoring with direct Oblimin rotation; confirmatory factor analysis was not employed because the aim was to explore underlying constructs rather than evaluate a hypothesized structure.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the scale lacks CIC aspects deleted because they did not cluster around any construct, possibly due to the Iranian context; data came from nonnative English language teachers, and future research should examine native English-speaking teachers, teachers of other languages, and learners’ CIC.
  • Evident from the text: the study relies on self-report questionnaire data, uses snowball/convenience sampling, reports no confirmatory factor analysis or test-retest reliability, and the final factor solution explains 42% of common variance, leaving substantial variance unexplained.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.32038/ltrq.2023.35.01

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 25 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Sociocultural Interaction · p. 9

    For sociocultural interaction, participants showed almost high awareness with item means between 4.50 and 4.87.

    “As can be seen in the table, the participants showed almost high awareness about sociocultural interaction with item means between 4.50 and 4.87.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Visual Organizers · p. 9

    For visual organizers, the highest means belong to items 17, 16, and 15 with 5.10, 5.36, and 5.61 mean values, respectively.

    “The highest means of this construct belong to items 17, 16, and 15 with 5.10, 5.36, and 5.61 mean values, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Scale Features · p. 7

    Items 1, 22, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 43, 47, 50, 54, and 55 were not clustered around any construct and were deleted.

    “Items 1, 22, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 43, 47, 50, 54, and 55, which were not clustered around any construct, were deleted.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Sociocultural Interaction · p. 9

    For sociocultural interaction, the highest mean values belong to items 46 (M = 4.82), 24 (M = 4.85), and 45 (M = 4.87).

    “The findings showed that the highest mean values belong to items 46 ( M = 4.82), 24 ( M = 4.85), and 45 ( M = 4.87).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Managerial Interaction · p. 11

    Five items related to managerial interaction (factor eight; items 3, 27, 48, 56, 58) had mean values around 5, reflecting teachers' high awareness of managerial interaction in CIC.

    “The data presented in Table 13 suggests that 5 items related to managerial interaction (factor eight) (i.e., 3. 27. 48. 56. And 58) had mean values around 5, reflecting teachers' high awareness of the issue in CIC.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 21
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 31

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Interactional Patterns · p. 10

    For interactional patterns, the highest mean belongs to item 4 (5.60) and the lowest to item 12 (4.51).

    “The highest mean belongs to item 4 with 5.60, and the lowest to item 12 with a 4.51 mean value.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 1

    The study developed a 46-item scale that constituted nine factors: visual organizers, sociocultural interaction, questioning, interactional patterns, repair, language modification, turn taking, managerial interaction, and rhetorical script.

    “An exploratory factor analysis of the data from a large sample of language teachers ( N = 564) resulted in a 46-item scale that constituted nine factors, namely visual organizers, sociocultural interaction, questioning, interactional patterns, repair, language modification, turn taking, managerial interaction, and rhetorical script.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Interactional Patterns · p. 10

    For interactional patterns, individual item means ranged from 4.51 to 5.60, showing relatively high awareness among teacher participants.

    “As shown in the table, the individual items have means ranging from 4.51 to 5.60, which shows relatively high awareness on the side of teacher participants regarding this factor.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Language Modification · p. 10

    For language modification, item means were between the highest of 4.34 and the lowest of 3.99, showing average awareness among teacher participants.

    “As seen in the table, the means of individual items are between the highest of 4.34 and the lowest of 3.99 which shows average awareness on the side of teacher participants regarding language modification.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Visual Organizers · p. 9

    For visual organizers, the means of individual items were between 4.47 and 5.61, indicating participants were almost aware of visual organizers.

    “As the table illustrates, the means of individual items were between 4.47 and 5.61. That is, the participants were almost aware of visual organizers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Questioning · p. 9

    For questioning, the highest and lowest mean values were 3.53 and 3.10, belonging to items 38 and 49, respectively.

    “As can be seen in the table, the highest and lowest mean values with means of 3.53 and 3.10, respectively, belong to items 38 and 49.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Repair · p. 10

    For repair, the mean values were 5.05, 4.93, and 4.95 for items 33, 35, and 36, respectively.

