Any Questions?

: Investigating the
Nature of Understanding-Checks in the
Language Classroom
HANSUN ZHANG WARING
Teachers College, Columbia University
New York, New York, United States
Insofar as effective instruction is contingent upon the degree to
which it is tailored to learner understandings in situ, developing a r-
mer grasp of how understanding-checks work in the reality of the
classroom is integral to educators knowledge of teacher practices
and, ultimately, their ability to implement effective teacher training.
The purpose of this article is to produce a detailed account of how
yes-no questions (e.g., Do you have any questions?) work as under-
standing-checks in the language classroom. Based on 28 hours of
interaction in an English as a second language classroom, this con-
versation analytic study shows how such questions are oriented to by
the participants in two major sequential environments and, in partic-
ular, how they are not always produced and treated as inviting ques-
tions. Findings of this study provide an empirical basis for enhancing
the efcacy of pedagogical interaction.
doi: 10.1002/tesq.48
T
hat checking understanding is an essential component of teacher
talk nds poignancy in Extract 1, in which a student has just com-
pleted her presentation, and some discussion ensues regarding the
precise location of Bryant Park. Before the student leaves the front of
the room, she asks, (Are there) any question? (line 03), and her
attempt to check understanding is received with laughter from the
class (see transcription notations in the appendix):
Extract 1: Bryant Park
01 T: Little Brazil. (.) Okay. (.) Midtown.
02 (1.6)
03 Yoko: (Are there) any question?
04 LL: ((laughter, some murmuring))
05 T: ((begins applause))
06 LL: ((applaud))
07 T: All right? Good. Who wants to go next.
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 46, No. 4, December 2012
2012 TESOL International Association
722
What appears to be happening is that the student is temporarily tak-
ing on the teachers role by appropriating a somewhat formulaic ques-
tion routinely asked by the teacher, and that incongruity between role
and talk is what draws the laughter. The following list of questions
should sound familiar to anyone who has ever set foot in a classroom;
for the purpose of this article, they are roughly glossed as understand-
ing-check questions. They may be similar to but broader than what
Long (1983) calls comprehension-checks. It may also be helpful to add, at
this juncture, that these questions are eliciting claims, not demonstra-
tions, of understandings:
Do you have any (other) questions?
Do you understand?
Does everybody understand?
Does it make sense?
(Are there) any (other) questions?
Are you okay?
Anything else?
Is everybody okay?
Is it clear?
Is it okay?
You got it?
Despite the routine presence of such understanding-checks in
teacher talk, empirical inquiries into how they are done in the details
of unfolding classroom interaction, to my knowledge, are virtually non-
existent. The importance of using questions to check understanding is
acknowledged in various teacher training texts in applied linguistics
(e.g., Richards & Lockhart, 1996; Ur, 1996; Wajnryb, 1992). Few, how-
ever, have gone beyond an overall categorization of questions to pro-
vide any specicity on how understanding-check questions are
formulated, their contexts of use, or strategies for effective implemen-
tation. Thompson (1997), for example, describes an approach to help-
ing teachers ask questions more effectively, which involves having
teachers categorize their questions by form (yes-no or wh- questions),
content (facts, personal facts, or opinions), and purpose (display or
communicative). Classroom observation schemes often include compo-
nents targeting teacher questions with broad concerns such as who the
question is addressed to (individual or class) or whether the question
is a genuine or pseudo request for information (e.g., Allen, Frohlich,
& Spada, 1984; Day, 1990; Spada, 1990). In fact, the routine nature of
understanding-checks may speak to their inherent importance inside
the teachers pedagogical toolbox. Insofar as effective instruction is
contingent upon the degree to which it is tailored to learner under-
standings in situ or operating within the learners zone of proximal
development (Vygotsky, 1978), understanding-check is an obvious
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 723
resource to gauge the pulse of such understandings. Developing a
rmer empirical grasp of how it works in the reality of the classroom,
then, is pivotal to educators understanding of teacher practices and,
ultimately, to their ability to implement effective teacher training.
The purpose of this article is to produce an empirical account of
how understanding-check questions work in the reality of the language
classroom: within what sequential environments they are used, how
they are produced and responded to, and what other social actions
they may be deployed to accomplish, other than checking understand-
ing. To obtain such a microscopic look, I resort to the powerful lens
of conversation analysis (CA). The usefulness of CA as an analytical
tool, especially in applied linguistics, has been hotly debated (e.g., Kas-
per, 2009; Kasper & Wagner, 2011; Long, 2007). A major point of con-
tention is whether CA as a methodology is capable of addressing issues
of learning. Although Long (2007) remains skeptical, Kasper (2009)
argues that learning or cognition can be located in interaction, which
is thereby a suitable object for CA inquiry. This is a dramatic develop-
ment from her earlier position that the A (in SLA, or second language
acquisition) stands for acquisitionan issue incompatible with the
focus on language use in CA research (Kasper, 1997). Similarly, He
(2004) writes that, unlike language socialization research, CA does
not address introspective, unobservable matters that may be important
to language learning (p. 568).
My own view on CA and learning has been uctuating and evolving
over the years, but I believe that the power of CA as an analytical tool
in illuminating professional competencies has been well tested in
diverse research projects across a range of institutional settings (e.g.,
Drew & Heritage, 1992). In this article, I harness this power to explore
questions of competency, that is, scrutinizing a particular teacher prac-
tice. Given its microanalytic orientation, CA is known for its ability to
capture what intuitions fail to register and, by extension, yield what
may be counterintuitive understandings of teachers most taken-for-
granted practices, which, in the context of the current article, involves
teachers understanding-checking questions. As I show, for example,
Any questions? may be used to accomplish other actions aside from
checking understanding, and teachers and learners may hold diverg-
ing orientations toward such a question.
Before we proceed, let me emphasize that understanding-check in
its broad sense can be performed in a variety of ways. Many classroom
activities or assessments serve the purpose of providing teachers with
information on whether a certain language structure or function has
been properly grasped. In this article, I use understanding-check in its
narrow sense, referring to teachers use of yes-no questions to seek
conrmation on whether the just-prior activity or talk has been
TESOL QUARTERLY 724
received without any problems. For efciency of presentation, from
time to time I use UC for understanding-check.
BACKGROUND ON TEACHER QUESTIONS AND YES-NO
QUESTIONS
Teacher Questions
Teacher questions in general, although not understanding-check
questions per se, have received a reasonable amount of scholarly atten-
tion in applied linguistics, and this body of empirical work constitutes
an important backdrop for my current inquiry. The most prevalent dis-
tinction that has been made with regard to teacher questions in the
language classroom is perhaps Long and Satos (1983) referential ver-
sus display questions (also referred to as open versus close questions).
Referential questions request unknown, and display questions known,
information (cf. known-information question in Mehan, 1979). Building
on a study of six English as a second language (ESL) teachers ques-
tioning behavior, Long and Sato conclude that more display than ref-
erential questions are used in classroom interaction, which contributes
to its nonnaturalness. The dominance of display questions in the lan-
guage classroom is conrmed in Pica and Longs (1986) study of both
experienced and inexperienced teachers. Subsequently, Brock (1986)
found that ESL teachers trained to ask referential questions do ask
more of such questions and receive more extended learner responses
as a result. The distinction has continued to dominate our conceptual-
izations of and empirical inquiries into teacher questions for the past
two decades. Within Walshs (2006) Self-Evaluation of Teacher Talk
framework, for example, both display and referential questions are
listed as key features of teacher talk, and the exclusive or excessive use
of display questions continues to be considered a feature of less com-
municative language classrooms (Cullen, 1998).
Some have questioned the view that display questions are less effec-
tive in promoting communicative language use. According to Ho
(2005), display questions serve their own pedagogical purposes. In his
conversation analytic study, Lee (2006) shows that display questions
are central resources whereby language teachers and students organize
their lessons and produce language pedagogy (p. 691). Moreover, in
certain interactional contexts such as Nigeria and Hong Kong, referen-
tial questions have been found to be less effective than display ques-
tions in generating learner responses (David, 2007; Wu, 1993).
