دانشجویان و اساتید دانشگاه فرهنگیان

The study of classroom discourse is commonly associated with analysing the language and interaction of teaching and learning (Markee 2015). According to this conceptualisation of classroom discourse, teaching and learning are not abstract processes unobservable to a researcher but are rather understood as a set of concrete discursive actions and practices. These discursive actions and practices, which possess an internal organisation or structure that must be understood within their larger interactional and sequential context (Wong and Waring 2010), are used to accomplish a range of phenomena from clarification requests and repair strategies to directing students and explaining instructions. For the first several decades of classroom discourse scholarship (e.g. Moskowitz 1976), the discourse in classroom discourse was viewed almost exclusively through this prism: classrooms are self-contained spaces where discursive actions and practices, as well as their interactional and sequential context, are investigated unto themselves (e.g. Cazden 2001).

In recent years, scholars have also taken a slightly different, but not necessarily incompatible, perspective to the discourse in classroom discourse (Macbeth 2003): classrooms are spaces where discursive actions and practices do not operate independent of what is happening in the outside world but are rather tied to phenomena that construct social structures, such as power and ideology (e.g. van Dijk 1993, 1997). According to this conceptualisation of classroom discourse, discursive actions and practices are important objects of investigation (e.g. Cots 2006), but the nature of teaching and learning is believed to be shaped by, to varying degrees of influence, a number of issues and phenomena that may be not explicitly visible while a lesson is being delivered, such as state policies, political systems, colonial histories, ideological commitments, and neoliberal aspirations.

Both conceptualisations of classroom discourse have contributed much to current scientific knowledge. Classroom discourse researchers have collectively advanced scholarship by showing that the ostensibly straightforward acts of teaching and learning are in fact rich in detail and highly context dependent. Such investigations cover myriad pedagogical situations and geographic locations, revealing that classrooms are complex and dynamic spaces where discourse operates at multiple levels from the micro to the macro.

It is thus natural that classroom discourse attracts the interests of scholars working in education, sociology, anthropology, applied linguistics, and psychology, to name a few disciplines. The popularity of classroom discourse is evidenced in the decades of interdisciplinary research conducted on, and within, classrooms (e.g. Cazden 2001). Notable research includes the seminal work of Hugh Mehan in the 1970s (e.g. Mehan 1979a, 1979b) to the more recent interaction-based investigations conducted by Paul Seedhouse (e.g. Seedhouse 2004, 2010). The popularity of classroom discourse research stems, in part, from a desire to understand the relationship between discourse on the one hand, and the institutional nature of classrooms on the other hand. Much has been reported on, for instance, the discursive aspects of teachers and students sharing common goals, communicating according to institutional expectations, and establishing a mutual understanding of particular activities. The study of these and other institutional characteristics (cf. Thornborrow 2014) has contributed much to discourse studies in general, and classroom theory and practice in particular (e.g. Walsh 2011).

The interdisciplinary tradition of classroom discourse also means that a number of theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches, such as symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, ethnography of communication, critical discourse analysis, and conversation analysis have been used to study classrooms. Multiple frameworks and approaches are needed to collectively uncover the myriad ways in which discourse shapes, but is also shaped by classroom teaching and learning. This collective endeavour to understand classroom discourse pushes disciplinary boundaries, leading to innovative research that challenges the very methodologies used to study teaching and learning.

Although classrooms bring together scholars working in different disciplines and from varied theoretical foundations, academic spaces and forums dedicated to the dissemination of classroom discourse research, including conferences and scholarly journals, have not existed until somewhat recently.

The journal, Classroom Discourse, thus plays a critical role in scholarship by providing a robust space and forum for articulating and exploring issues in classroom discourse from diverse theoretical frameworks and according to a range of disciplinary interests. Classroom Discourse continues to, for example, publish important works on empirical topics ranging from the dynamic relations between teaching and learning (e.g. Seedhouse 2010) to the ways in which embodied movements perform classroom actions (e.g. van Compernolle and Smotrova 2017). Such research provides important empirical observations and pedagogical suggestions, including notably the work in teacher education and classroom discourse (e.g. Glaser, Kupetz, and You 2019). At a more general level, the study of classroom discourse provides scholars and teachers with a better understanding of how teaching is shaped by, but at the same time mediates, language and communication (e.g. Waring 2018).

