System 106 (2022) 102756

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Conversation for co-learning in the eikaiwa classroom

Chieri Noda a, *, Hua Zhu b
a
Department of Languages, Cultures and Applied Linguistics, Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK
b
IOE, University College London, London, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper discusses how the concept of co-learning and the pedagogy of vulnerability (Brant­
L2 classroom interaction meier, 2013) can explain shifts in participation in a language classroom. Its empirical evidence is
Contingent learning opportunities from our investigation of interactions in an eikaiwa (English conversation) classroom in Japan
Co-learning
where small groups of Japanese learners of English are encouraged to converse with a language
Conversation-for-learning
teacher. Using multimodal Conversation Analysis, we found that the participants showed more
active engagement when the teacher reversed his role from a language authority to a cultural
novice and when the participants drew on their experience and expertise. In this way, conver­
sation for learning becomes conversation for knowledge co-construction, conversation for
perspective-taking, and conversation for co-learning. Fundamental to the conversation for co-
learning approach is the pedagogy of vulnerability, in which the traditional authoritative and
subordinate relationship between teachers and learners are challenged and reversed.

1. Introduction

This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of participation of both the teacher and learner in a language learning class­
room, first through a microanalysis of the interaction, and then through an examination of the findings with reference to the co-
learning approach and the associated pedagogy of vulnerability (Brantmeier, 2013). The learning context concerned is eikaiwa gak­
ko/kyoshitsu (英会話学校/教室; literally, English conversation school/classroom) in Japan, where small groups of learners are
encouraged to engage in conversations in English with a language teacher typically speaking English as a first language (L1). These
commercial language learning setups account for a substantial portion of an estimated $2,400-million commercial language school
industry (Yano Research Institute Ltd, 2018) in Japan and operate under the purview of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
Typically consisting of a combination of free conversation and guided learning around textbooks, their pedagogy is grounded in the
communicative language teaching approach (Mathieson, 2018). The available research on eikaiwa schools have taken a critical
perspective by highlighting their inherent nature of commodification, deeply-rooted social cultural motivations behind their popu­
larity and native speakerism (e.g., Appleby, 2013; Bailey, 2006; Hooper, 2018; Hooper et al., 2020; Kubota, 2011). Despite their
critiques, these studies seem to point to the existence of interactional practices built around a social relationship between teachers and
students at eikaiwa schools. This observation is indeed borne out in Banwell’s study (2010). Through focus group interviews and
classroom observation, Banwell finds that the students and teachers followed mutually understood rules and behaviour and formed
unique socio-pedagogical relationships. Detailed analyses of the actual interaction that takes place at these schools, however, have not

* Corresponding author. Department of Languages, Cultures and Applied Linguistics, Birkbeck, University of London, 26 Russell Square, London,
WC1B 5DQ, UK.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Noda).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102756
Received 12 November 2021; Received in revised form 26 January 2022; Accepted 26 January 2022
Available online 29 January 2022
0346-251X/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
C. Noda and H. Zhu System 106 (2022) 102756

been undertaken.
The paucity of classroom research on interaction in eikaiwa schools is not surprising as, unlike formal educational institutions,
conversation schools are under the purview of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and therefore not expected to report on
their educational achievements. While these commercial enterprises may assess teachers’ classroom practices and student satisfaction
for internal review and sales promotion, there seems to be little incentive for expending their resources on generating or contributing
to academic research. The stigmatisation of teaching eikaiwa (Hooper, 2018) and the sceptical discourse of the existing research on the
eikaiwa industry as seen in some of the studies above may also discourage eikaiwa schools and teachers from allowing researchers into
the classroom. However, considering eikaiwa schools represent a large proportion of English language teaching in Japan, and similar
commercial language schools thrive in many so-called outer circle countries, it would be of academic, pedagogical, and societal in­
terest to examine how teaching and learning take place within the classrooms of this private sector language school setting and where
the possibilities for changes are.

