Exploring EFL learners’ actions during the use of lecture materials in Chinese tertiary classrooms from a transactional view

Abstract

Learners’ interaction with lecture materials has remained underexplored despite the growing body of studies on the use of materials. The current study explored the actions EFL learners employed during the use of lecture materials in tertiary classrooms in China through the lens of a transactional view. This empirical study involved forty-two students in two classes as well as two instructors enrolled in the Comprehensive English Course. Qualitative analysis revealed five levels of learner actions during interactions initiated by lectures: awareness, involvement, intervention, creation, and autonomy. The study further highlighted three factors that significantly influence these actions: learners’ intrinsic motivation to participate in classroom interactions, discourse space for participation, and the cultural model of learning. Pedagogical implications for enhancing learner autonomy and contributions during lecture materials use were discussed based on results.

Introduction

Lectures, a primary mode of teaching in higher education, have drawn criticism for their limited effectiveness in facilitating deep and meaningful learning experiences (Jones, 2007). Criticism extends to their potential to disadvantage students who thrive in dynamic learning settings and lead to comprehension challenges, such as unclear pronunciation, note-taking, and speech pace (Hellekjær, 2017; Rubin & Smith, 1990). Acknowledging the shift towards student-centered learning, there is merit in reconceptualizing lectures as a subtype of texts for language learning.

Texts, a subset of language learning and teaching (LLT) materials (Guerrettaz et al., 2021), play a vital role in defining teaching content and providing language input and practice (Taron, 2014; Richards, 2001). Lecture materials as an important component of texts consist of structured and coherent spoken discourse provided by teachers, aligned with educational objectives. They are considered crucial in delivering informative and comprehensible content, maintaining learner attention (Cosgun Ögeyik, 2017), and promoting learners’ communicative competencies and deeper cognitive engagement with the subject matter (Morell, 2004, 2007; Cerbin, 2018). However, lecture materials are often neglected in the literature on pedagogical materials use.

While previous studies have predominantly focused on the use of textbooks by examining the beliefs and actions of teachers (Bouckaert, 2019; Miguel, 2015), recent research explores the complex meaning-making processes involved in students’ engagement with diverse materials like digital and student-generated input (Matsumoto, 2021; Kim & Canagarajah, 2021). Despite this effort to highlight the role of learner agents and diversify classroom materials, empirical research on how students actually use lecture materials remains limited.

In recent decades, as China advances its undergraduate education and embraces digital learning, the reevaluation and adaptation of instructional materials become crucial to meet evolving educational standards (Jin et al., 2020). Materials for foreign language learning must align with a student-centered educational philosophy, as mandated by the 2018 National Teaching Quality Standards for Foreign Languages and Literature, to promote proactive learners’ engagement. However, in Chinese lecture-based higher education, lectures, considered vital learning resources, are often criticized for their perceived ineffectiveness in the lack of engagement, inability to accommodate individual learning styles, diminished cognitive engagement, and limited interaction between students and teachers (Mazer & Hess, 2017; Schmidt et al., 2015; Brown & Bakhtar, 1988). This has posed challenges to students’ learning of English as a foreign language. Addressing the challenges in the EFL classroom context appears to be closely related to the learners’ contribution during lecture-initiated interactions.

The goal of the study is to explore learners’ actions involved in the process of using lecture materials and the contributing factors to their actions via classroom observation and interviews. Insights from this research will deepen our understanding of the classroom use of materials, optimize the effectiveness of lecture materials in terms of the facilitation of autonomy, and thus contribute to learners’ self-directed learning, providing valuable guidance for training programs in materials use for both pre-service and in-service English language teachers.

Background

Learner autonomy during materials use

Given the wide range of LLT materials available to learners and teachers, including traditional resources like textbooks and diverse discourses such as lectures, Guerrettaz et al. (2021) present an insightful five-subset category of materials, including physical entities, texts, environments, signs, and technologies, underscoring the diversity and dynamism of LLT materials when viewed from a socio-material perspective. However, such diversity of materials does not guarantee the occurrence of learners’ autonomous use of materials. To address this, Choi and Nunan (2022) define materials as resources comprising both input and procedures for using the input effectively from the view of pedagogical use. This definition aligns with the current study, which focuses on student active engagement during materials use, where learners exercise autonomy by enacting actions to interact with the symbolic and interactive resources provided by lecture materials in classroom interactions.

