Factors affecting teacher-student interactions in a foreign language teaching class: a language socialisation theory perspective

The study addresses low-quality and infrequent teacher–student interactions commonly observed in traditional college English classrooms in China, where teacher-centered lecturing predominates and students often disengage. Poor interaction quality is linked to teacher anxiety and reduced student well-being and achievement. To improve classroom dynamics and learning outcomes, the study investigates teacher–student interaction frequency and determinants in college English classes through the lens of language socialisation theory. It poses three research questions: (1) How frequently do successful teacher–student interactions (Initiation–Response–Evaluation/Feedback) occur during a 90-minute English class in China? (2) What factors affect teacher–student interaction in English classes in China? (3) How can teacher–student interaction be promoted in these classes? The work is motivated by the need to shift practice beyond teacher monologues and align with broader goals of English education in China that emphasize communicative competence and intercultural learning.

Research on classroom interaction has evolved from early interactional models to contemporary SLA-focused inquiries. Foundational work includes Garfinkel’s methodological groundwork, Sinclair and Coulthard’s IRF model, and Mehan’s IRE model, which highlighted teacher evaluation within interaction. Since the 1980s, classroom interaction has been central to SLA, with 21st-century research focusing on (a) effects of classroom interaction on language learning, (b) factors influencing interaction, and (c) strategies to enhance interaction. Effects: In contexts with limited English exposure (e.g., China, Iran), teacher behavior and classroom interaction more strongly affect learning than in immersive environments (e.g., Europe). Interaction improves lexical and syntactic development, vocabulary acquisition and test performance, speech accuracy, and usage, though null effects have been reported for specific phonological targets (e.g., stress) in some designs. Factors: Learner psychological variables (anxiety, low proficiency, autonomy), teaching-related aspects (goals, tasks, methods, teacher-centeredness, teacher affect such as voice/facial expression), and cultural influences (exam orientation, perceptions of classroom participation as self-display) have all been implicated. Strategies: Recommended approaches include interpersonal communication skills (care, clarity, immediacy, rapport, humor, praise), setting higher-order interactive goals, diversifying interaction methods and media, scaffolding, emotional intelligence, and reflective questioning. Language socialisation theory: Emphasizes inseparability of language and culture, learner-centered participation, the role of interaction and feedback, contextualized practice, and development of sociocultural competence; it frames language learning as active participation in socially situated activities guided by but not dominated by teachers. Gaps: Prior work underexamined the actual frequency of teacher–student interactions in Chinese college English classes and lacked context-specific strategies for promoting interaction; Chinese classrooms often prioritize linguistic skills and immersion while neglecting cultural dimensions.

Design: Empirical, comparative classroom observation guided by language socialisation theory (Duff, 2007). Site and policy context: A typical Chinese undergraduate institution (pseudonym C University) where College English is compulsory for non-English majors; 20 instructors collectively plan weekly lessons to ensure alignment of content, pacing, and methods. Participants and classes: From a 2020 cohort of 4013 first-year students, placement by proficiency created A/B/C levels across 60 classes (60–70 students each). This study focused on two B-level classes taught by Ms H and Ms L on the same day, covering the same unit and following the same planned methods. Ms H’s class: 58 students present (28 male, 30 female implied by totals; ages 17–20, mean 18.3). Ms L’s class: 57 present (22 female, 27 male; ages 17–21, mean 18.6). Data collection: Unannounced, unstructured observations with researcher fieldnotes and full-session video recordings (with consent) of each 90-minute session; videos reviewed multiple times post hoc to complete the interaction records. Instructional material: Zoom In: An Integrated English Course (Unit 3, “A Time for Memories”), with eight of thirteen paragraphs analyzed in each session. Operationalization of successful interaction: Based on Mehan’s model—includes Initiation, Response, and Evaluation/Feedback (verbal or nonverbal); silence is not feedback. Analysis: Both authors independently reviewed videos multiple times, initially identifying ~10 interactions in Ms H’s class and 1–2 in Ms L’s class; after re-reviews and consultation with a sociolinguist, consensus was reached that Ms L had two successful interactions. Factors influencing success/failure were interpreted collaboratively through Duff’s language socialisation framework; one interpretation was revised following the sociolinguist’s critique.