2. Background

2.1. Conversation-for-learning

In setting their goal as learning through conversation, eikaiwa schools share a similar foundation as “conversation-for-learning”.
Conversation-for-learning is used as an umbrella term to describe an interactional context where language learners converse with
others in the target language and whereby they engage in a kind of informal learning. Conversation-for-learning setups are dedicated
interactional spaces referred to as English corners, conversation clubs, etc and usually organised as a supplement to other more formal
language courses. They aim to promote language learning exclusively through conversation with a partner (usually an L1 user of the
target language), with the understanding that learning opportunities contingently arise over the course of conversation (Kasper & Kim,
2015). Despite their informal nature, studies have shown that the interaction in conversation-for-learning has a clear orientation
toward fulfilling institutional goals. The conversation partners open and close the sessions (Kasper, 2004), engage in “serial ques­
tioning” and “pivoting” to ensure progressivity of topic and equal distribution of turns (Hauser, 2008). Hauser observes that while the
conversation partners are not solely responsible for asking questions and managing turn-allocation, they exercise control to fulfil their
institutional responsibility as conversation partners. In another study focusing on the use of gaze in examining the turn-taking practices
of second language novice speakers of Japanese in a conversation-for-learning setting, Ikeda (2008) notes that when a selected next
speaker fails to respond, another learner self-selects in the original responder’s place. She argues that this illustrates the participants’
strong orientation to maintaining progressivity of the talk which is specific to this setting.
The learning opportunities created in pursuit of mutual understanding and progression of conversation may differ in the degree of
overtness. For example, one conversation partner may embed a corrected version of the other party’s utterances in conversation and
thus offer corrections implicitly, whereas, on other occasions, the conversation topic may shift to a language learning activity whereby
a correct word is offered and then acknowledged between conversation partners. Similar to what has been reported in conventional
language classrooms (Kasper, 2009; Seedhouse & Walsh, 2010), such contingent learning opportunities are collaborative achieve­
ments of the participants (Kim, 2019).
In addition to such opportunities for learning linguistic and interactional skills, it has been noted that conversation for learning
often involves a form of “descriptions of culture-specific practices and with culture-specific lexical repertoires” (Kasper & Kim, 2015, p.
400). While studies on contingent learning opportunities in conversation-for-learning have focused on learners’ linguistic and
interactional skills, learning opportunities that arise as a result of engaging in talk on culture is less researched. These kinds of con­
versations, which we refer to as “cultural talk” (Zhu, 2021) in this paper, not only allow participants to use their memberships in
different languages and communities as resource for holding a conversation, but also create opportunities for intercultural contact and
sharing of views. For example, Herfurth (1993, p. 157; cited in Woodin, 2018, p. 21) argues that a tandem arrangement, in which a pair
of participants learn each other’s languages, constitutes intensive intercultural experience, and allows for “different thoughts, feelings
and action dimensions to ‘bump into each other’ as different cultures come into contact”. Woodin (2018) further demonstrates that
while talking about word meaning with their partners, those taking part in tandem learning engage in a range of perspective-taking
strategies, including emphasising shared experience and decentring from one’s own perspective.
The close link between learning linguistic and interactional skills, on one hand, and cultural awareness and perspective on the other
requires us to revisit the goals of language learning and most important of all, to recognise that learning is not confined to the mastery
of the language as encapsulated by the notion of communicative competence (e.g., Hymes, 1972). In addition to intercultural
communicative competence as much debated in the literature (e.g., Byram, 1997), learners need to develop “symbolic competence” in
recognition of the symbolic power of language and that of multilingual individuals not just as communicators and problem solvers, but
whole persons with experience and identities (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008, p. 664). Specifically, symbolic competence is the ability to
understand the symbolic value of different symbolic systems and to shape the very context in which the language is learned and used. It
includes the following:
“the ability to judge when to speak and when to remain silent, when to talk about the inequality of the ongoing talk and when to
let them pass, when to complain or counter-attack, and when to gently but unmistakably readjust the balance of power through
humour or irony. […] the ability to frame and re-frame the distribution of symbolic power in conversational encounters”
(Kramsch, 2016: 526).
Given the collaborative nature of conversation for learning and its broader goal of developing symbolic competence aimed at

2
C. Noda and H. Zhu System 106 (2022) 102756

reframing the distribution of symbolic power in conversations, the question remains as to the appropriateness of the conventional
conceptualization of the relationship between the teacher and the learner with the former assuming the role of authority. We will
discuss this in the next section.

2.2. Co-learning and pedagogy of vulnerability

Vygotsky’s social development theory (1978) with its emphasis on the role of social interaction in cognitive development and
construction of knowledge has had profound influence on the development of a series of pedagogical models that promote learning
together. These models, described by different terms such as collaborative learning, cooperative learning, collective learning, peer
learning, or team learning (see Naujokaitiene & Passey, 2019), represent a shift towards placing students at the centre of learning to
take responsibilities of their own and each other’s learning and an emphasis on equitable access to resources. Benefits of such a
co-learning approach include expansion of social networks, increase in self-esteem, development of positive attitudes towards
learning, improvement in academic ability and assessment performance and emergence of new conventions through mutual adap­
tation (Li, 2014). However, so far, the main focus of “learning together” has been on peers or learners themselves (Kirschner, 2001;
cited in; Naujokaitiene & Passey, 2019) with the exception of a small number of studies which examine “learning together” between
teachers and students (e.g., Brantmeier, n.d. cited in Li, 2014, p. 170; Li, 2014).
For Brantmeier (2013, n.d.), co-learning between teachers and students requires a fundamental change in the conceptualization
towards the relationship between teachers and students, in particular, the traditional role sets often described in the dichotomy of
teachers as authority/dominant vs. students as novice/subordinate. The teacher would become a facilitator, a scaffolder and a critical
reflection enhancer who guides the process of student learning, and the student would become an empowered explorer, a
meaning-making informer and a responsible knowledge constructor. Furthermore, the roles of the teacher and the learner could be
reversed, whereby the teacher does “vulnerability”, i.e., acknowledging limitations or gaps in their frames of knowing, feeling and
experience. In addition to shared power among co-learners including teachers and learners, a co-learning classroom environment is
characterised by social and individualised learning, collective and individual meaning-making and identity exploration, community of
practice with situated learning, and real-world engagement and action (Brantmeier, n.d.).
Co-learning and the practice of vulnerability, as Brantmeier argues, are particularly useful in the context of learning about di­
versity, democratisation of knowledge, and discussing power, oppression, and privilege. He gives an example of how he starts the
conversation with his students on power and privilege by sharing his story as a white, male, heterosexual whose privilege is not
achieved by something he has done but granted by the wider society. This kind of self-disclosure holds promise for deep learning and
greater learning benefits in lived classroom conversation where people talk about cultural practices and differences. Within the context
of language learning, Li (2014) demonstrates how co-learning of language and cultural practices takes place through employment of
multilingual resources and funds of knowledge (“the historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and
skills”, Moll et al., 1992, p. 133) in Chinese complementary schools, where teachers and learners have different proficiency in English
and different varieties of Chinese and different knowledge of and preferences for cultural practices. Tai and Li (2021) and Hansen-­
Thomas et al. (2020) provide further empirical evidence on how co-learning through mobilisation of multilingual resources helps to
produce desirable learning experience and outcomes.
The current study aims to understand the interaction in an eikaiwa classroom with reference to co-learning in language classrooms.
Setting the development of symbolic competence as the goal of language learning, we explore the role of participants including both
teachers and students in co-constructing contingent learning opportunities in and through conversations. We will use multimodal
Conversation Analysis (CA) and undertake a detailed analysis of video recorded classroom interaction. CA is well positioned to unveil
the social-interactional aspect of learning in situ and in vivo (e.g., a special issue of the Modern Language Journal edited by Eskildsen &
Majlesi, 2018; Hellermann et al., 2019). The application of multimodality in CA studies have drawn attention to and provided a means
of describing the embodied and multimodal nature of interactional space and learning (Mondada, 2013, p. 248) and thus opened up a
new way of understanding how and to what extent participants are engaged in interactions. As an example, a study of an ESL setting
(Tai & Brandt, 2018) has uncovered instances where student-initiated questions elicited a teacher’s embodied enactment of imaginary
contexts. The authors emphasise that the embodied enactments do not merely reinforce verbal explanations but allow the teacher to
physically represent language used in situational contexts outside the classroom. Through multimodal CA, we hope to provide a
nuanced understanding of the dynamics of interactions around the socio-pedagogical relationship between teachers and students.