Classroom Discourse provides a space and forum for interdisciplinary work to flourish by taking an unrestricted approach to ‘classroom’ and ‘discourse’. The journal states on its homepage that a wide interpretation of ‘both classroom and discourse’ is adopted, inviting contributions from a ‘range of theoretical perspectives and research methods’. The importance of this invitation cannot be overstated. Varied interpretations of, and approaches to, classroom discourse are needed in order to adequately uncover the nuances of teaching and learning in classrooms. A classroom, for example, is not a monolithic context where all learning is organised according to teacher-fronted lessons, but can also include spaces where pedagogical support is offered through online mentorship (Ball 2014), video conversations between young adult learners in technology-mediated environments (Sindoni 2011), and tutor sessions for second language writers (Park 2017), to name a few. Interpretations and approaches to discourse are even more varied, including, but of course not limited to, repair sequences (Stone 2019), positioning (Kayi-Aydar 2013), translanguaging (Li Wei and Lin 2019), social justice (Archer 2014), and epistemic status (Heller 2017).

While important progress has been made in advancing and disseminating classroom discourse research, there are, like all bodies of work, many neglected empirical issues. Critical approaches to classroom discourse represent one such area of research that has been neglected in the literature. Some progress, however, has been made: for example, notable critical classroom discourse research published in this journal includes Murphy’s (2015) corpus-based investigation of critical reflective practice that establishes an understanding of the importance of cultural sensitivity in teaching practices and Ashton’s (2016) critical discourse analysis of teacher interactions that uncovers some of the ways in which inequity and marginalisation manifest in classrooms with students with disabilities. Both authors show that much can be gained from utilising critical analytic tools in classroom discourse research, including the possibility of transforming the lives of those involved in teaching and learning.

The dearth of critical studies in classroom discourse research can be partly explained by looking at how scholars approach the study of discursive actions and practices. As objects of investigation, discursive actions and practices cannot be fully understood through a single analytic lens, but rather necessitate a joint effort based on multiple discourse perspectives (Janks 1997). Yet, much of the classroom discourse literature is tied to the singular enterprise of examining the forms and functions of discursive actions and practices (e.g. Jenks and Seedhouse 2015), such as the turn-taking mechanics of teacher-fronted discussions (Garton 2012) or the interactional management of epistemic turns (Sert 2013). These types of investigations fall within the first conceptualisation of classroom discourse research identified in the beginning of this paper where discursive actions and practices are investigated unto themselves.

In addition to this interaction-focused approach, discursive actions and practices are objects of investigation that require looking at the ways in which social structures mediate the conditions of classroom discourse. That is to say, discourse may be approached as a structure of power, transgression, ideology, social justice, inequity, or racism, to name a few critical issues examined in the literature (e.g. Hammersley 1997). Discourse is not simply made up of interactional features (Wodak and Chilton 2005) but also indexes social issues and phenomena that transcend the immediately unfolding sequential context of lessons (e.g. Beech 2004; Kumaravadivelu 1999).

Herein lies the defining facet of critical approaches to classroom discourse: critical scholars are primarily concerned with unmasking ‘the hidden relationship between individual interaction in the classroom and the wider sociocultural and sociopolitical structures that impinge that interaction’ (Kumaravadivelu 1999, 479).

To this end, the special issue provides a collection of cutting-edge and state-of-the-art research that examines the wider sociocultural and sociopolitical aspects of classroom discourse. The current issue is the journal’s first attempt to collectively explore what can be captured when looking at classroom discourse through a critical lens. The contributors of the special issue draw from theoretical perspectives that typify the diversity that exists in critical approaches to classroom discourse. For instance, the contributions draw from, to varying degrees of influence, the works of Ruth Wodak, Norman Fairclough, Gunther Kress, and Teun van Dijk. While these eminent scholars have slightly different interpretations of what a critical analysis entails, they are all committed to uncovering the ways in which important social issues are embedded in the language and communication of everyday life (e.g. Wodak and Meyer 2015). Indeed, a defining feature of all critical discourse analysis research is a commitment to the ‘betterment of society’ (Wodak and Chilton 2005, xv). In classroom discourse research, important social issues examined include critical literacies (Vasquez 2014), textbook discourse (Gray 2010), neoliberalism (Chun 2009), race and racism (Sayer, Martínez‐Prieto, and Carvajal De La Cruz 2019), discrimination (Rojas-Sosa 2016), and of course, power (cf. Martin-Jones and Saxena 1996).

The contributors of this special issue express their commitment to critical issues by establishing that classrooms – like all situations in life – are sites where historical, social, and political discourses intertwine to create new meanings and value systems (van Leeuwen 2018). The aim of the special issue is to reveal how sociohistorical and sociopolitical issues can be uncovered within the discourse(s) of classrooms. In so doing, the collection of papers offers new insights into, and builds on the important scholarship already published in, classroom discourse. Most importantly, the special issue demonstrates that classroom discourse can be approached from different theoretical perspectives. Diversity in how to view classroom discourse, including fashionable perspectives that have sedimented within the literature over the years, should not lead to divisions and fractures within classroom discourse scholarship (Rampton et al. 2002). Scholars must view such diversity as opportunities to conduct exciting interdisciplinary research in the years to come.

