Exploring Thai EFL Undergrads’ Challenges in Constructing and Sequencing Turns to Make Friends
top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 21 February 2024

Exploring Thai EFL Undergrads’ Challenges in Constructing and Sequencing Turns to Make Friends

Kornsak Tantiwich, Kemtong Sinwongsuwat

Prince of Songkla University, Thailand

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1993.07.01.801

Pages: 77-90

Keywords: Conversation Analysis (CA), EFL Interactional Skills, English Conversation Lessons, Introduction Sequence, Thai EFL Learners

Abstract

To identify challenging areas to be addressed in English conversation lessons, this study examines how Thai EFL learners construct and sequence their turns in making conversation to fulfill the social goal of making friends. Twelve non-English major undergraduates enrolled in a selective English conversation course were engaged in unscripted role-play conversations where they had to introduce their friends and made small talk before parting. Their conversations were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed via the lens of Conversation Analysis (CA). Close analyses of the turn and sequence organization of these conversations revealed the students’ challenges in four areas: including (1) completing an opening sequence, (2) introducing others (3) offering relevant information to establish a social relationship, and (4) ending the conversation. An abrupt, unsignalled initiation of a new topic was found in the opening part of the conversation which could disrupt its flow. In the centering part, student mediators failed not only to offer the name of the person introduced to recipients but also to expand their turns to build a rapport and show interest in the conversation partner. Lastly, in the closing part, they ended the conversation swiftly without any pre-closing sequences. These findings shed light on interactional skills these EFL learners need to master in addition to skills in manipulating linguistic resources to improve their conversation abilities and to make the interaction flow more smoothly and effectively.

References

  1. Barraja-Rohan, A-M. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 479-507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168811412878

  2. Byrne, P. S., & Long, B. E. L. (1976). Doctors talking to patients: A study of the verbal behaviours of doctors in the consultation. Her Majesty's Stationary Office.

  3. Chema, M., Syahrul, S., Reflinda, R., & Syafitri, W. (2023). Thai Students’ Difficulties in Mastering English Speaking at Mattayom 5 Darunsatwithaya School. Journal on Education, 5(3), 5650-5660. https://jonedu.org/index.php/joe/article/view/1323

  4. Education Testing Service (ETS). (2021). Test and Score Data Summary for the TOEFL ITP Test January 2021– December 2021 Test Data. https://www.ets.org/content/dam/ets-org/pdfs/toefl/toefl-ibt-test-score-data-summary-2021.pdf

  5. EF English Proficiency Index. (2022). EF https://www.ef.com/wwen/epi/regions/asia/thailand/

  6. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. Academic Press.

  7. Heath, C. (1981). The opening sequence in doctor-patient interaction. In P. Atkinson & C. Heath (Eds.), Medical work: Realities and routines (pp. 71–90). Gower.

  8. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.

  9. Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. John Wiley & Sons.

  10. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis. Polity Press.

  11. Imsa-ard, P. (2020). Motivation and attitudes towards English language learning in Thailand: A large-scale survey of secondary school students. rEFLections, 27(2), 140-161. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1283491.pdf

  12. Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica, 9(1), 47-96.

  13. Liddicoat, A. J. (2007) An introduction to conversation analysis. Continuum.

  14. Liu, M. (2011). Researching sequential organization of social actions in second language interaction: A conversation analytic perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 13-28.

  15. Markee, N. (2009) Conversation analysis. Taylor & Francis.

  16. Nguoi, C. C. L. & Ahmad, A.A.A. (2015). Meaning Negotiation of ELP Learners in Communication Tasks. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. Vol 21, No 3 (2015)

  17. Noom-ura, S. (2013). English-Teaching Problems in Thailand and Thai Teachers’ Professional Development Needs. English Language Teaching, 6(11), 139-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n11p139

  18. Office of the Education Council. (2017). National education plan B.E. 2560 - 2579. Bangkok: Office of the Education Council.

  19. Pillet-Shore, D. (2011). Doing introductions: The work involved in meeting someone new. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 73-95.

  20. Pillet-Shore, D. (2018). How to begin. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 213-231.

  21. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

  22. Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9(2-3), 111-151.

  23. Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation's turn-taking organization. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 70-85). Multilingual Matters.

  24. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis volume 1. Cambridge University Press.

  25. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell Publishing.

  26. Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38(4), 165-187.

  27. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.

  28. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (2013). Handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley- Blackwell.

  29. Sinkeviciute, V., & Rodriguez, A. (2021). "So... introductions": Conversational openings in getting-acquainted interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 179, 44-53.

  30. Suwannatrai, L., Thumawongsa, N. and Chumpavan, S. 2022. English Instruction Difficulties Perceived by Teachers in English as Foreign Language (EFL) Classrooms at the University Level in Thailand. Rajapark Journal. 16, 47 (Aug. 2022), 23–38.

  31. Tantiwich, K., & Sinwongsuwat, K. (2019). Thai university students’ use of yes/no tokens in spoken interaction. English Language Teaching. 12(3), 1-14.

  32. Waluyo, B. (2019). Examining Thai First-Year University Students' English Proficiency on CEFR Levels. The New English Teacher, 13(2), 51-71.

bottom of page