The concept of autonomy, originally rooted in philosophy, manifests diversely across various contexts (Huang & Benson, 2013). In the context of language teaching, autonomy denotes the capacity to control one’s learning process through making choices and decisions. This capacity encompasses ability, desire, and freedom across dimensions like learning management, cognitive processes, and learning content (Benson, 2011), fostering learners’ reflective proficiency, communicative skills, and integration of the target language into their plurilingual repertoire and identity (Little, 2020). Recently, research on materials development, in line with the learner-centered curriculum paradigm, has highlighted a collaborative approach that fosters learner autonomy, where learners engage in creating and adapting materials, thus enabling them to set goals, provide input, and determine procedures (Tomlinson, 2014; Nunan & Nunan, 2004). While this approach enhances resources and fosters ownership, the literature lacks sufficient practical examples of learners’ actions during materials use (Choi & Nunan, 2022).

Levels of student actions in terms of learner autonomy

Despite the widely recognized benefits of learner autonomy, an ongoing discussion persists regarding the levels of such engagement. For instance, Bovill & Bulley (2011) distinguish between “tutors in control” and “students in control”, highlighting different levels of participation. At the highest level, students exercise control over decision-making processes and exert significant influence, while the lowest level entails a complete absence of student engagement, ultimately diminishing the teacher’s role.

Moreover, Choi and Nunan (2022) propose a framework delineating five stages of learner actions with materials, representing a progressive deepening of engagement. Initially, learners gain “awareness” of various inputs provided by the materials. During the “involvement” stage, learners actively make choices for learning, tailoring and personalizing individual learning pathways. Progressing to “intervention”, learners adapt inputs and tasks to their interests, enhancing personal relevance. The “creation” stage involves learners drawing on their experiences to produce new learning inputs, transitioning from passive recipients to active contributors. Finally, the “autonomy” stage represents the zenith of this progression, where learners independently seek or create learning resources, applying skills in real-world contexts.

This classification underscores the dynamic process of learner interaction with instructional materials, reflecting a transformative journey towards self-directed learning. In this study, the framework is adapted for an in-depth analysis of student investment during lecture use. And, given that this investment contributes to the personal relevance of learning, which is intertwined with affordances, the subsequent section will briefly illustrate the transaction between autonomy and affordances.

Transactional view: autonomy and affordances

Autonomy in language learning is inherently linked to affordances, particularly concerning personal relevance. Learners who possess autonomy have the capacity to make learning personally relevant by aligning it with their identified needs and purposes, making informed choices, and acting upon them. Moreover, learners who find personal relevance in their studies are more likely to perceive affordances within their learning contexts (Huang & Benson, 2013).

The concept of affordances is defined as the action potential or opportunities for action that are perceived and interpreted by individuals within the context of their interaction with the physical and social environment (van Lier, 2004). In educational settings, affordances involve two essential relationships (Kirschner et al., 2004). Firstly, the learning environment should align with learners’ intentions, necessitating affordances that are meaningful, supportive, and anticipatory of learners’ learning needs. Secondly, educational affordances within the learning environment should not merely encourage but also effectively guide learners in employing learning interventions to address emerging needs. Research on affordances in language teaching has demonstrated their beneficial impact, facilitating learners’ direct engagement, personalization of learning experiences, exploration of diverse support within the learning environment (Murray, 2014), and learning community development (Hutchby, 2001; Murray & Fujishima, 2013). They significantly shape language learning by influencing knowledge co-construction, motivation, and active participation (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). While teachers serve as a pivotal source of affordances, learners play a crucial role in authenticating the value of input as learning resources (Pyysiäinen, 2021; Widdowson, 2003).

Given the expanded concept of affordances to encompass the inherent action potentials in sociocultural environments, adopting a transactionally informed relational perspective proves beneficial (Pyysiäinen, 2021). Such a perspective captures the reciprocal relationship between affordances and autonomy, emphasizing how autonomous learners actively engage with the resources and opportunities provided by the environment to shape it, while the environment, in turn, demands appropriate responses from autonomous learners, thereby shaping the nature and progression of learner autonomy. This transactional perspective provides a framework to understand how learners exercise autonomy to make use of affordances for language learning during materials use in EFL classrooms and helps identify affordances that enable learner engagement as well.

Thus, the study adopts the transactional view to closely examine varied levels of learner’s actions in the lecture-initiated classroom interaction and their contributing factors via addressing two questions:

• 1) What actions are taken by learners in the lecture-initiated interaction?