To this end, the first contribution in this special issue by Csilla Weninger (this issue) examines how ideologies of teaching and learning manifest in a classroom incorporating a critical literacy lesson. Critical literacy is a Freirean-inspired pedagogy that attempts to raise students’ awareness of how language and discourse contribute to social inequalities and power structures. Weninger’s (this issue) investigation thus offers an important contribution to the critical classroom discourse literature by showing how framing resources are used to manage and manipulate pedagogical objectives according to particular ideological commitments. A frame, as adopted in this contribution, is an ideology put into social practice (cf. Goffman 1974). In the context of a critical literacy lesson, where the explicit pedagogical goal is to inform and reform, an understanding of a frame can help researchers uncover the complex relationship between what classroom participants believe and what actually happens during a lesson. At times, even when the stated goal is to be emancipatory, teachers can move away from their critical literacy lessons by engaging in small, and ostensibly harmless, teaching practices that shift the interactional business to other (possibly less important) classroom tasks.

The second contribution by Carlos Soto (this issue) attends to the pedagogical opportunities that classroom discourse analysis offers to teaching professionals when used as a tool for critical insight and reflection. Using classroom data from junior secondary students in Hong Kong, Soto (this issue) argues that discourse analysis can help teachers reflect on their responsibilities to promote a robust learning environment. Like the first contribution, the findings reveal that there are conceptual gaps between what a teacher believes is an ideal learning environment and what is enacted in classroom interactions. The study uses critical ethnography to attend to the ways in which ethics of care are co-constructed by classroom participants. Soto’s (this issue) contribution is a reminder that the classroom discourse research is inherently sociopolitical and psychological in that the subjectivities of the teacher-researcher have a profound impact on the teaching and learning environment. For example, in one instance observed in the contribution, Soto (this issue) reflects on how his rosy experiences using materials that force students to think about acts of hate and dehumanisation led to a less positive learning environment by creating unnecessary discomfort.

The next critical study challenges the tendency in classroom discourse research to rely on spoken communication as a source of data. Pau Bori (this issue) carries out this challenge by attending to an overlooked discourse feature of classrooms: textbooks. That is to say, textbooks, like spoken communication in a physical space or text-based interactions on a student discussion board, are fundamental discursive features of classrooms. This wider interpretation of classroom discourse is apparent when Bori (this issue) captures in his analysis the relation between neoliberal ideologies and the discourse of English textbooks. Drawing from Foucault’s work on governmentality, Bori (this issue) explains how popular English textbooks circulate neoliberal discourses in the classroom by encouraging students to adopt and express consumer-based ideologies in their language learning. Bori’s (this issue) contribution is important to classroom discourse research, as textbooks are not only discursive instruments that guide teaching and learning but such materials also have the power to shape how students view themselves and the world around them.

The final contribution by Christian Chun (this issue) examines how classroom participants co-construct an understanding of anorexia and other eating disorders. The contribution is timely, as belief systems associated with eating disorders and body standards have received hitherto very little attention in both critical discourse analysis and classroom discourse research. Chun’s (this issue) use of mediated discourse analysis uncovers a number of discursive issues that shape how controversial topics, such body image, manifest in the teaching and learning practices of classroom participants. The contribution, for instance, demonstrates that the ways in which a teacher frames, and otherwise presents, difficult topics are instrumental in how students incorporate such topics into their own talk. Furthermore, eating disorders are taboo subjects that are associated with a number of misconceptions, and so Chun’s (this issue) investigation serves an important critical role by helping readers develop an understanding of how teachers and students discursively navigate complex topics in the classroom.

This special issue on critical approaches to classroom discourse will hopefully provide the impetus for readers to explore how their classrooms open up opportunities to address important social issues. Critical approaches to classroom discourse put social issues before methodology, and therefore readers have the flexibility in adopting the best methodological principles to address their research objectives (van Leeuwen 2008). Such flexibility is a defining feature of the publications in this special issue: critical approaches are not dedicated to a particular ‘brand’ of discourse analysis, but are rather committed to understanding and helping address complex and complicated issues that profoundly impact how individuals and communities carry out their lives.