3. Methods

3.1. The school and the lesson

The eikaiwa school taking part in this study has branches in several cities in Japan. Although this institution is not a formal
educational institution (as explained above), the terms “school”, “teacher” and “student” were used frequently in the conversations
during the data collection and in the general discourse. We therefore follow this practice when referring to the roles of participants and
the setting in this paper. Like many eikaiwa schools, the school offers private and small group lessons for improving conversation in
general as well as lessons with a specialised focus (e.g., business, science, conference presentations). A flexible scheduling system is
adopted for the regular conversation lessons which means each 40-minute lesson potentially consists of a different combination of
teachers and students. The students are not told in advance which teacher will be teaching the lesson they have signed up for. The
lesson starts with a “chat” or warm-up, which is “not necessarily connected to the lesson”, according to an interview with one teacher.

3
C. Noda and H. Zhu System 106 (2022) 102756

He added it is like “talking with friends”. The session then moves into the lesson proper with a topical/grammar focus taught from a
commercial textbook. There is no formal assessment for tracking progress: the teachers are responsible for determining the level
appropriate for each student based on classroom participation.

3.2. Participants

The lesson analyzed in this paper consisted of one teacher and three adult learners who gave consent to take part in a lesson that
was to be recorded for research purposes with an observer present. It is one of five 40-minute lessons recorded at the school. This paper
focuses on the interaction of one lesson to gain an understanding of the participation of one group. The group uses the Upper Inter­
mediate Coursebook of Lifestyle: English for Work, Socializing and Travel (Barrall & Rogers, 2012). The participant profiles are
summarised below. All names are pseudonyms.
The teacher, Dave, is from the UK and has been teaching at this school for several years.
Emma is a pharmacist. She lived in the US as a child. She does not use English at work but hopes to do so as a sports pharmacist
in the future.
Fumi is a medical technologist in a university lab. She uses English a couple of times a week at work to speak to an American
professor.
Taka, the sole male student in this group, is a natural sciences researcher. He needs English for his research and to talk to his
American assistant.
Dave and the three students know each other from previous lessons. The three students have been enrolled at this school for some
time, with Fumi having the shortest history of five months.

3.3. Recorded data

The recording devices used included one audio recorder, three audiovisual recorders (two JVC camcorders, one 360◦ King Jim
Meeting Recorder). See Fig. 1 for placement of devices.
One of the challenges with multimodal CA is how to resemiotise rich multi-dimensional data into conventional presentation, i.e.,
texts and images. For the purpose of this paper, the transcription focuses on embodied acts alongside what is said by whom, how and
when. The recording was transcribed by the first author, an English-Japanese bilingual speaker, following CA transcription conven­
tions (Jefferson, 2004; Sidnell, 2010) with some modifications (see Appendix). To facilitate the reporting of analysis, sketches were
generated from video stills using FotoSketcher, a freely available software. The teacher’s frontal images are not included as agreed.

4. Analysis and findings

In the following sections, we present an analysis of extracts taken from both the warm-up and the lesson proper with the aim of
understanding the role of participants in constructing the interaction. We first describe the interactional features of the two parts of the
lesson and then focus on moments when the participants are engaged in cultural talk, which we will argue is a shift to a co-learning

Fig. 1. Participants and recorder placement (image taken by second camcorder).

4
C. Noda and H. Zhu System 106 (2022) 102756

approach. These analyses are followed by a brief account of the participants’ views towards the lesson in their own words.