• 2) What factors contribute to learners’ actions while using lecture materials in EFL classrooms?

Research design

Settings and participants

The current study was conducted within the learning context of the Comprehensive English Course, a mandatory foundational course for lower-division undergraduates majoring in English at a university in Western China, under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education. This course spans 16 weeks every term for freshmen and sophomores. It selects both a nationally endorsed textbook and a custom textbook developed by the institution. Every term, it is designed to comprise six units, each featuring two reading texts and related language learning activities, aiming to enhance students’ English proficiency.

Participation in this study was voluntary, with ethical approval obtained to ensure compliance with ethical standards. The study involved two teachers (referred to as T1 and T2) and a total of 42 students from two separate classes. Both teachers were female non-native English speakers, holding associate professor positions with 30 and 10 years of teaching experience, respectively. Their academic expertise spanned foreign language education and English literature, and they had overseas visiting experience. The student participants, primarily freshmen with five transfer students, had over ten years of English learning experience, possessing foundational English knowledge and skills.

Data collection

The study encompassed a diverse array of data for in-depth analysis, including classroom observation, stimulated recall interviews with students, and a collection of physical materials.

Observational data from each teacher were gathered twice weekly over four weeks, after obtaining informed consent from the involved teachers and students. Video and audio recordings covered a total of 30 class periods, each lasting 45 min. These recordings were transcribed into a corpus of 299,901 words. Recording equipment was strategically placed in both front corners and the central rear of the classroom to unobtrusively capture classroom interactions. The researcher maintained a discreet presence at the rear corner of the classroom to minimize disruption.

To delve deeper into students’ engagement with lecture materials, stimulated recall interviews were conducted 11 times, one week after each observed class. Twelve participants were selected as focal students based on their active participation in lecture-initiated interactions. These interviews aimed to examine the behavioral intentions, attitudes, learning preferences, peer interactions, and teacher support demonstrated by the selected students during interactions. Each interview lasted approximately 30 min, resulting in a cumulative word count of 8,492 words. Additionally, the study collected various physical materials, including the course syllabus, lesson plans, slides, and supplementary resources, to provide a more holistic understanding of the use of lecture materials within the classroom setting.

Data analysis

This study employed a two-round coding analysis to address the research questions. The teacher lecture data was compiled from 30-class video transcriptions, excluding single-sentence teacher utterances, under the premise that discourse extends beyond a single sentence. Excluded elements included brief feedback, answer verification for true/false queries, comprehension-focused exchanges, and procedural task instructions.

The initial coding phase involved assigning preliminary codes to lectures and teacher-student behaviors captured through process codes (Saldaña, 2013). Subsequently, the focused coding phase, in line with the definition of lecture-discussion (Woodring & Hultquist, 2017), further refined these codes into subtypes. Through this process, eight instances of lecture-discussions were identified. This format, characterized by a tripartite interaction model involving teacher-individual learner, teacher-class, and learner-teacher dynamics, was chosen to explore learners’ interaction with lecture materials in the classroom setting due to its interactive nature that elicits diverse participatory actions, making it conducive to in-depth analysis.

Learner actions for learning in the lecture-discussion and factors contributing to their actions were then examined to substantiate how learners enact autonomy in using lecture materials within a classroom setting. Given that each turn contained more than one action, we adopted “move” as the analytical unit to assess the frequency and type of learner actions. The coding scheme (see Appendix) was developed based on Choi & Nunan’s (2022) categorization of steps in materials use, selected for its progressive category structures and the alignment with our research objectives. Furthermore, we employed a discourse analysis flowchart (Zhao et al., 2014, p. 811) to analyze the pattern of turn-taking structures in lectures through the examination of turn origins, nature, and task relevance during initiation, response, and follow-up steps, respectively. This can help validate the extent to which and how learners participate in the lecture-use process.

This analysis was further enriched by incorporating data from stimulated-recall student interviews, classroom observations, and physical materials. Such a comprehensive approach provided deeper insights into the processes and behaviors of students as they engaged with instructional materials, thereby significantly enhancing the explanatory power of the study’s findings. Initially, the interview content and the physical materials involved underwent a thorough review. Following this, data was systematically coded by identifying, colouring, and labeling relevant segments of texts, organized into thematic categories, and subjected to a review and naming process.

