The preparation of English teachers increasingly requires an account of professional communication that connects language knowledge, pedagogical purpose, institutional roles, and digitally mediated participation. This conceptual article examines pedagogical discourse as the professional environment in which prospective English teachers learn to organise interaction, realise communicative intentions, and regulate learner participation. It distinguishes pedagogical discourse from the broader category of pedagogical communication and develops a strategic-linguodidactic perspective that brings together discourse, genre, pragmatics, and interactional competence. Hybrid learning is treated not as a technological supplement but as a mode of pedagogical organisation governed by flexibility, interactivity, accessibility, and feedback. The article compares differentiated, multi-track, and alternating A/B configurations and argues that an alternating design is especially suitable for teacher education when each online activity prepares for or extends a face-to-face discourse task. The proposed conceptual framework clarifies how communicative strategies are realised through verbal, nonverbal, and paralinguistic tactics across classroom and online settings. It offers a theoretical basis for designing professional-language preparation without reducing teacher discourse to decontextualised formulas or treating digital tools as ends in themselves.
Strategic Organisation Of Classroom Interaction in English Teacher Education: A Linguodidactic Framework
DOI:
Keywords:
Abstract
Downloads
References
Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). Dialogos.
Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Class, codes and control (Vol. 4). Routledge.
Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. Continuum.
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment - Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118269558
Hall, J. K. (2018). Essentials of SLA for L2 teachers: A transdisciplinary framework. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315452692
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63, 564-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. Equinox.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1-50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203827826
Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualising classroom interactional competence. Novitas-ROYAL, 6(1), 1-14.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.