    “They have almost the same mean value with 5.05, 4.93, and 4.95 for items 33, 35, and 36, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Scale Features · p. 7

    Items 32 and 54 were suppressed by SPSS from the factor solution due to their low coefficients.

    “It is worthy of note that items 32 and 54 were suppressed by SPSS from the factor solution due to their low coefficients.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Repair · p. 10

    For repair, three items (33, 35, and 36) had mean values around 5, reflecting teachers' high awareness of this factor in CIC.

    “Table 10 suggests that three items (33, 35, and 36) related to repair (factor five) own mean values around 5, which reflects teachers' high awareness of this factor in CIC.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Rhetorical Script · p. 11

    The rhetorical script factor (factor nine; items 39, 40, 41, 42) had item means between 4.77 and 5.14, showing relatively high teacher awareness of this factor.

    “As displayed in the table, the means of individual items were between 4.77 and 5.14, showing relatively high awareness on the side of teachers regarding this factor.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Turn Taking · p. 11

    For turn taking, the means of items 9 and 10 were the same (M = 4.48) while item 11 had a mean value of 3.71.

    “As the table shows, the means of items 9 and 10 are the same ( M = 4.48) while item 11 has a mean value of 3.71.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Managerial Interaction · p. 11

    Among the managerial interaction items, item 56 had the highest mean (5.21) and item 58 the lowest (4.80).

    “The item with the highest mean value is item 56 with 5.21 and the lowest mean value belongs to item 58 with 4.80.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Scale Validation · p. 5

    The pilot study yielded a Cronbach alpha reliability of .88 and kurtosis for all items between -2 and +2, showing acceptability.

    “The Cronbach alpha reliability calculated was .88 and the kurtosis for all the items was between -2 and +2, which shows their acceptability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Rhetorical Script · p. 11

    Among the rhetorical script items, item 39 had the highest mean (5.14) and item 42 the lowest (4.77).

    “The highest mean belongs to item 39 with 5.14, and the lowest to item 42 with a 4.77 mean value.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § Discussion · p. 13

    The gestures that emerged from this study were mostly speech-related gestures, because in language classrooms language is used as a medium of instruction and inquiry.

    “The gestures that emerged from this study were mostly from the second group since in language classrooms, language is used as a medium of instruction and inquiry.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Questioning · p. 9

    The average mean for questioning items was almost 3, implying average awareness of teachers about teacher questioning.

    “The average mean for items in this factor is almost 3, implying the average awareness of teachers about teacher questioning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion · p. 16

    The scale creates a sense of self-development for teachers, who can test and develop their level of classroom interactional competence with it.

    “Second, this scale creates a sense of selfdevelopment for teachers who can test and develop their level of classroom interactional competence with the use of the newly designed scale.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 14

    Questions are used to assess students' knowledge and to help them reflect, grow, and broaden their thinking.

    “Questions are used to assess students' knowledge and to help them reflect, grow, and broaden their thinking (Grugeon & Hubbard, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Grugeon & Hubbard, 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 14

    Classroom studies confirm the effectiveness of classroom corrective feedback when compared with no corrective feedback.

    “Lyster (2015) argued that classroom studies confirm the effectiveness of classroom corrective feedback when compared with no corrective feedback.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lyster (2015) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given
    § Discussion · p. 13

    Speech-related gestures are employed in parallel with the verbal speech to accentuate the message being communicated.

    “On the other hand, speech-related gestures are employed in parallel with the verbal speech which is exploited to accentuate the message which is being communicated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 15

    Features like allocating turns improve with advancing language proficiency.

    “This factor resonates with Hellermann's (2008) argument that features like allocating turns improve with advancing in language proficiency”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hellermann's (2008) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion · p. 13

    The TTT and encouragement items may be loaded on the sociocultural interaction factor because they show the agency of the teacher.

    “It should be noted that the items of TTT and encouragement may be loaded on this factor because they show the agency of the teacher.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion · p. 15

    There is a need for more teacher education or professional development programs dedicated to repair.