Results and discussion

Distinct learner actions in lecture-initiated classroom interaction

Learners’ active participation in lecture-initiated interactions is crucial for the classroom use of lecture materials, as it promotes increased engagement and leads to better academic performance (Chi & Wylie, 2014). Five distinct learner actions were observed during eight lecture-discussions in two teachers’ classrooms to explore different levels of cognitive and linguistic engagement exhibited by learners, as depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Frequency of learner actions in lecture-initiated interaction

The data analysis of the study shows a significant frequency of learner actions at the “awareness” level (55.2%), suggesting a lecture dynamic that emphasizes perception and comprehension. However, there is a stark decline observed at the “involvement” level (9.7%) and the “intervention” level (10.0%), indicating limited instances of active engagement beyond mere perception, in which learners can engage in interpreting, selecting, modifying, or adapting perceived inputs within a guided framework provided by teachers. Conversely, the “creation” level demonstrates a notable uptick (22.3%), indicating a modest yet evident attempt at more spontaneous language production as learners draw upon their knowledge and experiences. The “autonomy” level follows with a significantly low frequency (2.8%), implying a scarcity of self-directed language use, such as autonomous selection or organisation of materials outside the classroom.

This uneven distribution of learner actions, weighted towards lower-order cognitive demands, suggests a potential under-emphasis on higher-order cognitive thinking and autonomous language use during lecturing. The notable decline in the autonomy level is particularly indicative, suggesting that despite the interactive nature of lectures, they tend to be more structured and teacher-led, prioritizing indirect knowledge transmission over fostering learner independence. Features of these five observed learner actions are further illustrated below.

At the awareness level, student actions during the use of lecture materials manifest prominently through the primary action mode of question-answering, accounting for 79.5% of observed actions, illustrated in Fig. 2. During T1’s lectures, students actively participate in comprehending and validating lecture content through quick response (e.g., “Yeah”, “Right”), often prompted by teachers’ questions and supported by affirmation-seeking tags (e.g., ‘right?’, ‘do you agree?’), as well as prosodic strategies such as intonation and rhythm. While T1 favors this pedagogical approach to engage students yet maintaining control over the flow of discourse, T2 opts for filling lectures with explanations and demonstrations. This difference in instructional styles is reflected in student actions; for instance, actions like reading aloud and oral repetition are absent from T2’s lectures. The relatively low frequency of these actions in T1’s class (8% and 10.50% respectively) and the minimal occurrence of spontaneous laughter (2%) may suggest a more homogeneous approach to awareness-level interaction with the auditory and linguistic resources available in the observed lectures. In light of these findings, teachers can deliberately select and design lecture content, by incorporating diverse guided and interactive activities, reflection as well as visually stimulating materials (Moreno & Mayer, 2007; Yılmaz & Keser, 2017), to create a more motivational and dynamic hybrid learning environment that promotes students’ affective and verbal response to perceived meaningful resources in inputs, aligning with Lizzio et al.’s (2002) argument.

Fig. 2

Awareness level of learner actions in T1 and T2’s lecture-discussions

At the involvement level, student actions during lecturing are characterized by a dual emphasis on continual active engagement and a gradual increase in autonomous initiative. The data analysis shows that such actions predominantly involve question-answering for clarification (n = 19), accounting for 54.29% of the total. This action is often prompted by teachers’ inquiries to address uncertainties or ambiguities in the lecture material, which requires students’ active engagement beyond mere awareness. Additionally, students demonstrate autonomy by voluntarily concluding teacher utterances (n = 14), indicating their ability to interpret, summarize, and synthesize the perceived meaning-making resources in lectures. Through this, they autonomously involve themselves with the teacher’s discourse flow. However, collaborative discussion for the interpretation and selection of input (n = 2) remains limited, even in the interactive lectures, suggesting a potential need for further facilitation to provide metacognitive support. This involves metacognitive awareness of pre-existing beliefs and knowledge, along with metastrategic control in the use of strategy regarding processing new input, echoing the views put forth by Kuhn (2000) and Yilmaz & Keser (2017).

At the intervention level, student actions during the use of lecture materials exhibit proactive modification and adaptation of meaning-making resources to optimize learning outcomes and address individual learning needs. These actions manifest notably in two forms: the presentation of translated works (n = 34) and the discussion aimed at input modification (n = 2). However, the significant discrepancy in frequency between these actions raises concerns about the inclusivity and adaptability of the lecture-based learning environment, potentially indicating limitations in accommodating diverse learning styles and preferences. Further exploration is warranted to ensure a more inclusive environment, providing affordances to offer support that is meaningful and anticipatory of diverse learning intentions, echoing Kirschner et al.’s (2004) argument.