Shomoossi (2004) also notes that not all referential questions could
create sufcient interaction in English as a foreign language (EFL)
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 725
reading comprehension classes in universities in Tehran. Others have
questioned the adequacy of the display versus referential distinction
itself. van Lier (1988), for example, considers the distinction irrelevant
in interactional terms, because both types of questions can function to
elicit language from the learner and to provide and control input.
Banbrook and Skehan (1990) also question the feasibility of the dis-
tinction in capturing the range of questions in the ESL classroom.
Nunn (1999) argues that the distinction is bound up with a limited
view of classroom interaction.
In her attempt to uncover what teacher questions actually do in
one-on-one second language writing conferences at the postsecondary
level, Koshik (2002) shows that one type of afrmative yes-no questions
conveys reversed polarity negative assertions, which show what is prob-
lematic about a portion of student text or talk and suggests a possible
solution. For instance, by asking Is this background?, the teacher
suggests that a particular portion of the manuscript is not considered
background and should be removed. Koshik (2005) also found that
alternative questions may be used to do error correction by targeting a
trouble source in a prior utterance with the rst alternative and pro-
viding a candidate correction with the second. For a useful review of
teacher questions, also see Koshik (2010).
In sum, despite some very well-argued critiques, prior work on
teacher questions in second language pedagogy have largely adopted
the distinction between display and referential questions and consid-
ered the effectiveness of these questions in creating a communicative
language classroom. With some notable exceptions (e.g., Koshik, 2002,
2005; Lee, 2006), few have delved into the specicity of how questions
work in the details of classroom interaction. The present study extends
the existing literature by focusing on a previously unanalyzed type of
teacher questionthat of understanding-check.
Yes-No Questions
Because the understanding-check questions to be analyzed here are
all formatted as polar questions (i.e., questions that require a yes or no
answer), the body of work on yes-no questions is relevant to my cur-
rent inquiry as well. Prior conversation analytic work has generated
important insights into the nature of yes-no questions, part of which
may be understood in terms of preference (Pomerantz, 1984)a techni-
cal term that might warrant some explication for readers not familiar
with CA. Preference is a structural organization in which the alterna-
tives that t in a certain interactional slot are treated as nonequivalent
(i.e., preferred vs. dispreferred; Schegloff, 2007). Preferred actions are
TESOL QUARTERLY 726
the natural, normal, or expected actions. Their absence is noticeable.
The absence of a preferred action is a basis for inferring the pres-
ence of a dispreferred one. For example, after an assessment, the
absence of agreement is a basis for inferring disagreement (Pomer-
antz, 1984). Preferred actions are typically done without any delay,
mitigation, and/or accounts, and dispreferred actions with delay, mit-
igation, and/or accounts. As such, one can treat a particular action
as preferred or dispreferred by virtue of the format in which it is
delivered. For example, in expressing rejection, one would typically
use delay, mitigation, and/or accounts to display an orientation to its
dispreferred nature. However, one can also deliver rejection quickly
and briey, which would incur certain inferences (e.g., being cal-
lous). This is the case where a dispreferred response is delivered in a
preferred format.
In keeping with the general preference for agreement, yes-no ques-
tions can be built to prefer a yes as in Can you walk? or no as in
Nothing special? (Sacks, 1987). In a revealing study on medical inter-
action, Heritage, Robinson, Elliott, Beckett, and Wilkes (2007) report
that the formulation Is there something else you would like to address
in the visit today? is much more likely to receive patient concerns
than if something is replaced by anything. Aside from the preference for
agreement, responses to yes-no questions, according to Raymond
(2003), also exhibit a preference for type-conformity. In other words,
those that begin with the type-conforming yes or no are preferred over
those that do not, and the preference for type-conformity is indepen-
dent of the preference for agreement. Finally, the preference of yes-no
questions is not always considered in yes-no terms. Heritage (2010)
found that instead of preferring yes or no, history-taking yes-no ques-
tions in medical care orient to the principle of optimization (p. 52),
inviting a response that embodies a positive health outcome, be that a
yes or a no.
With regard to the functions of yes-no questions, Raymond (2010)
distinguishes between yes-no interrogative (YNI) and yes-no declarative
(YND). Whereas YNI (e.g., Did you have a good pregnancy?) signals
not knowing and makes an answer relevant, YND (e.g., And hes a
builder?) asserts certain knowledge and makes conrmation relevant.
Raymond shows that during interaction between British health visitors
(HVs) and new mothers, YND is used to accomplish the bureaucratic
task of gathering information and YNI for advice giving or attempting
friendliness. And, as noted earlier, Koshik (2002) found that yes-no
questions are used by teachers in second language writing conferences
to convey negative assertions and, more specically, to indicate what
is problematic about the students writing and to point out possible
solutions.
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 727
In sum, prior CA work has yielded important insights into the pref-
erence as well as functions of yes-no questions in a variety of contexts.
In this article, I continue to explore and hope to extend these analyti-
cal themes by focusing specically on the function of a particular type
of yes-no questions used by teachers in the second language classroom.
More specically, my analysis is guided by the following two research
questions: (1) How are the understanding-check questions oriented to by
the learners? (2) How do the teachers manage the understanding-check
questions? In answering these questions, I hope to make a further con-
tribution to the growing efforts to integrate conversation analysis into
applied linguistic concerns over the past decade or so (e.g., Heller-
mann, 2008; Jacknick, 2011; Markee & Kasper, 2004; Mori & Zuengler,
2008; Mortensen, 2009; Waring, 2008, 2009, 2011; Wong, 2004).
METHOD
Participants and Setting
The participants were ESL teachers and students in eight different
classes at a Community English Program (CEP) in a major city on the
East Coast of the United States. As a lab school for a masters in teach-
ing English to speakers of other languages (MA TESOL) program in a
major graduate school of education, the CEP serves the adult immi-
grant and international population in the neighborhood surrounding
the university by offering three levels of ESL classes: beginning, inter-
mediate, and advanced. New students are placed into these three lev-
els at the beginning of each semester based on their performance on
an in-house placement test. Of the eight classes included in this study,
two were from the beginning level (B-1, B-2), three from the interme-
diate level (I-1, I-2, I-3), and three from the advanced level (A-1, A-2,
A-3). The numerals (13) are used here to keep track of the different
classes at the same level, not as indicators for any sublevels, and they
are included in the beginning of each transcript extract to indicate
the class from which the extract was taken.
The CEP teachers included Master Teachers as well as MA students
who were taking a TESOL practicum course. The Master Teachers,
who had more than 10 years of teaching experience, acted as models
for the MA students and fullled the stafng needs of the program.
Because the MA students typically decide to pursue a graduate degree
in TESOL after having been initially involved in and inspired by their
various teaching experiences, none of the MA students in this study
were complete novices. Their prior teaching experiences ranged from
2 to 5 years in various adult ESL or EFL settings, or both. A total of
TESOL QUARTERLY 728
nine teachers were involved in the eight classes (one class was co-
taught by two teachers). Of the nine teachers, three were Master
Teachers and six MA students. Of the three Master Teachers, one was
a female nonnative speaker (NNS) of English, and of the six MA stu-
dents, one was a male NNS of English. In both cases, their accent was
indistinguishable from that of native speakers. I was not aware of their
NNS status until receiving their self-report on the survey (see below).
The eight classes included a total of 68 students who represented a
mixture of stay-at-home moms, spouses of international students,
immigrants who held full-time jobs, and international students who
sought to improve their English. They came from a wide variety of rst
language backgrounds, including Chinese, Japanese, Korean, French,
Polish, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Turkish, Danish, Russian, Serbo-
Croatian, and Georgian. Of the 68 students, 8 were males and 60
females. Despite the greater number of female students, the practices
to be reported in this study are not unique to the females only. There
is, in other words, great heterogeneity in the level of classes and back-
ground characteristics of the participants. This does not ensure that
the ndings are representative of adult ESL classes in general,
although perhaps it provides some basis for claiming that they are not
unique to, for example, a particular teacher (e.g., Master Teacher, stu-
dent teacher) or level of class.