4.1. Collaborative achievement of the pedagogical goals of the lesson

Despite a relaxed atmosphere, it was noticeable from the start of the lesson that the students oriented to Dave, the teacher, as the
authoritative figure who assumed the responsibility of allocating turns and topic selection. Throughout the lesson, the participants
jointly maintained the flow of the conversation through their embodied participation (e.g., body orientation, gaze, gesture as well as
verbal). Collaboratively, they adhered to a one-teacher-to-one-student-at-a-time pattern, similar to patterns reported in many studies
on classroom interactions (Mehan, 1979) and conversation-for-learning (Hauser, 2008).
The participants displayed an understanding that the goal of the warm-up was to keep the conversation going mainly between Dave
and a student. This was apparent from the collaborative nature of the exchanges. As see in Extract 1, a student volunteers a thread,
Dave follows up, and the student elaborates while the other students remained interested listeners most of the time. Emma’s revelation
that she took a nap before class is responded to by Dave with incomplete follow-ups (lines 34, 38; Fig. 1.2) and laughter particles (line
34). Dave’s perturbations prompt Emma to continue by adding that she is okay now. Dave follows up with “do you often take naps?”
(line 40), presumably as an attempt to develop the topic. Emma volunteers an explanation by saying, “ah today was a really busy day.
[so,” (lines 41-43; Fig. 1.3). At the end of this transition relevance place (Sacks et al., 1974), Emma’s continuation overlaps with Dave’s
response (line 45) and Fumi and Taka’s discourse marker “ah:” (lines 46-7). Dave keeps the conversation going by asking another
follow-up question (line 48-9). Similar conversational exchanges were repeated with all three students in a fashion resembling pivoting
in conversation-for-learning settings (Hauser, 2008), a practice to ensure equity of participation.
As soon as Dave declares the start of the lesson proper, the participants’ body orientations and interactional patterns changed
abruptly. Dave’s default position becomes that of a knowledge provider. After each student’s response, he evaluates, repeats,
rephrases, or interprets the students’ comments, as in the third part of the teacher-initiated three-part exchange characteristic of

Extract 1. do you often take naps?.

5
C. Noda and H. Zhu System 106 (2022) 102756

classrooms (Mehan, 1979; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975) including second language teaching classrooms (Markee, 2000). The students’
gaze was often cast down on their notes or the textbook while Dave’s gaze alternated between the students and the handout, and
occasionally the textbook. At times, Taka and Fumi seated next to Dave leaned over to get a better look at his notes.
This interactional change can be seen in Extract 2, the segment after Dave has introduced the topic for the lesson proper, “time and
money”. Dave has just asked the students what they think of the expression, “time is money”. Emma is responding (lines 606-9, 611-13;
Fig. 2.1) as Fumi occasionally takes notes.
When Dave lets out an “ah:” (line 615; Fig. 2.2) and starts writing, Taka and Fumi turn their heads to look at Dave’s notes. Soon all
three are taking notes (Fig. 2.3), treating Dave’s rendition of Emma’s comments as noteworthy and authoritative. In the lesson proper,
“taking notes” becomes a ratified interactional feature and an enactment of learning for the students. For Dave, writing on the handout
constitutes an interactional move for validating the students’ response and drawing attention to the key phrases or structures. Here, we
see the social and collective nature of embodied acts in the form of synchronization of note-taking when Dave and the students assume
their classroom roles as teacher and student.

4.2. Cultural talk and changing patterns of engagement

In investigating how the teacher and students participate in classroom conversations, our attention was drawn to moments when
there were changes in the level of engagement and when students became more actively involved in the conversation. These were

Extract 2. time waits for no man.

6
C. Noda and H. Zhu System 106 (2022) 102756

moments when participants brought up cultural talk, when differences in cultural knowledge/experience and views on ways of doing
things were on display and attended to, and when Dave rendered his frames of “knowing, feeling, and doing vulnerable” (Brantmeier,
2013). In this section, we will focus on four moments of cultural talk and discuss how the shift to the co-learning approach effects
greater learning opportunities contingently.

4.2.1. Reversing roles to doing a cultural novice

The close analysis of interactions shows that when Dave positions himself as the less knowledgeable about local or cultural
knowledge (local food, places, and cultural practices), there are more frequent overlaps between turns and exchanges of gazes and
turns become more spontaneous, pointing to more active engagement from the participants including Dave himself as in the following
segment.
In Extract 3(a), one such instance, Dave refers to obon, an annual Japanese holiday period for showing respect to one’s ancestors. He
asks the name of a bean-paste-wrapped rice cake (ohagi), a sweet associated with obon, referring to it as “reverse onigiri”. Onigiri is a ball
of rice with a savoury filling—the Japanese equivalent of a sandwich.
All three students turn their attention to Dave as soon as they hear him say “I also hear there’s some kind of” (line 189-90) showing
that the students recognise Dave’s words as a pre-telling, i.e., that he is about to tell them something noteworthy. In addition, the

Extract 3(a). reverse onigiri.