- Frequency: Successful teacher–student interaction frequency in a 90-minute college English class ranged from two (Ms L) to ten (Ms H). - Initiation patterns: Ms H’s class featured 10 interactions total (8 teacher-initiated, 2 student-initiated), with high success; Ms L’s class featured 8 teacher-initiated attempts, of which only 2 met the full Initiation–Response–Evaluation/Feedback criterion. - Determinants of successful interaction (from language socialisation perspective): 1) Teacher–student equality as precondition: A student-centered stance that positions the teacher as a co-participant fosters participation; Ms H regularly shared personal stories, debated and negotiated meaning with students, and validated multiple reasonable answers, reducing social distance; Ms L maintained a judge/examiner role, increasing social distance and reticence. 2) Dual focus on language and culture as foundation: Interactions that integrated cultural knowledge with language practice (e.g., attitudes to death, euphemism, rhetorical conventions) elicited richer engagement. Ms H scaffolded use of L1 strategically (translation, dictionary use) to sustain interaction when L2 resources were insufficient; Ms L’s strict immersion orientation often ended interactions when students could not respond in English. 3) Context creation as a critical element: Constructing meaningful, relatable contexts (e.g., personal narratives such as a first date to clarify “date” vs. “conference”) enabled comprehension and participation; absence of context led to failed exchanges. - Student-initiated interactions emerged only in the class with equitable relations and contextualized, culturally enriched teaching (Ms H), indicating that supportive climates can catalyze learner agency. - Pedagogical suggestions: Promote student-centered approaches; align methods with mixed proficiency; allow supportive scaffolds (including L1 mediation) to keep interaction going; create vivid, comprehensible contexts using diverse media.

The findings indicate that the success of teacher–student interaction in Chinese college English classes is less a function of planned content or formal method and more a function of social-relational stance, cultural-linguistic integration, and contextualization—core tenets of language socialisation theory. Ms H’s student-centered enactment reduced social distance, legitimized student voices, and scaffolded participation, producing more frequent and successful IRF cycles, including student-initiated exchanges. Conversely, Ms L’s teacher-centered stance positioned interaction primarily as assessment, undermining willingness to communicate and leading to frequent breakdowns at the Response stage. Integrating cultural dimensions with language work and providing immediate scaffolds (dictionary use, peer translation, acceptance of L1 with subsequent L2 mediation) maintained interactional flow and advanced learners’ sociocultural competence. Creating meaningful contexts transformed abstract explanations into comprehensible input and actionable tasks, enhancing engagement. Collectively, these results address the research questions by quantifying successful interaction frequency and explicating key mechanisms that enable or hinder IRF completion in this context. They underscore the need to operationalize student-centered practices, cultural content, and context building to elevate interaction quality and frequency in EFL classrooms with limited out-of-school exposure.

The study demonstrates that in Chinese college English classes, successful teacher–student interactions over a 90-minute session can vary widely (two to ten), primarily influenced by: (1) the degree of teacher–student equality (student-centered vs. teacher-centered stance), (2) emphasis on both linguistic and cultural acquisition with appropriate scaffolding, and (3) intentional creation of meaningful contexts. These insights, framed by language socialisation theory, suggest practical steps for promoting interaction: adopt a student-centered posture, clarify goals while tailoring methods to proficiency, enable supportive mediation (including strategic L1 use), and design vivid, comprehensible contexts with diverse tools. Given similarities across many Asian EFL settings, the recommendations may be transferable regionally. Future work should broaden samples across institutions and cultures, examine additional facets of language socialisation theory, and empirically test the proposed pedagogical strategies in intervention studies.

- Theoretical scope: Analysis emphasized three points from Duff’s (2007) language socialisation framework; alternative formulations might yield different interpretations. - Sample and generalizability: Only two B-level classes at one university were observed for a total of 180 minutes, limiting diversity and external validity. - Implementation gap: Pedagogical suggestions derived from findings were not tested in classroom interventions; their effectiveness remains to be empirically validated. Future studies should expand participant diversity (including other countries/cultures), apply multiple language socialisation lenses, and evaluate the recommended strategies experimentally.