Data Collection
The data were collected in two installments: (1) fall of 2005 and
spring of 2006; (2) spring of 2009. For the rst installment, a general
email message was sent to the CEP teachers of the particular semesters
involved to solicit interest in participating in the study (i.e., having
one of their regular class sessions videotaped), and those who granted
their consent in turn consulted their students for permission. A total
of eight classes with nine teachers eventually signed the consent forms.
Before the videotaping began, all the students and teachers lled out
separate survey forms, which gathered information on gender, rst
language, length of residence in the United States, and language
learning history. In addition to gender and rst language, the teachers
also reported on their prior teaching experience and current status as
either Master Teacher or MA student. For the rst installment of data
gathering, I conducted the videotaping by placing a single camera
(Canon ZR 100) at a position that maximized the view of the class-
room. At the same time, I adjusted the tripod handle and sometimes
moved the entire tripod to capture different frames of interaction.
Because I was not focusing on any particular practice at the time of
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 729
the videotaping, my camera angle was essentially guided by my intui-
tive behavior as an observer in the classroom. In other words, my elec-
tronic eye very much replicated my naked eye. A research assistant
then spent 14 hours in the video lab transferring the videotapes into
QuickTime les using iMovie.
The second installment involves data from a single class taught by a
Master Teacher over the course of an entire semester collected for a
project aimed at documenting learning over time. A video camera was
set up by the teacher himself at the beginning of each class in various
locations depending on the room situation of the day. No additional
camera person was present throughout the data collection. The digital
video clips from each class session were then transferred into the com-
puter instantly as QuickTime les for subsequent transcription and
analysis. In the end, the baseline data set for this study includes a total
of 28 hours of classroom interaction: seven classes of 2-hour sessions
each from the rst installment and seven 2-hour sessions of a single
class from the second installment.
All 28 hours were transcribed in their entirety using a modied ver-
sion of the system developed by Gail Jefferson (1983; see the appen-
dix). I rst did a line-by-line reading of the full transcripts and
identied every instance of the teachers yes-no questions that may be
roughly glossed as understanding-check (UC). A total of 71 instances
resulted from this initial reading. In all 71 cases, each question along
with its preceding and subsequent talk was then taken out of the origi-
nal transcript to form an extract. The preceding talk is included to
show what leads up to the question in its immediate local context, and
the subsequent talk to show how the question is received by the partic-
ipants. These UC question extracts then constitute a collection of cases
subject to detailed scrutiny for the current project.
Data Analysis
The analysis was conducted within a CA framework (see ten Have,
2007, for a thorough introduction). CA is an analytical tool designed
to uncover tacit methods of social interaction by conducting detailed
analysis of naturally occurring data transcribed from audio or video
recordings. Analysis begins with the meticulous inspection of single
instances using both the transcripts and the audio or video les. The
goal is to uncover the meaning of interaction from the participants
perspective, and this is done through close scrutiny of how each turn
is produced and received as evidenced in such minute details as
pause, prosody, word choice, timing, sequential position, and the
like.
TESOL QUARTERLY 730
A line-by-line CA analysis of the entire collection of all 71 cases was
performed, which yielded (in addition to the detailed analysis to be
presented later in the article) a few initial observations of the UC
questions. First, all these are yes-no questions, to which the yes
response may implicate either conrmation of understanding (e.g., Is
it clear?) or problem of understanding (e.g., Any questions?). For
the purpose of this article, I use no-problem to mark responses that
embody conrmation of understanding and yes-problem to mark those
that embody a problem of understanding. Second, the questions are
typically prefaced by a transitional or sequence-closing-third okay
(Beach, 1993; Schegloff, 2007; the sequence initiated by the UC is
sometimes closed with a similar type of okay as well). Questions may be
either phrasal (e.g., Any questions?) or sentential (e.g., Do you
have/are there any questions?), and the target of the understanding-
check may be either general or specic (e.g., Any questions? vs. Any
questions about X?). Third, these questions are typically (though not
always) addressed to the entire class. Finally, two major sequential envi-
ronments emerge to feature the presence of the UC questions: (1)
activity boundaries and (2) postteacher instructions or explanation.
Activity boundary is a juncture where a particular lesson segment is
drawing to a close and transition to the next segment is relevant.
Post-explanation or -instruction is a juncture where the teacher has
just nished explaining a vocabulary item, a grammatical structure
or the like, or just completed giving instructions for an upcoming
activity.
In selecting extracts to be included in the article, aside from ensur-
ing that the full range of practices are represented based on the
detailed CA analysis of the 71 cases, I also made an effort to include
extracts from all eight classes to provide some evidence that the prac-
tices were not unique to individual teachers or students, at least not
within my data set. It would be relevant here to note CAs treatment
of deviant cases (ten Have, 2007). When it comes to cases that do not
t the general pattern being proposed, they are subject to even closer
scrutiny rather than being dismissed as outliers. As Wootton (1989)
writes, infrequently occurring responses would be as signicant as
those of frequent occurrence to the task of specifying forms of conver-
sational organization which are in some sense shared and accessible to
members of the society under investigation (p. 243). As a result of
the closer scrutiny, the deviant case may turn out to t in the general
pattern after all (see Extract 9), belong to an entirely different prac-
tice, or become the basis for modifying the initial proposal. This
approach was applied to all 71 cases in the data set. In other words,
the selection of extracts for inclusion in this article was not done at
the expense of any unaccounted-for cases or cases that do not t the
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 731
general pattern that is being proposed. This does not mean that all
the teachers and learners behaved uniformly across the eight classes.
However, it does mean that there is no counterevidence regarding the
overall ndings in all 71 cases of UC questions found in the eight clas-
ses (more on CA and generalizability in the Discussion and Conclusion
section).
In the remainder of this article, I rst describe how the UC ques-
tions are oriented to by the learners as preferring no-problem regardless
of sequential environmentsa pattern somewhat at odds with the
interactional project of understanding-check, which should accommo-
date the yes-problem possibility as well if the goal is to assess the state of
understanding rather than to conrm that all is well. I then show how
the teachers manage the UC questions in subtly differential ways: in
the activity-boundary cases, the UC questions are in part produced as
a possible activity-closing sequence prior to transitioning to the next
lesson segment, where no-problem responses are welcomed and taken as
a basis for sequence-closing; in the post-explanation or -instruction
cases, on the other hand, yes-problem is treated and pursued as a real
possibility, where the teachers display a reluctance to move on without
absolute assurance of learner understanding. In presenting the analy-
sis, I also make an attempt to explain these ndings in terms of
the multifunctionality of sequences as well as the participants face
concerns.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
In keeping with the research questions outlined earlier, I rst show
how learners oriented to the UC questions as preferring no-problem
across the two environments. I then describe the teachers environ-
ment-specic management of these questions.
Learner Orientation to UC Questions
In this section, I begin with learner responses to the UC questions at
activity boundaries (Extracts 23) and move on to those after teacher
explanations (Extracts 45) and then instructions (Extracts 67). In
Extract 2, the class has been practicing pronouncing a list of words on
the board and has just nished the last item. In lines 0105, the
teacher surveys the class for the success rate of the practice, and
Tomo emerges to be the winner who got everything right. This over-
all evaluative nature of the survey marks the completion of the pro-
nunciation activity and signals the activity-boundary position of the
TESOL QUARTERLY 732
interaction so far. Note that each extract in the analysis section is
labeled with the specic class from which it is taken (e.g., B-2 refers to
the second of the two beginning-level classes):
Extract 2: no questions B-2
01 T: Did somebody get everything right?
02 L: Yes.
03 T: Yeah? Tomo?
04 (0.2)
05 T: (You get) everything right?
06 Tomo: {0.2)-((nods))}[Yeah.]
07 T: [kay.] Okay. Do you have any
08 questions.