    “which emphasizes the need for more teacher education or professional development programs dedicated to it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation
    § Discussion · p. 14

    The result of Zabihi and Ghahramanzadeh's (2022) study is fully in line with the components of the interactional patterns construct.

    “The result of their study is fully online with the components of this construct on the ground that the level of proficiency can affect the level of engagement where high-high and low-low pairs can experience higher cognitive and social engagement than high-low ones.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zabihi and Ghahramanzadeh (2022) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 14

    Peer interaction has always been praised in the architecture of the language classroom.

    “Peer interaction has always been praised in the architecture of the language classroom (Seedhouse, 1996).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Seedhouse, 1996 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 15

    Level adaptation in methodology is an indicator of an effective session.

    “This modification is mostly referred to as level adaptation in methodology, which is an indicator of an effective session (Harmer, 2001, 2012; Scrivener, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Harmer, 2001, 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Scrivener, 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 15

    Repetitions of one's own or a learner's utterance are observable in real-life interactions.

    “These repetitions, albeit produced mixed results in the literature (Cullen, 1998; Szulc-Kurpaska, 2019; Urhahne et al., 2020), are observable in real-life interactions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cullen, 1998 source
    • cites Szulc-Kurpaska, 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Urhahne et al., 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 13

    Non-verbal communication has a very influential effect on human interaction and can be classified into two categories, speech-independent and speech-related.

    “Non-verbal communication has a very influential effect on human interaction and can be classified into two different categories, namely speech-independent and speech-related (Knapp & Hall, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Knapp & Hall, 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Phase II · p. 5

    The TCIC scale was scrutinized for comprehensibility and relevance by two experts and seven teachers, and modifications were made based on their comments.

    “First, it was scrutinized on its comprehensibility and relevance by two experts in the researchers' presence.”
    • Also stated in: § Phase II · p. 5 · plain
      “In the second scrutiny, seven teachers were requested to fill out TCIC while reading aloud to check their understanding of each item, and further modifications were made based on their comments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § Discussion · p. 13

    Speech-independent gestures have their own culturally accepted interpretation and therefore a direct verbal translation.

    “Speech-independent gestures have their own culturally accepted interpretation, so they have a direct verbal translation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 14

    Repair is one of the most-cited features of interactional competence.

    “Repair is one of the most-cited features of interactional competence (e.g., Hellermann, 2011; Kasper, 2006; Pekarek Doehler, 2018)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hellermann, 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Kasper, 2006 source
    • cites Pekarek Doehler, 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Conclusion · p. 17

    The deletion of some CIC aspects from the scale may be the result of the context where the study was conducted, i.e., Iran.

    “It can be the result of the context where this study was conducted, i.e., Iran.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 15

    Interactions between teachers and students in the second language class serve as the main point for learning how to use the language.

    “Pekarek Doehler, (2019) posits that interactions between teachers and students in the second language class serve as the main point for learning how to use the language”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pekarek Doehler, (2019)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 13

    Questioning lies at the heart of teaching.

    “The third factor, questioning, lies at the heart of teaching (Fisher, 2005)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fisher, 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 16

    One of the components of scaffolding is demonstrating an idealized version of the act to be performed.

    “in the definition of scaffolding, Wood et al. (1976) asserted that one of the components of scaffolding is demonstrating an idealized version of the act to be performed”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wood et al. (1976)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 15

    Teachers try to communicate with learners in simplified speech.

    “Considering the definition of teacher talk by Richards and Schmidt (2010), teachers try to communicate with learners in simplified speech.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Richards and Schmidt (2010)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 13

    Having students from the same socio-cultural background sit next to one another for discussions can promote interaction among them.

    “having the students from the same socio-cultural background sit next to one another for discussions can promote interaction among them. (Luk & Lin, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Luk & Lin, 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 16

    Pragmatics is the study of speech acts.