The contributors also demonstrated that the discourse in classroom discourse indexes social issues and phenomena that operate at multiple discursive levels from the micro to the macro (cf. Brooks 2016). From the transformative practices of Freirean-inspired pedagogy to neoliberal ideologies, the papers in this special issue establish an understanding of classroom discourse that is not limited to what is said and done in an unfolding exchange between classroom participants, as well as the teaching materials that form the basis of such talk and interaction. In addition to examining such important discursive features, the contributors examine the wider sociocultural and sociopolitical forces that come to shape the very classrooms that provide spaces for teaching and learning.

As classroom discourse continues to grow as an interdisciplinary field of study that informs both theory and practice (e.g. Langman and Hansen-Thomas 2017), it is important to seek ways to push the conceptual boundaries that frame how scholars examine the discursive aspects of teaching and learning. The special issue makes a small, but important, step forwards in expanding the disciplinary boundaries of classroom discourse.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Christopher J. Jenks

Christopher J. Jenks is a scholar of language, communication, and culture. He has worked in a number of countries, including the United States, England, and South Korea. Christopher specialises in the study of language in society and is particularly interested in the cultural implications of the global spread of English.

Previous articleView issue table of contentsNext article

References

• Archer, A. 2014. “Designing Multimodal Classrooms for Social Justice.” Classroom Discourse 5: 106–116. doi:10.1080/19463014.2013.859842. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Ashton, J. R. 2016. “Keeping up with the Class: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Teacher Interactions in a Co-teaching Context.” Classroom Discourse 7 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1080/19463014.2015.1077717. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Ball, C. E. 2014. “Multimodal Revision Techniques in Webtexts.” Classroom Discourse 5 (1): 91–105. doi:10.1080/19463014.2013.859844. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Beech, J. 2004. “Redneck and Hillbilly Discourse in the Writing Classroom: Classifying Critical Pedagogies of Whiteness.” College English 67 (2): 172–186. doi:10.2307/4140716. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Bori, P. 2020. “Neoliberal governmentality in global English textbooks.” Classroom Disclosure 18: 149–163. doi:10.1080/19463014.2020.1755327. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Brooks, C. 2016. “Role, Power, Ritual, and Resistance: A Critical Discourse Analysis of College Classroom Talk.” Western Journal of Communication 80 (3): 348–369. doi:10.1080/10570314.2015.1098723. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Cazden, C. B. 2001. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. [Google Scholar]
• Chun, C. 2020. “Representations of anorexia in an EAP classroom: critically engaging with the body and its discourses.” Classroom Disclosure 18: 164–180. doi:10.1080/19463014.2020.1749681. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Chun, C. W. 2009. “Contesting Neoliberal Discourses in EAP: Critical Praxis in an IEP Classroom.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8 (2): 111–120. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.09.005. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Cots, J. M. 2006. “Teaching ‘With an Attitude’: Critical Discourse Analysis in EFL Teaching.” ELT Journal 60: 336–345. doi:10.1093/elt/ccl024. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Garton, S. 2012. “Speaking Out of Turn? Taking the Initiative in Teacher-fronted Classroom Interaction.” Classroom Discourse 3: 29–45. doi:10.1080/19463014.2012.666022. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Glaser, K., M. Kupetz, and H. You. 2019. “‘Embracing Social Interaction in the L2 Classroom: Perspectives for Language Teacher Education’ – An Introduction.” Classroom Discourse 10 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1080/19463014.2019.1571260. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper. [Google Scholar]
• Gray, J. 2010. The Construction of English: Culture, Consumerism and Promotion in the ELT Global Coursebook. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Hammersley, M. 1997. “On the Foundations of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Language & Communication 17 (3): 237–248. doi:10.1016/S0271-5309(97)00013-X. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Heller, V. 2017. “Managing Knowledge Claims in Classroom Discourse: The Public Construction of a Homogeneous Epistemic Status.” Classroom Discourse 8 (2): 156–174. doi:10.1080/19463014.2017.1328699. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Janks, H. 1997. “Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 18: 329–342. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Jenks, C. J., and P. Seedhouse. 2015. International Perspectives on ELT Classroom Interaction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Kayi-Aydar, H. 2013. “‘No, Rolanda, Completely Wrong!’ Positioning, Classroom Participation and ESL Learning.” Classroom Discourse 4 (2): 130–150. doi:10.1080/19463014.2013.835271. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Kumaravadivelu, B. 1999. “Critical Classroom Discourse Analysis.” TESOL Quarterly 33 (3): 453–484. doi:10.2307/3587674. