Teacher-Student Interaction in EFL Classroom in China: Communication Accommodation Theory Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foreign language teaching highlights the cultivation of the learners’ communicative competence, because the main purpose of learning a foreign language is to use the target language to communicate. However, many students in higher institutions in China cannot speak English fluently after having learned English for more than ten years, although they have mastered abundant knowledge of grammars and enough vocabulary, which mainly results from lack of interaction in classroom teaching besides the natural language environment. Classroom interaction is the key to effective teaching in EFL classroom. So, using strategies to promote the interaction in class is necessary. This paper explores the interaction between teacher and student in EFL classroom from the perspective of Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT). Data was collected from 540 minute video samples of three English teachers’ classroom teaching. This study aimed: 1) To identify whether the teachers use communication accommodation strategies to develop the interaction，when they are faced with the difficulties in EFL class; 2)To answer which strategies are often used in EFL classroom? Findings showed: 1) Communication accommodation strategies happened in Teacher-student interaction; 2) Communication accommodation strategies such as approximation, interpret ability, emotional expression and interpersonal control are the basic strategies which were employed by the three participants in each session of EFL class; 3) Interpret ability and strategy of discourse management such as face-maintenance, turn-taking, topic control, asking referential questions, conversational repair and feedback occurred frequently according to the discourse. 4) The more accommodation strategies the teacher used, the better the interaction in the classroom was.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".