    “Rintell (1979) asserted that 'pragmatics is the study of speech acts' (p. 98)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rintell (1979)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 13

    Teachers and students negotiate power in the class, and teacher talking time is a way of practicing it with the teacher.

    “As Canagarajah (1999) argued, teachers and students negotiate power in the class and TTT is a way of practicing it with the teacher.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Canagarajah (1999)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 16

    Not knowing intended meanings or illocutions makes interlocutors' misunderstanding inevitable.

    “Not knowing these intended meanings or illocutions, in Austin's (1975) words, interlocutors' misunderstanding is inevitable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Austin's (1975) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 16

    Pragmatics is becoming one of the important components of language ability, without which knowledge of the language is not sufficient for appropriate communication.

    “Pragmatics has gained considerable attention from SLA scholars and is becoming one of the important components of language ability without which knowledge of the language is not sufficient for appropriate communication (Briner, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Briner, 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

41 of 41

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a lack of an instrument to measure teachers' classroom interactional competence.

    “The lack of an instrument to measure teachers' classroom interactional competence prompted the current study.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Pragmatics (speech acts) is simply neglected in teaching.

    “This is simply neglected in teaching.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Teachers rarely receive education on how to interact because it is frequently thought that they already know how to do so.

    “Teachers rarely receive education when it comes to teaching them how to interact because it is all too frequently thought that they already know how to do so.”
3 of 3

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentχ²(1711) = 14826.12reported p = 0 · recomputed p < .001

    “X 2 (1711) = 14826.12, p = .00”

1 of 1

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Two retained factor items are also listed as deleted

    Major

    Items 31 and 43 appear in the final sociocultural-interaction factor but are also explicitly listed among items deleted for not clustering around any construct.

  • Discussion assigns an interaction item to questioning instead of managerial interaction

    Minor

    The questioning-factor discussion includes helping learners interact with each other, but Table 13 assigns that statement to item 48 in managerial interaction.

  • Discussion assigns a repair item to language modification

    Minor

    The language-modification discussion includes providing feedback on learners' performance, but Table 10 lists that statement as item 33 under repair.

  • Discussion assigns a managerial item to interactional patterns

    Minor

    The interactional-patterns discussion includes allowing learners to discuss personal experience, but Table 13 places that statement under managerial interaction.

  • Final rhetorical-script factor contains an item absent from its structure-matrix listing

    Minor

    The structure matrix lists only items 41, 42, and 39 under the ninth factor, whereas the final factor includes item 40 as well.

  • Results call a nine-factor scale a five-factor scale

    Minor

    The sentence says five factors emerged, but it names nine, consistent with the final nine-factor table.

  • Discussion assigns teacher talking time to the wrong factor

    Minor

    The discussion includes adjusting teacher talking time among the nine visual-organizers items, but the item appears as item 24 under sociocultural interaction in Table 7.

7 of 7

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Ellis, R. (2010). Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 151-65). Oxford University Press.
  2. Grugeon, E., &amp; Hubbard, P. (2006). Learning through dialogue. In J. Arthur, T. Grainger, &amp; D. Wray (Eds.), Learning to teach in the primary school (pp. 239-250). Routledge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tajeddin, Z., & Kamali, J.
Affiliations
  • Tarbiat Modares University (IR)
  • Ibn Haldun University (TR)
Corresponding author
Tajeddin, Zia
ORCID
Venue
Language Teaching Research Quarterly
Publisher
EUROKD Egitm Danismanlik Group
Published
2023-10
Volume
35
Pages
1-20
ISSN
  • 2651-3110 (ISSN-L)
  • 2667-6753
DOI
10.32038/ltrq.2023.35.01
OpenAlex
W4388490714
Semantic Scholar
bd4d069d1ba9131f040b6d773dcf2a009bf8d476
Cited by
6
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2
FWCI
6.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Language Teaching Research Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • Ibn Haldun University Institutional Repository (Yes) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • 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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Communication in Education and Healthcare
Keywords
classroom interactional competence, language teachers, scale development, scale validation, teacher questioning, turn-taking, repair, sociocultural interaction, classroom interaction, language modification, graphic organizers

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

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