7
C. Noda and H. Zhu System 106 (2022) 102756

micropauses, Dave’s reformulation with an elongated indefinite article (line 190), and his hand gesture together with the unusual
combination of an English adjective with onigiri (lines 189-92, Fig. 3.1) intensifies the students’ attention and engagement which is
apparent from their gaze, bodily conduct and numerous overlaps. As Dave describes the sweet and brings his hands up to demonstrate
its shape, Fumi leans forward and brings up both her hands to her mouth (Fig. 3.2) and repeats, “reverse [oni-]” (line 198). At that
moment, Emma, guesses the sweet is ohagi (rice cake wrapped with sweet bean paste, line 200; Fig. 3.3). Dave repeats the word rather
like a student (line 202). Emma and Fumi exchange glances as Fumi exclaims “ah[:::!” (line 203; Fig. 3.4), a change-of-state token
indicating that the word has been found, but the talk then resumes primarily between Dave and Emma around the topic of ohagi
(Extract 3(b); lines 207-13; Fig. 3.5). Clearly the other two students dwell on the unexpected combination of words—they mutter
“reverse onigiri” and exchange glances (lines 214-18; Fig. 3.6). In response, Emma also repeats “rever(h)se oni(h)-” (line 220) with
suppressed laughter and glances at Fumi but continues her conversation with Dave aligning with his opinion of the sweet by repeating
“strange” (lines 226, 228).
In Extracts 3(a) and 3(b), Dave’s creative hybrid phrase “reverse onigiri”, pauses, and hand gestures heighten the attention level of
all three students. The students’ verbal and bodily conduct indicate they are all engaged in a word search and the nonratified students
on the verge of breaking into the ongoing talk, but once the word is found, the students orient to a one-to-one pattern and the ensuing
discussion on ohagi takes place between Dave and Emma. The fact that this segment followed on from Emma’s turn to speak, Dave’s
gaze was mostly on Emma who is sitting across from him, and Emma was the one who came up with the sought-for word may have
discouraged the other two from participating more actively in the talk. However, even after the word was found, Fumi and Taka
exchanged glances repeating the phrase “reverse onigiri” with visible amusement.
Whether Dave’s question on ohagi was a display question (McHoul, 1978; Mehan, 1979) or not cannot be known, but the question
brought about an increased level of student participation albeit for a short period. By switching from his teacher status to “doing being
an eager learner” of local culture and language, Dave creates an opportunity for the students to take on a new role as cultural experts to
help him with his word search. By repeating “ohagi”, he shows his uptake of the new word and displays that he is a learner who

Extract 3(b). reverse onigiri.

8
C. Noda and H. Zhu System 106 (2022) 102756

benefited from the interaction.

4.2.2. Orienting to learner status

In another cultural talk in Extract 4, we see Dave and the students make observations on learning languages. During a brief pause
after one of Dave’s explanations, Emma makes a metalinguistic comment on the difficulty of English prepositions. This leads Dave to
align with the students by portraying himself as a learner.
During Dave’s explanation on prepositions (lines 993–1001), the students take notes. When Dave uses a hand gesture to solicit the

Extract 4. prepositions are difficult.

9
C. Noda and H. Zhu System 106 (2022) 102756

students to join him in completing the sentence using the correct preposition “on”, Fumi joins by saying “on.” (line 1002; Fig. 4.1),
Emma nods, and Taka responds with a Japanese-sounding acknowledgment token. After the short pause that ensues (line 1006), Emma
seizes the turn to evoke her language learner identity by commenting with a smile, “prepositions are difficult” (line 1007; Fig. 4.2).
Dave’s firm affirmation followed by his observation, “yes. a:ll Japanese students I know hate prepositions” (lines 1009, 1011-2), draws
a visible response. Emma shakes in silent laughter (Fig. 4.3) and Fumi bursts into laughter as Taka smiles (Fig. 4.4). Dave, however,
instead of dwelling on his evaluation of “all Japanese students” goes on to talk about the difficulty he has with Japanese prepositions
(lines 1021-8; Fig. 4.5) possibly to mitigate his former comment which could have been taken to be disparaging of Japanese students.
In this segment, Emma’s orientation to being a language learner prompts Dave’s assessment of “all Japanese students,” and opens
up a cultural talk in which Japanese students are contrasted with other learners. While the students seem to find this assessment
amusing, Dave immediately seeks to tone down the essentializing nature of his off-the-cuff comment. He puts aside his expert status as
an L1 English teacher and chooses to align with the students as a language learner baffled by prepositions.

4.2.3. Differences on display

Further into the activity, Dave’s identity as a language learner resurfaces when he encourages the students to bring in their L1 and
culture to explain linguistic differences. Preceding Extract 5(a), Emma has made sentences using “lend” and has commented that
“lend” can be used with “money,” but not “time,” to which the other students have agreed. In response, Dave has pointed out that there
are times when “lend” can be used with time. He has explained at some length that in the English language the notion of time is linked
to the self and thus treated as something that can be given to people. Emma, while saying she follows Dave’s explanation, has
commented that translating “lend time” into Japanese would sound strange. Extract 5(a) shows what follows.
Dave’s indirect request (lines 1375-84; Fig. 5.1) for a translation is followed by Emma’s 4-s pause, “hm?” and perturbations (lines
1386, 1388; Fig. 5.2), indicating Emma’s confusion about being asked to use Japanese in an English-only lesson. Despite Dave’s
clarification (lines 1390-2, 1394), Emma sticks to using English by back-translating her Japanese translation into English, “my friend

Extract 5(a). difficult to translate.

10
C. Noda and H. Zhu System 106 (2022) 102756

made time for me to move” (lines 1396-8; Fig. 5.3). Dave acknowledges this as a satisfactory answer.
Following Emma’s explanation, in Extract 5(b), Dave’s question prompts Taka to step in to offer an explanation. He had attempted
to take a turn at line 1401 and had been shifting his gaze between Emma and Dave. He explains that saying “my friend lent me his time”
in Japanese would give the impression that you “look down” on the friend (lines 1405-9; Figs. 5.4 and 5.5) and attributes this to culture
saying, “this is not Japan (our own) culture” (lines 1414, 1416). Dave reacts enthusiastically to this as a satisfactory explanation
saying, “ah. okay okay” (line 1415), “I see now I understand that.” (line 1418; Fig. 5.6) and “ah. very interesting” (line 1421). Here
Dave is “doing being the eager learner and cultural novice” who benefits from Taka’s expertise and Taka takes on the role of “doing
being the cultural insider”. It might be pertinent to note, however, that Emma’s facial reaction and lack of uptake suggests she is not
fully convinced, but this is not picked up by the others. So, while Dave’s enthusiastic uptake of Taka’s commentary can be interpreted
as his personal interest in understanding Japanese language and culture, it may have curtailed a counter opinion by Emma and thus
prevented the exchange from turning into a critical discussion on cultural practices.