At the creation level, student actions reflect a robust engagement with lecture materials, characterized by active contributions drawing on their knowledge and experiences to deepen understanding. This is evidenced by the presentation of translated works (n = 34) in the interaction initiated by T1’s lectures, accounting for a substantial proportion of the total at 41.98%, which suggests students’ active engagement with interpreting texts across diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Additionally, the high frequency of the oral-task output (n = 24) in the interaction initiated by T2’s lectures, as shown in Fig. 3, indicates students’ active participation in generating spoken contributions based on personal life experiences and understanding of lecture content. Voluntary explanations of strategy use (n = 13) and differences in language use (n = 6) further reflect instances where students draw on past experiences to provide insights into the lecture focus. Nevertheless, the smaller proportions of self-created flow charts (n = 3, 3.70%) and self-feedback on language use (n = 1, 1.23%) suggest a necessity for further student empowerment to encourage peer/self assessment, and self-generated input during materials use, which may lead to the enhancement of confidence, metacognitive skills, and a sense of responsibility (Shen et al., 2020; Ndoye, 2017; Topping, 2009).

Fig. 3

Creation level of learner actions in T1 and T2’s lecture-discussions. (Note: SU = strategy use; LU = language use)

At the autonomy level, student actions are manifested by their proactive engagement with lecture materials, aiming at self-directed learning, which is only reflected in T1’s lectures. This is evident through actions such as the summary of strategy use (n = 7), where students exhibit a remarkable initiative in self-selecting relevant academic knowledge outside the traditional classroom setting to enhance their understanding of lecture focus. Additionally, students’ presentation of self-created flow charts of text structure (n = 3) underscores their autonomy in selecting, organizing, and generating input to support the learning process. However, the notably low frequency of these actions may suggest a need for incorporating technology into the use of lecture materials, to provide students with access to additional learning resources and opportunities for autonomous learning within a blended teaching framework.

Factors that contribute to learner actions during lecture use

This study identified three factors significantly contributing to learners’ actions during their interaction with lecture materials in EFL classrooms: intrinsic motivation to participate, classroom discourse space, and cultural model of learning. These factors synergistically enrich learners’ learning experience with lecture materials by shaping the affordances of learning interventions, enabling active engagement and contribution to interactions. To provide a detailed illustration of the findings, interview excerpts labeled, such as “S7I1022” for S7’s interview on October 22nd, are selected as in-field evidence.

Intrinsic motivation to participate in classroom interactions

Intrinsic motivation, recognized as an internal impetus shaping learners’ behavior in the classroom (Dörnyei & Muir, 2019), not only encourages dynamic engagement in dialogues, inquiries, and contributions to learning but also interacts with agency, collectively contributing to the development of self-efficacy (Xiao, 2023). It is found to be driven by learners’ in-class participation style, peer support, and prior learning experiences.

Learners’ proactive in-class participation style, demonstrated by their initiative in contributing without prompting, propels their intrinsic motivation (Atifnigar et al., 2023). This is evident as the student attributes her contribution to her persistent participation behaviour: “I have always been that kind of person who is not willing to wait for someone to ask. It’s just how I’ve always been” (S7I1022). The proactive style fosters a sense of ownership: “I raised my hand and shared my observations about how pollution has affected our local community. I think it helps me feel more engaged and invested in learning” (S7I1109). This, in turn, holds the potential to enhance individuals’ inherent tendency to exercise capacities (Ryan & Deci, 2000), in line with studies on motivating factors affecting learner participation (Tanvir, 2021).

Also, peer support enhances intrinsic motivation by fostering a collaborative learning environment, for instance, transformative actions in a translation task are sparked by a peer’s idea, illustrating peer influence: “All of us thought this idea would lead to surprising results. Everyone was excited and started trying it immediately” (S12I1118). Peer support is found to encourage engagement and a sense of belonging while also providing a structure conducive to enhancing specific problem-solving skills, aligning with existing research (Kiefer et al., 2015; Wentzel & Watkins, 2002).

