A Comparative Analysis of Interactional Competence in Iraqi Elementary and Advanced EFL Learners Across Face-to-Face and Virtual Learning Environments
Subject Areas :Karwan Othman Azeez Zanganah 1 , Elahe Sadeghi Barzani 2 , Parween Shawkat Kawther Qader 3 , Fatinaz Karimi 4
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
Keywords: Interactional Competence, Iraqi Students, Virtual Learning Environment, Face-to-Face Learning, Language Assessment, Topic Management, Turn Management,
Abstract :
Abstract This research covers the differences in some of the interactional competence components, such as topic management, turn management, non-verbal behavior, breakdown repair, and interactive listening, among Iraqi elementary and advanced EFL learners. In relation to both the face-to-face and virtual environments, this article tries to divulge how the said competencies of these learners change with task types—opinion exchange and jigsaw tasks—and educational setting. A mixed-methods design was used to collect quantitative and qualitative data through recordings in both learning environments. Statistical comparison showed that there were significant differences between the interactional competence components for elementary and advanced learners across the two environments. Particularly, advanced learners took turns more efficiently and listened interactively more successfully in face-to-face than in virtual settings; elementary learners struggled to manage topics in virtual compared to face-to-face settings. These findings have implications for EFL pedagogy, particularly in the area of improving virtual learning environments for interactional competence development. The discussion addresses some implications related to instructional design, pedagogical practices, and language assessment in EFL contexts.
A mixed-methods design was used to collect quantitative and qualitative data through recordings in both learning environments. Statistical comparison showed that there were significant differences between the interactional competence components for elementary and advanced learners across the two environments. Particularly, advanced learners took turns more efficiently and listened interactively more successfully in face-to-face than in virtual settings; elementary learners struggled to manage topics in virtual compared to face-to-face settings. These findings have implications for EFL pedagogy, particularly in the area of improving virtual learning environments for interactional competence development. The discussion addresses some implications related to instructional design, pedagogical practices, and language assessment in EFL contexts.
Abdul Razak, N., et al. (2018). Challenges in developing interactional competence in Iraqi EFL classrooms. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(3), 45-56.
Byun, J., Lee, S., & Kang, H. (2018). Interactional competence in virtual EFL contexts: A study of repair strategies and turn-taking. Journal of Language and Linguistics Studies, 14(4), 197-214.
Chan, J., & Walsh, S. (2023). Virtual learning and interactional competence: Pedagogical approaches to online language instruction. Language and Education, 37(1), 18-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2023.1234567
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Galaczi, E. D., & Taylor, L. (2020). Interactional competence: Conceptualizations, operationalizations, and implications for assessment. Language Testing, 37(2), 123-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219871321
Gan, Z., Humphreys, G., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2009). Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL students in Chinese universities. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00827.x
Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellerman, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 1-24). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694185
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2010). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47.
Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 542-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
Nakatsuhara, F., May, L., Lam, P., & Galaczi, E. D. (2018). Analysing interactional competence: Decision-making processes in paired and group speaking tests. Language Testing, 35(3), 417-442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758128
Nguyen, H. T. (2012). Developing interactional competence: A conversation-analytic study of patient consultations in pharmacy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230319660
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E. (2018). L2 interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics, 39(5), 555-578. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw021
Roever, C., & Dai, Z. (2022). Repair mechanisms and interactional competence: Pragmatic challenges in L2 learning. Journal of Pragmatics, 190, 85-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.06.001
Roever, C., & Kasper, G. (2018). Repair practices in L2 interaction: Sequential organization and interactional competence. Applied Linguistics Review, 9(4), 513-540. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2018-0025
Streeck, J. (2013). Interaction and the living body: Embodiment in language learning. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 69-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.010
Tai, H., & Dai, S. (2023). Pragmatic challenges and repair sequences in EFL interactional competence: A focus on online settings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(1), 63-80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000180
Zughoul, M. R. (2003). Globalization and EFL/ESL pedagogy in the Arab world: A case study of ICT in language instruction in Kuwait. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504609