4.2.4. Poking fun at the teacher

The extracts above showed moments when the students responded to Dave’s question or clarification request, but the extract below
shows a moment when Taka interrupts Dave to make a point. It occurs at the end of the warm-up after the students have each talked
about what they did over their obon holiday. In response to Emma who has asked him to talk about his holiday, Dave talks at length
about how he visited his long-time friends in another town.
Dave’s remark that they did “nothing exciting” because one of his friends was pregnant is followed by laughter and Emma’s
summary, “so just relaxed with them” (lines 507–508; Fig. 6.1). Dave continues to talk about having dinner at an izakaya (Japanese
pub) with his friends (Fig. 6.2). A moment later, Taka cuts off Dave to point out that Hananomai, a franchised chain of izakaya, is a
“regular izakaya,” (line 519; Fig. 6.3). The laughter particles suggest he is teasing Dave’s choice of restaurant as rather uninspiring.
Taka’s interruption shows his eagerness to not miss the timing to tease Dave. By responding somewhat defensively that Hananomai
was not his first choice (lines 521, 523–524), Dave displays his sociocultural awareness that Taka is telling him off for his banal choice.
Here Dave’s recounting of his obon holiday allows Taka to move out of their teacher-student roles to poke fun at Dave’s judgement with
respect to the suitability of the restaurant for a special night out. One additional point to note is the use of “regular” which shows Taka’s
knowledge of colloquial English expressions.

Extract 5(b). no concept in Japan.

11
C. Noda and H. Zhu System 106 (2022) 102756

Extract 6. regular izakaya.

In the extracts above, we see the conversation becomes much more “lived” with knowledge and views exchanged, experience and
subjectivities brought in, and differences marked and acknowledged. While these conversations of cultural talk may appear to have
deviated from the on-going local pedagogical task, crucially, they constitute conversation for co-learning that allows both the teacher
and the students to cross the existing hierarchy and to co-construct new knowledge. For the students, they also offer opportunities to
develop the ability to frame and reframe the context of conversation.

4.3. “You don’t have to do anything at all”: the participants’ views towards the lesson

The micro-analysis of interactions above focuses on what goes on in the lesson. We now turn our attention to the post-lesson in­
terviews with the participants. The students mentioned in an informal chat after Dave left that they particularly enjoyed the supposedly
off-task conversation. Taka commented that he was now attending this school because the teachers were “so friendly”, “the atmosphere
is very good”, and “the teacher also very good”. The other two responded in agreement. For Emma, the lessons were a form of
diversion. Taka and Fumi agreed with Emma’s comments, “we get to chat a lot (.) we’re talking more stories rather than using
textbooks, so we get to learn what we want. what we want to talk. and the teachers help us how to um express our feelings and
thoughts”.
The students’ preferences over learning through “chats” concurred with that of Dave who believed that the best classes are those
that “you don’t have to do anything at all”:

12
C. Noda and H. Zhu System 106 (2022) 102756

“I think one of the things that most of the teachers agree on um is that the best classes are the ones (.) for the warm-up for
example not so much the lesson body work but for the warm-up. .hh you don’t have to do anything at all. maybe you bring up
the subject and then you can just sort of wheel your chair back as the students talk among themselves and …”
Dave’s words point to the need to decentralise the teacher’s role in eikaiwa classroom and the need to get the students talking to
create maximum learning opportunities. This is in line with eikaiwa teachers’ concerns over inactive students reported in Banwell
(2010).