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Langman, J., and H. Hansen-Thomas. 2017. Discourse Analytic Perspectives on Stem Education: Exploring Interaction and Learning in the Multilingual Classroom. New York, NY: Springer. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Macbeth, D. 2003. “Hugh Mehan’s Learning Lessons Reconsidered: On the Differences between the Naturalistic and Critical Analysis of Classroom Discourse.” American Educational Research Journal 40 (1): 239–280. doi:10.3102/00028312040001239. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Markee, N. 2015. The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Martin-Jones, M., and M. Saxena. 1996. “Turn-taking, Power Asymmetries, and the Positioning of Bilingual Participants in Classroom Discourse.” Linguistics and Education 8 (1): 105–123. doi:10.1016/S0898-5898(96)90008-X. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Mehan, H. 1979a. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Mehan, H. 1979b. “‘What Time Is It, Denise?’: Asking Known Information Questions in Classroom Discourse.” Theory into Practice 18 (4): 285–294. doi:10.1080/00405847909542846. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Moskowitz, G. 1976. “The Classroom Interaction of Outstanding Foreign Language Teachers.” Foreign Language Annals 9 (2): 135–143. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1976.tb02639.x. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Murphy, B. 2015. “A Corpus-based Investigation of Critical Reflective Practice and Context in Early Career Teacher Settings.” Classroom Discourse 6 (2): 107–123. doi:10.1080/19463014.2015.1030762. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Park, I. 2017. “Questioning as Advice Resistance: Writing Tutorial Interactions with L2 Writers.” Classroom Discourse 8 (3): 253–270. doi:10.1080/19463014.2017.1307125. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Rampton, B., C. Roberts, C. Leung, and R. Harris. 2002. “Methodology in the Analysis of Classroom Discourse.” Applied Linguistics 23 (3): 373–392. doi:10.1093/applin/23.3.373. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Rojas-Sosa, D. 2016. “The Denial of Racism in Latina/o Students’ Narratives about Discrimination in the Classroom.” Discourse & Society 27 (1): 69–94. doi:10.1177/0957926515605961. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Sayer, P., D. Martínez‐Prieto, and B. Carvajal De La Cruz. 2019. “Discourses of White Nationalism and Xenophobia in the United States and Their Effect on TESOL Professionals in Mexico.” TESOL Quarterly 53: 835–844. doi:10.1002/tesq.492. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Seedhouse, P. 2004. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analytic Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
• Seedhouse, P. 2010. “Locusts, Snowflakes and Recasts: Complexity Theory and Spoken Interaction.” Classroom Discourse 1: 4–24. doi:10.1080/19463011003750624. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Sert, O. 2013. “‘Epistemic Status Check’ as an Interactional Phenomenon in Instructed Learning Settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 45 (1): 13–28. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.005. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Sindoni, M. G. 2011. “Online Conversations: A Sociolinguistic Investigation into Young Adults’ Use of Videochats.” Classroom Discourse 2 (2): 219–235. doi:10.1080/19463014.2011.614055. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Soto, C. 2020. “Classroom discourse analysis as a tool for exploring ethical tensions in a critical teaching.” Classroom Disclosure 18: 129–148. doi:10.1080/19463014.2020.1755328. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Stone, P. 2019. “Repair Sequences in ‘Off-task’ Conversations in an EFL University Classroom in Japan: Japanese Language Resources and Learning Opportunities.” Classroom Discourse 10 (2): 188–208. doi:10.1080/19463014.2018.1538886. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Thornborrow, J. 2014. Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse. London: Routledge. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• van Compernolle, R. A., and T. Smotrova. 2017. “Gesture, Meaning, and Thinking-for-teaching in Unplanned Vocabulary Explanations.” Classroom Discourse 8 (3): 194–213. doi:10.1080/19463014.2016.1275028. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• van Dijk, T. A. 1993. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse & Society 4 (2): 249–283. doi:10.1177/0957926593004002006. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• van Dijk, T. A. 1997. Discourse as Structure and Process. London: SAGE. [Google Scholar]
• van Leeuwen, T. 2008. Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• van Leeuwen, T. 2018. “Moral Evaluation in Critical Discourse Analysis.” Critical Discourse Studies 15 (2): 140–153. doi:10.1080/17405904.2018.1427120. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Vasquez, V. M. 2014. Negotiating Critical Literacies with Young Children. London: Routledge. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Walsh, S. 2011. Exploring Classroom Discourse. London: Routledge. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Waring, H. Z. 2018. “Teaching L2 Interactional Competence: Problems and Possibilities.” Classroom Discourse 9 (1): 57–67. doi:10.1080/19463014.2018.1434082. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Wei, L., and A. M. Y. Lin. 2019. “Translanguaging Classroom Discourse: Pushing Limits, Breaking Boundaries.” Classroom Discourse