09 LL: No. No questions. ((several speaking not in perfect unison))
10 T: No questions. Good. Aright.
11 ((T sorts through papers on desk))
12 Okay now, take out you:r stor- homework. ((continues))
In line 07, immediately after acknowledging Tomos response with a
sequence-closing-third Okay (Schegloff, 2007), the teacher produces
a transitional Okay (i.e., acknowledges prior while prefacing upcom-
ing talk; Beach, 1993) that precedes the UC question. Note that in
line 09, the learners No. No questions is done without any delay,
mitigation, or account. As such, they treat no-problem as the preferred
response to the teachers UC question. The teacher then accepts the
no-problem response and proceeds to move on to the homework
segment of the lesson (lines 1012).
Learner orientation to UC questions as preferring no-problem at activ-
ity boundaries is also observed in their production of yes-problem
responses in the dispreferred format. In Extract 3, the class has just
nished answering questions about an article on lottery tickets. Lines
0102 comprise the end of an exchange that claries the number of
people who jointly won the largest lottery in U.S. historythe focus of
the last item on the list of questions. In line 04, the teacher launches
a UC question after the transitional Okay:
Extract 3: number seven I-2
01 Jen: Uh hu:h,
02 T: Two: people wo:n, so they had to split that.
03 Mary: Two::.
04 T: Okay? Do you have any que:stions about this
article,
05 vocabulary, that (0.4) you(d) like (0.2) help with
06 pronunciation, o::r, the denition, you dont
07 understand what it means,
08 (3.0)
09 Jen: Uh ( )?
10 Joe (What is)( ), for number seven.
11 (0.6)
12 T: Spli:t?
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 733
Note that the teachers initial turn component Do you have any
que:stions extends past multiple possible completion points (e.g.,
after article in line 04, with in line 05, means in line 07), where
opportunities for next-speaker uptake are made possible but none
taken, and the learners eventual yes-problem responses (lines 0910)
are preceded by a long, 3.0-second gap and done with further within-
turn delay (Uh). Thus, by delivering their yes-problem responses in a
dispreferred format, the learners again treat the teachers UC ques-
tions as preferring no-problem.
The same preference may also be observed in learner responses to
UC questions after some teacher explanation. In Extract 4, in which
the teacher nishes offering an explanation in answering Martas ques-
tion in lines 0111, the UC question in line 13 (i.e., Dy understand
the question?) is formatted in such a way that a yes response would
implicate no-problem:
Extract 4: yeah yeah I-1
01 T: an you sa:y I::ve known her si:nce (0.2) >how
02 long have you known Marta.<
03 (0.5)
04 Marta: [ ((s c o w l s)) ]
05 Marie: [$>Two months ago.<$]
06 Marta: [uh huh huh huh huh] [t(h)wo m(h)onths] ag(h)o.
07 Marie: [ ((smiles)) ] [h u h h u h ]
08 T: since two [months ago?]
09 Marta: [.hhhhhhhhhh]
10 $since two mon[ths ago.] right.$
11 T: [Okay. ]
12 (0.2)
13 >Dy understand< the que[stion?][now?]
14 Marta: ((nodding))-[Yeah.][yeah.]
15 {((nods/smiles))>I know.} {Yeah.<
16 -((smiles/looks down))}
17 (2.0)
18 T: Yes.
As can be seen, Martas yeah yeah is produced in transitional over-
lap (Jefferson, 1983) accompanied by the nodding and followed by I
know. Yeah.
By contrast, in Extract 5, which also involves teacher explanation,
learner orientation to UC questions as preferring no-problem is evi-
denced in the delayed production of yes-problem response. The
teachers explanation of the subjunctive mood comes to its completion
in line 10, where a 0.5-second gap emerges. This is followed by the
teachers sotto voce Mkay, which precedes another 3.0-second silence
before the UC question is produced:
TESOL QUARTERLY 734
Extract 5: regrets A-3
01 T: And like we practiced toda::y,=you know, well- if
02 somebody: talks about >something that happened,<
03 and the:n u:h (0.4) you also have a similar story
04 (0.4) you could jump in and be (li-) {((affected
05 voice)) O:::h (0.2) I- (.) I want to share my story
06 too:::, This happened to me:::} An:d i- if its a: >if
07 it w- if its< a sa:d story, {((puts hand to heart)) and
08 you feel regret,} then you can say, O:h I wish that it
09 hadnt happened. Like that.
10 (0.5)
11 T: Mkay.
12 (3.0)-((T looks at BB then turns to class))
13 Any questions?
14 (1.8)
15 Yes.-((points to Neela))
16 Neela: Can you sa::y (0.5) could instead of would?
17 T: mm:::::: {((reads BB to self)) if they had studied
18 English harder, ((continues))
Note that Neela provides her yes-problem response in the form of a
question after a 1.8-second delay, thereby displaying her orientation to
the UC question as preferring no-problem.
UC questions after teacher instructions are also responded to in a
format that treats no-problem as preferred, as seen in Extract 6, in which
the teacher has just nished giving instructions for an upcoming dicta-
tion activity:
Extract 6: very clear B-1
01 T: So no:::[:: ]-((shakes head))
02 Jose: [Yea]h.-((waves T away)) I understand.
03 T: (mhm,)-((steps away from Jose))
04 (0.5)-((T approaches Amy and Mo))
05 T: ((to Amy)) Do you have any questions?
06 Amy: No.
07 T: ((to Mi)) Very clear?
08 Mi: Yes.
In line 06, Amys no-problem is produced without any delay, mitiga-
tion, or accounts, which is then solidied in her unequivocal Yes in
line 08 to the teachers Very clear?
In Extract 7, by contrast, the yes-problem response after the teachers
instructions for a game is produced in the dispreferred format, again
evidencing the learner orientation to the UC question as preferring
no-problem. After the teachers explanation is completed in line
04, Luks head or tail in sotto voce in the next line precedes a
0.4-second gap. It is after this gap that the teacher launches the UC
question:
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 735
Extract 7: head or tail I-3
01 T: But much prettier I suppose. And the- The
02 BACK of it. It depends now. Because they- they
03 can be different.=so its a qua:rter. It- They have
04 new quarters.=so theyre not a:ll the same.
05 (0.8)
06 T: So its the- the- the other side is called tails.
07 Luk: head or tail.
08 (0.4)
09 T: Everybody understand what youre gonna do?
10 (0.6)
11 Aly: But how- how many: (.) space we can (0.4)-((T picks
12 up paper))
13 T: If y:ou (0.4) ip you (.) get heads is one spa:ce,
14 ((continues))
Note that Alys yes-problem response is produced with a 0.6-second
delay as well as multiple signs of speech perturbation, such as a cutoff,
lengthening, and pauses as well as an essentially unnished turn-con-
structional unit (TCU; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). As one of the
reviewers of this article pointed out, such perturbation may be displaying
trouble with formulating the turn rather than indicating a dispreferred
format. Indeed, the dispreferred format is sometimes implemented in a
way that appears to suggest trouble speaking. The problem, then,
becomes the nature of the observable troublewhether it is trouble
nding words or trouble with going against what is expected (i.e., prefer-
ence), and that seems to be the sort of ambiguity in interaction faced by
both the analysts and the participants themselves (Schegloff, 1997).
The distinction between activity boundary and postteacher expla-
nation or instruction may be blurred on occasion when the two con-
verge, as in Extract 8. The teacher has brought his discussion of essay
structures (i.e., introduction, body, conclusion) to completion (lines
0104), after which he is about to give instructions for the next writing
activity. The UC question in line 05, then, is launched at a point of
both activity boundary and postteacher explanation:
Extract 8: how long A-2
01 T: A::h suggestion is good, So: advice,-((write on BB))
02 (2.0)
03 o::r (5.0) wh:::y this is important fo:r the future.
04 ((nishes discussing the importance of conclusion))
05 .hhhh any questions about this.
06 (5.0)
07 Ana: How lo:::ng (.) has to be:: the paragraph.
08 T: a:h the paragraphs (0.3) ((continues))
Consistent with earlier observations, Anas yes-problem response is
launched after a 5.0-second gap, thereby signaling her treatment of
the UC question as preferring no-problem.