5. Discussion and conclusion

While the microanalysis of the interaction of this eikaiwa lesson has demonstrated how the teacher and students played their default
roles, i.e., teachers as the authority and turn-allocator and students as “receptacles of knowledge” (Brantmeier, 2013) and willing
supporters, there were moments when the participants stepped out of their default roles and adopted a co-learning approach. Through
a focus on cultural talk and off-task conversations, our analysis shows that the participants showed greater engagement when the
teacher reversed his role from a language authority to a cultural novice, when the conversation became meaningful exchanges of
information and views, and when the students’ funds of knowledge about their languages and cultural practices were brought in. These
moments were the key ingredients that made this a good lesson.
The best lessons, as the students aptly expressed in their interviews, are those in which students talk about their “stories” rather
than merely doing the exercises in the textbook, get to learn what they want to learn, and express their feelings and thoughts. But what
learning opportunities do these kinds of talks create? Moving beyond the conventional focus on competence, what we see here is the
confidence as well as the ability to make a point, to shape the direction of the conversation and the very context of communication
where differences are displayed and discussed, and potentially to change the power dynamics between the participants. These are the
very essence of symbolic competence, an ability “not only to approximate or appropriate for oneself someone else’s language, but to
shape the very context in which the language is learned and used” (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008, p. 664).
What role does the teacher play in the lesson? The best lessons, according to Dave, are those in which teachers do not have to do
anything. This may seem ironic, but what Dave hints at is about letting go, making oneself “vulnerable” and going for co-learning.
From time to time, Dave is willing to move away from his perceived role as an authority in the target language. Enquiring about
culture-related topics such as the name of a Japanese sweet is often a way to generate topics for talk, but unlike the partner in the
conversation lounge for undergraduates at a Japanese university who appears frustrated as she struggles to remain a provider of
knowledge on things western and receiver of things Japanese (Nao, 2011), Dave does not present himself to be completely ignorant of
Japanese language and culture. He uses his cultural knowledge to come up with an attention-getting hybrid phrase, “reverse onigiri”.
He goes a little further in the metalinguistic talk in the lesson proper by revealing how he has trouble with Japanese prepositions and
asks for a translation of an English sentence. He thereby portrays himself as someone with shared language learner experiences with an
interest in the local language and culture. He even recounts his personal experience with friends which creates an opportunity for a
student to tease him about his choice of restaurant. By reversing the teacher-student roles, Dave created opportunities contingently,
allowing students to deepen his understanding about the local ways of doing things through English.
Asking “who’s teaching whom”, Li (2014) demonstrated that the co-learning pedagogical beliefs have the potential to enable both
teachers and students to draw on their multilingual resources and related funds of knowledge in the teaching and learning process. In
this eikaiwa classroom, there are chunks of interactions in which the conventional role of teachers and students is transcended: the
teacher moves away from an authoritative, pivoting role to facilitators, scaffolders, or genuine partners in lived conversations who are
inquisitive about the local cultural practice; students become cultural and resourceful meaning-making informers. When the roles are
reversed, conversation-for-learning becomes conversation for experience sharing, conversation for perspective-taking, and conver­
sation for co-learning. While our participants are not novice language learners as such, co-learning with its emphasis on mobilising
students’ funds of cultural knowledge and linguistic resources is likely to apply to all learners irrespective of their status and stages in
language learning. Fundamental to the co-learning approach is the pedagogy of vulnerability, in which teachers and learners switch
their positions and the hierarchy between the teacher and students is reversed.
Finally, it has to be said that cultural talk in which teachers and students discuss culture-specific practices and repertoires is not
problem-free. By using the etic categories of culture such as Japanese culture, participants can inadvertently bring in static and a priori
notions of culture. They also risk essentializing with categorical comments such as “it is not Japan (our own) culture”. The teacher and
the students may not have the opportunity to fully discuss differences in opinion, as shown in Extract 5(b) when not everyone seems to
agree with the comment made by one participant. Further research in conversation for co-learning needs to take these complexities
into consideration.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Chieri Noda: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Hua Zhu: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Writing – original draft.

13
C. Noda and H. Zhu System 106 (2022) 102756

Acknowledgements

We thank the students, teachers, and members of staff at the English language school for allowing us to record and observe their
classes.

Appendix. Transcription Notation

The extracts for this research follow CA transcription conventions (Jefferson 2004, Sidnell 2010) with some modifications and
additions as given below:

Temporal and sequential aspects

[] The beginning and end of overlapping utterances

= No pause between adjacent utterances
(.) Indicates a very brief untimed silence
(3) Numbers in parentheses indicate the duration of silence in seconds

Aspects of speech delivery

? Rising intonation
, Low-rising intonation, suggesting continuation
. Falling intonation
! Animated tone, not necessarily an exclamation
- An abrupt cut-off or self-interruption
__ Underscoring indicates stress
:: Colons indicate prolongation of sound preceding them.
◦
word◦ Softer than the surrounding talk is given between degree signs
<word> Slower than surrounding talk
>word< Faster than surrounding talk
.hh Audible in-breath
hh Audible out-breath or laughter
(h) Aspiration within a word (possible laughter)
() A pair of parentheses with nothing in-between indicates unintelligible utterances
(word) Words in parentheses indicates uncertainty over the transcription

Other aspects

((nods)) Words in double parentheses indicate description of events

hai ((yes)) Non-English words are italicized and followed by English translations in double parentheses
Dave Proper nouns are capitalized
+Fig 1 A plus sign followed by “Fig” and a number indicates the moment in the transcript line above at which the corresponding sketch shows