TESOL QUARTERLY 736
There is, however, one instance in my data set in which the pattern
observed so far (e.g., learner preference for no-problem) appears to be
unsupported. In Extract 9, Satos question, that is, a yes-problem
response, immediately follows the teachers UC question without any
delay. The class has been talking about intimate as an adjective versus
intimate as a verb: Both words have been written on the board with dif-
ferentiating accent marks, and a student has suggested that intimate
the verb means to share:
Extract 9: intimate A-2
01 T: ((writes on BB)) to share.
02 (0.8)
03 .hh but again, the thing that youre sharing
04 (0.8) is usually very (.) private. When we
05 use this wo:rd, ((points to intimate the verb))
06 it means to share something (.) very private.
07 (0.5)
08 and who do you >share something< private
09 with, ((points to intimate the adjective))
10 >someone that< youre- intimate with. ((nods))
11 (4.5)
12 any questions.=
13 Sato: =(syl syl sy) ho:w can I (0.5) then intima:te
14 this its- (0.5) it sounds like (.) must be difcult.
15 (0.2)
16 this-
Upon a closer look, we may note that within the larger sequence,
Satos question is delayed. The teachers explanation of intimate the
verb reaches its possible completion in line 06 and then again in line
10, where the gap is particularly long. Satos question could have been
raised at these junctures. Rather, it is withheld until after the teachers
explicit solicitation. Although this delay does not speak specically to
the learner treatment of UC questions along the line of my argument
so far, it does evidence an overall learner dispreference for articulating
understanding problems, which is in broad consonance with the lear-
ner treatment of UC questions as preferring no-problem.
In sum, in my data, the learners persist in their orientation to the
UC questions as preferring no-problem both at activity boundaries and
after teacher explanations or instructions. This is evidenced in their
brief and quick delivery of no-problem responses as well as their delayed
and mitigated delivery of yes-problem ones. (Note also that all the no-
problem responses are done with no or yes, depending on the polarity of
the question, and all the yes-problem response are done with questions
that seek to clarify understanding.) This pattern of response may
appear somewhat counterintuitive, given that UC questions are ostensi-
bly designed to gauge the state of understanding in general without
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 737
any tilt toward a specic type of answer. In the following sections, by
describing how the teachers manage these UC questions, I hope in
part to offer some insights into this somewhat puzzling learner conduct.
Teacher Management of UC Questions
Compared to the uniform learner orientation to the UC questions,
the teacher conduct manifests some variability in the management of
such questions. A crucial contingency that factors into the variability
appears to be the sequential environment. In particular, although the
UC questions at activity boundaries are designed to accomplish dual
functions, those launched after teacher explanations or instructions
maintain a singular focus on ensuring absolute understanding of the
just-given explanation or instruction.
At activity boundaries. The analytical claim I develop in this section
is that, at activity boundaries, the UC sequences perform a dual func-
tion. At the most literal level, by employing the syntactic resource of
an interrogative and lexical resources such as Any questions?, they
provide learners with an opportunity to voice any unresolved under-
standing problems; that is, they engage in understanding-check. Addi-
tionally, however, they also serve to launch a possible activity-closing
sequence before transitioning to the next activity can take place. I
had initially analyzed the sequence as a pretransitioning one, but as
one of this articles reviewers pointed out, the relationship between
this and the upcoming activity is unlike that, for example, between a
preinvitation and invitation. Although the closing down of the current
activity allows for the beginning of the next, the closing-down itself is
not integral to the next activity, as preinvitation is to invitation. In
establishing the possible activity-closing nature of the sequence, I call
attention to three aspects of the interaction: (1) the transition-relevant
environment in which the UC question is launched; (2) the formulaic
and summative, thereby closing nature of the UC question; and (3)
the teachers subsequent talk that either makes visible his tilt toward
no-problem or implements some explicit closing or transitioning to the
next activity.
As shown in an earlier analysis, some UC questions are launched at
activity boundaries, where a prior lesson segment is coming to its com-
pletion. In other words, what is sequentially relevant at this particular
juncture is transitioning to the next segment. Or put otherwise, the
sequential slot is prepared for moving on, which is congruent with the
analysis of UC questions as performing some sort of closing work on
the current activity. What species this closing work, however, may in
TESOL QUARTERLY 738
part be located in the composition of the UC question. The target of
understanding, for example, is general rather than specic. As seen in
Extract 3, the initial elicitation for questions is followed up with a list
of possible sources of confusion related to vocabulary, pronunciation,
or denition, the all-encompassing nature of which brings off the sum-
mary-like, thereby closing relevant characteristic of the UC question
(Button, 1990). Also contributing to the closing hearing of the
sequence is the generic or formulaic format of the questions. All UC
questions found at the activity boundaries take either the syntactic or
phrasal form of (Do you have) any (other) questions (about X)?
and, to a lesser extent, Anything else? In particular, vocabulary items
such as else or other as in Anything else? or Any other questions?
mark the question as seeking-agenda type items that have not yet been
covered, but are related to the current activity. It is worth mentioning
that similar questions used by physicians, such as Do you have any other
questions/concerns?, seem to prefer no responses as well and lead to
closing the consultation (Heritage et al., 2007). Moreover, the teacher
also treats no-problem response as favorable, as seen in Extract 2, which
constitutes further evidence for the closing nature of the sequence.
What is particularly telling about the possible closing nature of the
UC sequence is the teachers subsequent talk after the UC question.
In Extract 10, the teacher has just nished answering some questions
about a passage on lottery tickets by line 08, and the UC question is
launched in line 09. Note that the question shifts the discussion out of
the list of specic comprehension questions to a more generic or om-
nirelevant issue related to understanding the articlevocabulary:
Extract 10: was it easy I-2
01 Jen: [Its true::, its true::, not false. Yea:h.]
02 Rodrigo: [( )] hh hh I had
03 the question. I had the answer but (she) not
04 believe me.
05 ((laughter))
06 T: (No:,) she wanted me to clarify.
07 ((laughter))
08 T: Because she knew that you (.) had the right answer.
09 Okay? U:m, any questions about the vocabulary?
10 (0.2)
11 T: Was it easy?
12 [ ((several Ss murmuring yeah)) ]
13 Di: [(Whats) number six, in the vocabulary.]
Note that after the brief 0.2-second gap, the teacher raises a second
yes-no question that now prefers easy, which makes evident his pursuit
to secure a no-problem response that would facilitate transitioning to
the next lesson segment.
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 739
Consider another exemplar of the UC question being used as
a harbinger for closing the current sequence. In Extract 11, the
teacher has just nished discussing a sentence written by the stu-
dents on the board and answered a question about that sentence. A
10-second gap emerges in line 09, after which the teacher launches
the UC question Anything else? (a format often deployed in pre-
closing sequences, as shown in Button, 1990; cf. Heritage et al.,
2007):
Extract 11: who wants a break A-3
01 T: mm:::::: {((reading blackboard [BB] to self)) if they had
studied
02 English harder, they could spea:k} (0.2) not mm:::
03 (0.4) they- they could is um: just (0.2) could is
04 used for example, in the past, so, (0.6) He- he
05 could run fast. >When he was a child.< Right?
06 Happened but uh: this is (.) this didnt (.) happen,
07 and u:h (.) this is (.) a hypothetical, situation? So
08 (0.2) you cant. use that.
09 (10.0)-((T looks at BB, turns to Naoko and nods,
10 looks at class, looks back at BB))
11 T: Anything else?
12 (2.0)
13 T: Mkay. (uh) who wants a break? ((raises hand))
14 LL: ((giggles))
15 T: >Okay.< Five minutes. ((looks at watch)) Ten- u:h
16 eleven- eleven-(fteen). ((camera cuts))
Note that after the 2.0-second gap, the teacher proceeds to
offer a break in line 13, thereby ofcially closing the current
activity.
One nal instance may be considered, in which the possible closing
launched by the UC question is made explicit in the teachers launch-
ing of the next activity afterward. The teacher has just nished answer-
ing a series of learner questions about a grammar exercise on the
present perfect; the UC question is produced after a 2.0-second gap,
and again follows a transitional Okay?:
Extract 12: are we done I-1
01 T: ((looks down and reads TB))-So the team has won
02 >98% of the games they have played so far.<
03 (2.0)
04 Okay? any other questions?
05 (0.5)
06 No:?=are we do:ne?
07 LL: Yea:[h.
08 T: [Were done with homework?
09 (1.0)
10 Okay. No:w, (1.0) I want you:: to::
TESOL QUARTERLY 740
In line 06, after the brief 0.5-second gap, the teacher explicitly
seeks no-problem via the No? followed by an explicit request for
conrmation that the current activity has now been completed
(Are we done?), and she moves on to the next lesson segment in
line 10.
Therefore, in all three of the cases presented, the possible closing
nature of the UC question is made evident in the teachers subse-
quent talk. In other words, what the UC question launches is not
only an understanding-check but also a possible activity-closing
sequence, the success of which allows for transition to the next lesson
segment. In all three cases, the silence after the UC question delays
this closing and is minimized with the teachers continuation that
moves closer to closing. Meanwhile, the silence can indicate that the
students are not yet ready to move on. Herein lies the conict with
UC questions at the activity boundary: What facilitates the closing
aspect of the questions is not always congruent with the goal to fully
assess learner understandings at the time. This explains, at least par-
tially, the learner preference for no-problem in their responses to such
questions at activity boundaries, in the sense that they are in part
yielding to the preference for closing. An additional issue may relate
to the learners competence concerns, where, as one of this articles
reviewers pointed out, expressing nonunderstanding or trouble
understanding may be seen as compromising their images as compe-
tent learners.
Post-explanation or -instruction. Compared to the more formulaic
UC formats in the activity-boundary cases, the UC questions in the
post-explanation or -instruction environment are designed using a
wider variety of lexical markers, such as understand, clear, make sense,
or the like. More important, whereas the activity-boundary UC ques-
tions implement both understanding-check and possible closing, the
post-explanation or -instruction ones appear to carry a singular ori-
entation to gauging the actual state of learner understandings. This
orientation may be captured in two observations regarding the UC
sequences in this particular sequential environment. First, the target
of understanding as formulated in the UC question is more specic
compared to that in the activity-boundary cases (e.g., this, what I
mean, what were going to do). Second, the teachers engage in
a noticeable pursuit, which is absent in the activity-boundary cases,
of learner displays of understanding. In Extract 13, for example,
the teacher nishes explaining the homework assignment in lines
0105. The UC question is launched in line 07 after a brief gap,
onto which a new TCU is latched to specify the that in Is that
clear?:
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 741
Extract 13: for homework A-1
01 T: Ari:ght,=>so its more-< its actually- Its
02 supposed to be a grammar practice, >but I
think
03 its more a reading comprehension practice.<
04 (0.6)
05 T: Uh (.) which is- which is useful also.
06 (0.6)
07 T: So is that clear?=Well do exercise one
08 and exercise three?
09 (0.4)
10 T: for homework [here?]
11 L: [<M ]hm.>
12 T: Uh:: for Thu:rsday [youre gonna-]
13 Sara: [What- what ] is-
14 T: (syll- [syll-)]
15 Sara: [Wher]es um:: (2.0)-((looking in TB)) Oh.
16 {((pointing in TB)) You dont have to read any
17 story?}
Note that no learner response emerges during the 0.4-second gap
in line 09, after which the teacher adds an increment, thus creating
another possible completion point for learner uptake, which receives a
soft and slow Mhm in line 11. Saras question in line 13 is raised in
partial overlap with the teachers continuation in line 12.
Such single-minded pursuit of learner understanding is strikingly
noticeable in the teachers treatment of silence after the UC question
as yes-problem rather than no-problem. In Extract 14, the teacher nishes
explaining his correction of a particular comparative structure in lines
0103. A sotto voce Okay is heard in line 04, after which a 0.8-second
gap follows, during which learner display of understanding may be rel-
evant but absent. It is after this problem-implicative gap that in line 06
the teacher launches the elliptical UC question that targets the just-
completed explanation with the anaphoric this. Note that unlike the
questions containing the negative polarity device any, this question is
designed to prefer a yes response:
Extract 14: you sure A-2
01 T: ((nods)) Cokes sales growth was not as high (.) a:s
02 and here we dont need {((crosses out word on BB-
03 (pep,)} we just need Pepsi:::s, (.) apostrophe es.
04 Okay.
05 (0.8)
06 T: Questions about this.
07 (1.0)-((looks at class))
08 Is this okay or is this (.) difcult for you.
09 {(2.0)-((faint murmurs from a couple students))}
10 T: Robin? You okay?
11 (4.0)
12 Robin: Uumm (1.0) Yeah.
13 T: You su:re?
TESOL QUARTERLY 742
14 (0.2)
15 Robin: No.=
16 T: =No. Okay, okay, okay. Ho:nest answe:r, Im happy
17 to hear that.
18 Sato: Sa:::le, [sa:le ] sa:le=
Note that the silence in line 07 is treated by the teacher as implica-
tive of yes-problem, as seen in his alternative question in line 08 that
raises the possibility of difcult for you. Two more pursuits ensue
(lines 10 and 13) as the teacher continues to treat any absence of pub-
lic or denitive display of understanding as inadequate.
Aside from treating silence as yes-problem, the teachers also demon-
strate their pursuit of learner understanding by seeking an explicit
conrmation of understanding. In Extract 15, the teacher completes
his explanation of bungee jumping in lines 0105:
Extract 15: bungee jumping I-2
01 T: {((points at drawing)) So he jumped,}{((draws circle
02 at the bottom of the rope))- comes a:ll the way down
03 here,}{((points))- right before the water it (0.4)}
04 {((slightly lowers then quickly raises hand in front of
BB))-
05 zzzoo::p,} and you go back u:p.
06 LL: ((several o::hs))
07 T: Oka:y? Do you understand what I mean?
08 LL: ((several yeses))
09 T: Okay. Have you seen that befo:re on TV?
10 LL: ((several yeses))
11 Rodrigo: Back home, I saw on TV.
Immediately after the teachers explanation, several students utter
the change-of-state token oh, claiming understanding of the explana-
tion. At rst glance, the teachers UC question after such understand-
ing claims may appear rather redundant; what he appears to be
eliciting, however, is a more explicit acknowledgment of understand-
ing (than what is expressed via the several ohs), which is then pro-
duced by the learners through the unequivocal yeses without any delay
in line 08. Note also that the UC question is produced with the direct
object what I mean, which refers anaphorically back to the just-com-
pleted explanation, thus specifying the target of understanding.
Finally, in some cases, the singular pursuit of understanding display
is seen in the teachers seeking of evidence, not just claim, of under-
standing. In Extract 16, the teacher nishes giving her instructions
for the activity of producing hypothetical questions in lines 0105. A
2.0-second problem-implicative (i.e., the students do not begin the
activity immediately) gap follows, after which the UC question is pro-
duced. Again, the question comes with a specication of the target
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 743
of understanding in the form of a second TCU: so uh now what do
we have to do?, which demands not just a claim, but a display, of
understanding:
Extract 16: what do we have to do A-3
01 T: ((lines omitted)) I want you to think about
02 >undesirable situations in< the future. So this is
03 (.) you kind of have to imagi:ne, or maybe you
04 already kno::w something will happe:n. That you-
05 youre not very happy (with).
06 (2.0)
07 T: Does everybody understand?=so u::h >now what
08 do we have to do?<
09 L: >Huh?<
10 (0.2)
11 L: [U:h ]
12 T: [Can] you repeat the instructions?
13 Junko: We have to brainsto:rm (.) about the:: (.) past, (0.2)
14 the present, the future,
15 T: Yeah.
After some visible trouble seen in the learners responses in lines
0911, in partial overlap with the learners Uh in line 11, the teacher
proceeds to issue a directive to repeat the instructions just given.