References

Appleby, R. (2013). Desire in translation: White masculinity and TESOL. Tesol Quarterly, 47(1), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.51
Bailey, K. (2006). Marketing the eikaiwa wonderland: Ideology, akogare, and gender alterity in English conversation school advertising in Japan. Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space, 24(1), 105–130.
Banwell, D. R. S. (2010). Keep them coming back: An investigation and analysis of eikaiwa classrooms in Japan. Unpublished Master’s thesis. New Zealand: Massey
University.
Barrall, I., & Rogers, J. (2012). Lifestyle: English for work, socializing and travel (upper intermediate coursebook). Pearson.
Brantmeier, E. J. (2013). Pedagogy of vulnerability: Definitions, assumptions, and applications. In J. Lin, R. L. Oxford, & E. J. Brantmeier (Eds.), Re-envisioning higher
education: Embodied pathways to wisdom and transformation (pp. 95–106). Information Age Publishing. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=ja&as_sdt=0%
2C5&q=Pedagogy+of+vulnerability%3A+Definitions%2C+assumptions%2C+and+applications&btnG=.
Brantmeier, E. J. (n.d.). Empowerment pedagogy: Co-learning and teaching.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
Eskildsen, S. W., & Majlesi, A. R. (Eds.). (2018). Locating learnables (and teachables) in second language talk. The Modern Language Journal, 102(S1). https://doi.org/
10.1111/modl.12471.
Hansen-Thomas, H., Stewart, M. A., Flint, P., & Dollar, T. (2020). Co-learning in the high school English class through translanguaging: Emergent bilingual newcomers
and monolingual teachers. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 20(3), 151–166.
Hauser, E. (2008). Nonformal institutional interaction in a conversation club: Conversation partners’ questions. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 275–295.
Hellermann, J., Eskildsen, S. W., Pekarek Doehler, S., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (Eds.). (2019). Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action: The complex ecology of
second language interaction ‘in the wild’. Springer Nature. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=ja&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Conversation+analytic+research+on+
learning-in-action%3A+The+complex+ecology+of+second+language+interaction+%E2%80%98in+the+wild%E2%80%99&btnG=.
Herfurth, H. E. (1993). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Fremdsprachenerwerbs in Begegnungssituationen. Zu einer Didaktik des Fremdsprachenlernens im Tandem. Iudicium.
Hooper, D. (2018). Too close for comfort: Eikaiwa and stigma in Japanese ELT. Speakeasy, 30, 32–38.
Hooper, D., Oka, M., & Yamazawa, A. (2020). Chapter 2. Not all Eikaiwas (or instructors) are created Equal: A trioethnography of ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native
speaker’ perspectives on English conversation schools in Japan. In R. Lowe, & L. Lawrence (Eds.), Duoethnography in English language teaching: Research, reflection
and classroom Application (pp. 29–49). Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics selected readings (pp. 269–293). Penguin.
Ikeda, K. (2008). L2 ‘Second-order’ organization: Novice speakers of Japanese in a multi-party conversation-for-learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional
Practice, 5(3), 245–273.

14
C. Noda and H. Zhu System 106 (2022) 102756

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), 125. Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31).
John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef.
Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 551–567. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588586
Kasper, G. (2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, 47(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.002
Kasper, G., & Kim, Y. (2015). Conversation-for-learning: Institutional talk beyond the classroom. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction
(pp. 390–408). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118531242.ch23.
Kim, Y. (2019). ‘What is stoyr-steruh type?’: Knowledge asymmetry, intersubjectivity, and learning opportunities in conversation-for-learning. Applied Linguistics, 40
(2), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx029
Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Learning and Instruction, 10(2), 1–9.
Kramsch, C. (2016). The multiple faces of symbolic power. Applied Linguistics Review, 7(4), 517–529.
Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. (2008). Language ecology in multilingual settings. Towards a theory of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 645–671.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn022
Kubota, R. (2011). Learning a foreign language as leisure and consumption: Enjoyment, desire, and the business of eikaiwa. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 14(4), 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.573069
Li, W. (2014). Who’s teaching whom? Co-learning in multilingual classrooms. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education
and bilingualism (pp. 167–190). Routledge.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Routledge.
Mathieson, P. (2018). Examining the cultural appropriateness of the communicative approach to language teaching in Japan. Humanitas, 43, 25–36.
McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2), 183–213.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into
Practice, 31, 132–141.
Mondada, L. (2013). Interactional space and the study of embodied talk-in-interaction. In P. Auer, M. Hilpert, A. Stukenbrock, & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.), Space in
language and linguistics: Geographical, interactional, and cognitive perspectives (pp. 247–275). DE GRUYTER. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110312027.247.
Nao, M. (2011). The pragmatic realization of the native speaking English teacher as a monolingual ideal. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3770–3781. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.012
Naujokaitiene, J., & Passey, D. (2019). Influences on developing collaborative learning practices in schools: Three cases in three different countries. European
Education, 51(3), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2019.1619463
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://
scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=ja&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=A+simplest+systematics+for+the+organization+of+turntaking&btnG=.
Seedhouse, P., & Walsh, S. (2010). Learning a second language through classroom interaction. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising ‘learning’ in
applied linguistics (pp. 127–146). Palgrave Macmillan.
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
Tai, K. W. H., & Brandt, A. (2018). Creating an imaginary context: Teacher’s use of embodied enactments in addressing learner initiatives in a beginner-level adult
ESOL classroom. Classroom Discourse, 9(3), 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1496345
Tai, K. W. H., & Li, W. (2021). Co-learning in Hong Kong English medium instruction mathematics secondary classrooms: A translanguaging perspective. Language and
Education, 35(3), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1837860
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press.
Woodin, J. (2018). Interculturality, interaction and language learning: Insights from tandem partnerships. Routledge.
Yano Research Institute Ltd. (2018). Gogaku bijinesu tettei chousa repouto (Gaiyo ban) [Language business in-depth survey report (Abridged Version)]. Yano Research
Institute Ltd. https://www.yano.co.jp/market_reports/C60104900.
Zhu, H. (2021, September 9–10). Cultural Talks: Who Makes Culture Relevant and Why [Keynote speech]. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Northumbria University. BAAL 2021
Annual Conference https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/news-events/events/2021/09/baal-2020/.

Chieri NODA is a doctoral student in the Department of Languages, Cultures and Applied Linguistics at Birkbeck, University of London. Using multimodal conversation
analysis, her thesis examines playful engagement in eikaiwa lessons. Her research interests include classroom interaction, intercultural communication, and
multimodality.

ZHU Hua is Professor of Language Learning and Intercultural Communication at IOE, University College London. Her research interests span across child language
development, multilingualism, and intercultural communication. She is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, UK, and Chair of British Association for Applied
Linguistics.

15