Thus, after teacher explanation or instruction, the teachers pursue
a singular goal of ensuring that the just-given explanation or instruc-
tion has indeed been adequately understood. Such pursuit is perhaps
not surprising. Learner understanding of instructions is integral to suc-
cessful task completion, and offering and ensuring the clarity of expla-
nations is a centerpiece in pedagogical talk. Put otherwise, the ability
to deliver explanation or instruction effectively is central to teacher
talk and emblematic of teacher competence. As such, one possible
explanation for the learner preference for no-problem within this partic-
ular sequential environment lies in certain competing concerns intrin-
sic to the classroom ecology. To wit, yes-problem can imply a negative
assessment of the teacher instruction or explanation. By delivering
such a response as dispreferred, the learners display their concern for
preserving the teachers identity as a competent professional. On the
other hand, yes-problem can also be taken as a signal of problematic
learner competence in grasping such instructions or explanations. In
other words, admitting to not understanding the instruction or expla-
nation may be detrimental to either self or the instructor.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In this article, I have shown that within my particular data set, the
learners orient to the UC questions as preferring no-problem, as
TESOL QUARTERLY 744
evidenced in their delivery of no-problem responses in the preferred for-
mat and yes-problem ones in the dispreferred format. This pattern is
then partially accounted for in my descriptions of the teacher manage-
ment of the UC questions in the two different sequential environ-
ments. In the activity-boundary cases, the teachers produce the UC
questions as part of both understanding-check and possible activity
closing. This is seen in the transition-relevant slot in which these ques-
tions are produced, the summative and formulaic nature of the ques-
tions, and the teachers subsequent talk that moves closer to activity
closing. In the post-explanation or -instruction cases, the teachers
maintain a singular focus on their pursuit of learner understanding.
As noted previously, the UC question is formatted with certain specic
targets of understanding, and the teachers pursue explicit learner
acknowledgment or display of understanding. Thus, although in the
activity-boundary cases learner preference for no-problem converges
with the UC questions possible activity-closing agenda, it diverges
from the questions pursuit for yes-problem in the post-explanation
or -instruction cases. In addition, in both environments, learner
production of yes-problem can incur negative attributions to their own
competence and, in the post-explanation or -instruction cases, to the
teachers professional competence as well.
As mentioned earlier, the extracts chosen for this article include
instances from all eight classes and represent the full range of prac-
tices surrounding the use of UC questions in my data set. Given the
relative heterogeneity of the data regarding the level of the class as
well as participant characteristics such as gender, rst language, and
the extent of teaching experience, it is perhaps safe to say that what
we are observing here is not an idiosyncratic phenomenon or one that
can be attributed exclusively to a particular contextual variable, at least
not within this particular data set. At the same time, however, there is
no basis for claiming that these ndings are generalizable to or repre-
sentative of teacher practices or learner orientations in adult ESL
classes elsewherenot in the sense of the traditional distributional
understanding of generalizability (Perakyla, 2004, p. 296).
Pomerantz (1990) draws on the distinction between empirical gen-
eralization and analytical generalization (Yin, 2003): It should be
clear that conversation analysis is not achieving empirical generaliza-
tion (p. 233). Whereas empirical generalization involves generalizing
from a sample to a population, in analytical generalization each case is
related to a theory. That is, by analyzing individual instances, the
machinery that produced these individual instances is revealed (Ben-
son & Hughes, 1991, pp. 130131). Each instance is evidence that the
machinery for its production is culturally available, involves members
competencies, and is therefore possibly (and probably) reproducible
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 745
(Psathas, 1995, p. 50). Additional instances provide another example
of the method in the action, rather than securing the warrantability of
the description of the machinery itself (Benson & Hughes, 1991, p.
131). The value of CA is that we have identied a method (assuming
sufcient evidence to support non-idiosyncratic use) and proposed
how it works sequentially and interactionally, and subsequent
research can establish patterns of occurrences (Pomerantz, 1990, p.
233). The concept of possibility is a key to the question of generalizabil-
ity in CA research (Perakyla, 2004, p. 297). When applied to the cur-
rent study, this means that these ndings are not generalizable as
descriptions of what other teachers and learners in an adult ESL class
do, but they are generalizable as descriptions of what any other
teacher or learner in an adult ESL class can do, given that he or she
has the same array of interactional competencies as the participants in
this study.
The ndings of this study contribute to existing work on prefer-
ence, yes-no questions, and in particular teacher questions. First, as
already noted, the same yes-no questions may be deployed in the ser-
vice of both checking understanding and closing down a sequence, as
in the activity-boundary cases. Second, the ndings complement the
existing literature on the context-specic nature of preferences. Dur-
ing oral prociency interviews, unlike in ordinary conversation, for
example, test-takers self-deprecation remarks are not responded to by
the interviewers with disagreement (e.g., Lazaraton, 1997). The prefer-
ence structure in the language classroom clearly comes with its own
distinct set of complications illustrative of the specic concerns and
characteristics of classroom interaction. As noted earlier, learner pref-
erence for no-problem may in part be accounted for by the participants
competence concerns. Third, by detailing the use of yes-no questions
in performing understanding-check and possible activity closing in the
language classroom, the ndings also extend the existing work on the
functions of yes-no questions in American English, which, according to
Stivers (2010), perform a range of social actions such as information/
conrmation request, other-initiation of repair, suggestion/offer/
request, and assessment (p. 2776). Finally, the ndings of this study
contribute to the literature on teacher questions in second language
pedagogy. Although the UC question may be considered a type of ref-
erential question, calling it a referential question clearly does not cap-
ture the essence of its interactional utilities. As has been shown, the
UC questions can accomplish different interactional tasks in different
sequential environments. Some of these questions can be multifunc-
tional and thus comprise a source of ambiguity for learners. Teachers
and learners can display divergent orientations to the same UC ques-
tions and treat silence in drastically different ways.
TESOL QUARTERLY 746
A number of pedagogical implications may be derived from this
studys ndings. First, given that understanding-check may be done
differently in different sequential environments, the relevant issue,
when it comes to classroom practices, is not simply what questions to
ask in order to check understanding, but in what format and under
what circumstances UC questions are asked and how they may be man-
aged differently or incur different responses relative to the local con-
tingencies.
Second, insofar as clarity is an important criterion in measuring the
effectiveness of teacher questions (Ur, 1996, p. 230), understanding
the double function of UC questions at activity boundaries allows for
pinpointing at least some sources of ambiguity in teacher questions,
and that understanding can become the basis for modifying instruc-
tional practices. Can the goals of checking understanding and doing
activity closing, for example, be accomplished separately? What are
some of the ways to make each goal clear to the students? Is activity
boundary the optimal position for conducting understanding-check, or
should such a check be built into the ongoing interaction as the
teacher constantly monitors for potential understanding problems?
Third, if silence typically precedes yes-problem responses, treating such
silence as signaling no-problem amounts to a misreading of learner under-
standing. Teachers may be advised to curb their urge to move on during
activity boundaries and offer a more generous space for silence or
become more proactive in their attempt to elicit the voicing of potential
understanding problems. Finally, the overall preference for no-problem
exhibited in learner responses, regardless of sequential environments,
does not seem conducive to creating an open atmosphere that encour-
ages critical enquiries. Awareness of such a preference and its underly-
ing learner concerns can place teachers in a better position to address
its potential negative effects. How can questions be designed, for exam-
ple, in a way that displays a sensitivity to those concerns and thereby
minimizes the orientation toward no-problem? Just as physicians need to
wrestle with the issue of how different question designs may be tted to
the specic aspects of the medical visit (Heritage, 2010), teachers have
similar problems to consider and similar decisions to make. We have
only begun to unravel the larger jigsaw puzzle of teacher questions, and
inspecting practices such as Any questions? is but one small step
toward solving the great mystery of teacher talk.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research would not have been possible without the generosity of the ESL
teachers and their students who allowed my camera to eavesdrop as they went
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 747
about their classroom business. Both Jean Wong and Michael Vlahovic provided
important feedback on earlier versions of this article. I would also like to acknowl-
edge a number of productive conversations with Michael Vlahovic, who offered
valuable insights into the relevance of this project to the practical concerns of
CEP teachers. My analysis is stronger and my arguments clearer because of the
incisive comments made by the two anonymous reviewers, for which I am very
grateful. Finally, I would like to thank the editor Alan Hivela for pushing me to
make explicit some of the CA assumptions and methodological procedures that
are typically left unexplained and unquestioned.
THE AUTHOR
Hansun Zhang Waring is assistant professor of linguistics and education at Teach-
ers College, Columbia University, where she teaches conversation analysis, dis-
course analysis, and a doctoral seminar in discourse. Her work on second
language classroom interaction has appeared in The Modern Language Journal, Lan-
guage Learning, Language and Education, Classroom Discourse, and Language Awareness.
REFERENCES
Allen, P., Frohlich, E., & Spada, N. (1984). The communicative orientation of lan-
guage teaching: An observation scheme. In J. Handscombe, R. A. Orem, & B.
P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL 83 (pp. 231252). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Banbrook, L., & Skehan, P. (1990). Classrooms and display questions. In C. Brum-
t & R. Mitchell (Eds.), Research in the language classroom (pp. 141152). Hong
Kong: Modern English Publications & The British Council.
Beach, W. (1993). Transitional regularities for casual okay usages. Journal of
Pragmatics, 19, 325352. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4
Benson, D., & Hughes, J. (1991). Method, evidence and inferenceEvidence and
inference for ethnomethodology. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the
human sciences (pp. 109136). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Brock, C. A. (1986). The effect of referential questions on ESL classroom dis-
course. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 4759. doi:10.2307/3586388
Button, G. (1990). On varieties of closings. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interactional compe-
tence (pp. 93148). Washington, DC: International Institute of Ethnomethodol-
ogy and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.
Cullen, R. (1998). Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal, 52, 179
187. doi:10.2307/3586388
David, O. F. (2007). Teachers questioning behavior and ESL classroom interac-
tion pattern. Humanity and Social Sciences Journal, 2, 127131.
Day, R. R. (1990). Teacher observation in second language teacher education. In
J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 4361).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional set-
tings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
He, A. W. (2004). CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom.
Modern Language Journal, 88, 568582. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-19-.x
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon, Eng-
land: Multilingual Matters.
TESOL QUARTERLY 748
Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.),
Why do you ask? The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 4268).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J., Robinson, J., Elliott, M., Beckett, M., & Wilkes, M. (2007). Reducing
patients unmet concerns in primary care: The difference one word can make.
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 14291433. doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0279-0
Ho, D. G. E. (2005). Why do teachers ask the questions they ask? RELC Journal,
36, 297310. doi:10.1177/0033688205060052
Jacknick, C. M. (2011). Breaking in is hard to do: How students negotiate class-
room activity shifts. Classroom Discourse, 2, 2038. doi:10.1080/19463014.2011.
562656
Jefferson, G. (1983). Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. Tilburg Papers in
Language and Literature, 28, 128.
Kasper, G. (1997). A stands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner.
Modern Language Journal, 88, 307312. doi:10.2307/329304
Kasper, G. (2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learn-
ing: Inside the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics,
47, 1136. doi:10.1515/iral.2009.002
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation analytic approach to second lan-
guage acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language
acquisition (pp. 117142). New York, NY: Routledge.
Koshik, I. (2002). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey
reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 18511877. doi:10.1016/
S0378-2166(02)00057-7
Koshik, I. (2005). Alternative questions used in conversational repair. Discourse
Studies, 7, 193212. doi:10.1177/1461445605050366
Koshik, I. (2010). Questions that convey information in teacher-student confer-
ences. In A. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Why do you ask? The function of questions
in institutional discourse (pp. 159186). Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Lazaraton, A. (1997). Preference organization in oral prociency interviews: The
case of language ability assessment. Research on Language and Social Interaction,
30, 5372. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3001_2
Lee, Y.-A. (2006). Respecifying display questions: Interactional resources for lan-
guage teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 691713. doi:10.2307/40264304
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the
negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126141. doi:
10.1093/applin/4.2.126
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and
functions of teachers questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Class-
room oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268285). Cambridge,
MA: Newbury House.
Markee, N. P., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. Modern Lan-
guage Journal, 88, 491500. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-14-.x
Mehan, H. (1979). What time is it, Denise? Asking known information questions
in classroom discourse. Theory Into Practice, 28, 285294. doi:10.1080/
00405847909542846
Mori, J., & Zuengler, J. (2008). Conversation analysis and talk-in-interaction in the
classroom. In M. Martin-Jones, A. M. de Mejia, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 3: Discourse and education (2nd ed.,
pp. 1527). New York, NY: Springer.
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 749
Mortensen, K. (2009). Establishing recipiency in pre-beginning position in the
second language classroom. Discourse Processes, 46, 491515. doi:10.1080/
01638530902959463
Nunn, R. (1999). The purpose of language teachers questions. International Review
of Applied Linguistics, 37, 2342. doi:10.1515/iral.1999.37.1.23
Perakyla, A. (2004). Reliability and validity in research based on naturally occur-
ring social interaction. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method,
and practice (2nd ed., pp. 283304). London, England: Sage.
Pica, T., & Long, M. (1986). The linguistic and conversational performance of
experienced and inexperienced teachers. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn
(pp. 8598). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features
of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.),
Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57101). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1990). On the validity and generalizability of conversation analytic
methods: Conversation analytic claims. Communication Monographs, 57, 231235.
doi:10.1080/03637759009376198
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and
the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939967. doi:
10.2307/1519752
Raymond, G. (2010). Grammar and social relations: Alternative forms of yes-no-
type initiating actions in health visitor interactions. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich
(Eds.), Why do you ask? The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp.
87107). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reective teaching in second language class-
rooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences
in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization
(pp. 5469). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest systematics for
the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696735.
doi:10.2307/412243
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated
repair. Discourse Processes, 23, 499545. doi:10.1080/01638539709545001
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction (Vol. 1). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Shomoossi, N. (2004). The effect of teachers questioning behavior on EFL
classroom interaction: A classroom research study. The Reading Matrix, 4, 96
104.
Spada, N. (1990). Observing classroom behaviors and learning outcomes in differ-
ent second language programs. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second lan-
guage teacher education (pp. 293310). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of the question-response system in American Eng-
lish conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 27722781. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.
2010.04.011
ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
TESOL QUARTERLY 750
Thompson, J. (1997). Training teachers to ask questions. ELT Journal, 51, 99105.
doi:10.1093/elt/51.2.99
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London, England: Long-
man.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom observation tasks: A resource book for language teachers
and trainers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. New York, NY: Routledge.
Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language class-
room: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. Modern Language Journal, 92,
577594. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00788.x
Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF: A single case analysis. Language Learning,
59, 796824. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00526.x
Waring, H. Z. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities. Classroom Dis-
course, 2, 201218. doi:10.1080/19463014.2011.614053
Wong, J. (2004). Some preliminary thoughts on delay as an interactional resource.
In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 114131).
London, England: Continuum.
Wootton, A. J. (1989). Remarks on the methodology of conversation analysis. In
D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 238
258). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Wu, K.-Y. (1993). Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited. RELC
Journal, 24(2), 4968. doi:10.1177/003368829302400203
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London, England:
Sage.
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF UNDERSTANDING-CHECKS 751
APPENDIX
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS TRANSCRIPTION
NOTATIONS
(.) untimed perceptible pause within a turn
Underline stress
CAPS very emphatic stress
high pitch on word
. sentence-nal falling intonation
? yes-no question rising intonation
, phrase-nal intonation (more to come)
- a glottal stop, or abrupt cutting off of sound
: lengthened vowel sound (extra colons indicate greater lengthening)
= latch
highlights point of analysis
[ ] overlapped talk
soft spoken softly/decreased volume
> < increased speed
(words) uncertain transcription
.hhh inbreath
$words$ spoken in a smiley voice
((words)) comments on background, skipped talk, or nonverbal behavior
{(( ))-words.} { } marks the beginning and ending of the simultaneous
occurrence of the verbal/silence and nonverbal; the absence of
{ } means that the simultaneous occurrence applies to the entire turn
T teacher
L unidentied learner
LL learners
BB black/whiteboard
TB textbook
TESOL QUARTERLY 752