Furthermore, the current study finds that positive prior learning experiences as crucial drivers of intrinsic motivation, such as meaningful activities or successful experiences, shaping the salience and affordances of learning interventions, and thus learner autonomy during lecture use, echoing the views from Kirschner et al. (2004) and Jovanovic et al. (2017). For instance, S11 explains: “Considering that the poem was originally written in dialect, translating it into my home Henan dialect could bring a comedic twist.” (S11I1118). Another instance is observed in the student’s (S5) self-initiated use of linguistic knowledge about “puns” during a lecture-discussion, illustrating his inherent inclination for participating in discussions without direct teacher prompting. “When the teacher asked me what the word “reflect” meant, I remembered what I had learned in the previous vocabulary class and promptly articulated that it could be a pun, a form of wordplay” (S5I1029). This active participation in classroom interactions initiated by materials reflects learners’ active role in learning rather than passive recipients of knowledge, which echoes Matsumoto’s (2021) argument.

Discourse space for classroom participation

The discourse space for participation within language classrooms, heavily impacting affordances, is instrumental in fostering learner autonomy through shaping interactive dynamics between teachers and learners (Little, 1995; Murray, 2017). This autonomy is cultivated as learners gradually assume responsibility for their learning journey, guided by teachers’ strategic facilitation. Teachers play a crucial role in nurturing learner autonomy by promoting shared responsibility in co-constructing language learning experiences, which encompasses organizational initiatives within the discourse.

This study highlights the significance of the teacher’s disciplinary expertise, as outlined by Little (1995), in fostering students’ active interaction with lecture materials, potentially influencing student achievement (Ing et al., 2015). This expertise is demonstrated through a strategic organization of lecture discourse patterns to include more interactive and inclusive turn-taking behaviours, creating a conducive and engaging learning environment.

Table 1 Turn-taking behaviours in T1 and T2’s lecture-discussions

As shown in Table 1, data analysis reveals that T1’s lectures exhibit a predominant structure that extends beyond the conventional “teacher initiating → student response → teacher follow-up (IRF)” sequence, which might be related to the teacher’s acdemic background and teaching experiences. This extended structure contains the provision of feedback to individual student or class-wide responses while concurrently eliciting and questioning, then followed by alternating actions by the teacher, individual students, and/or the whole class in response. Such an organizational approach signifies a higher level of interactivity and engagement through continuous bidirectional or multi-directional communication compared to T2’s, echoing Zhao et al.’s (2014) findings.

This is evidenced by the study’s finding depicted in Fig. 4, which illustrates distinct patterns of student engagement between T’s and T2’s lectures. T1’s lectures consistently exhibit higher levels of student engagement across all five levels compared to T2’s, as reflected in the frequency of verbal responses. Notably, T1’s lectures demonstrate higher frequencies at the “awareness” (n = 191) and “creation” (n = 57) levels, with moderate occurrences of “involvement” (n = 35) and “intervention” (n = 36), and minimal instances of “autonomy” (n = 10). Conversely, T2’s lectures display relatively unitary action manifestations and lower levels of student engagement, lacking actions at the “involvement”, “intervention”, and “autonomy” levels.

Fig. 4

Learners’ verbal actions across engagement levels in T1 and T2’s lecture-discussions

Cultural model of learning

Chinese learners perceive learning as a moral endeavor, known as self-perfection, highlighting values such as knowledge acquisition, a passion for learning, diligence, resilience, persistence, concentration, and overcoming obstacles through unwavering effort (Li, 2002). This cultural model holds promise for fostering learner autonomy through an emphasis on self-improvement, a commitment to lifelong learning, and a robust work ethic, correlating with increased dedication to the learning process.

As discussed previously, although T2’s lectures may contain relatively lower cognitive demands, students demonstrate their deference to significant others’ opinions by attentively listening and taking notes without disrupting the flow of discourse. Students comment on this preference: “I prefer not to interrupt the teacher while she is explaining because there are often key vocabulary or grammar shared during the lecture” (S2I1015). “I jot them down in a notebook or on my iPad, and occasionally, I might take a quick snapshot for reference” (S4I1020).

During more cognitively demanding lectures, the cultural values, such as openness to change and self-transcendence that promote connectedness, may motivate learners to actively engage, surmount challenges, and contribute learning inputs (Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). S7, a foreign language learner, exhibits resilient agency in addressing challenges (Deakin Crick et al., 2015) while discussing climate change in English as a foreign language. The choice of this complex topic indicates her willingness to grapple with global issues. “I love discussing my hometown’s changes, because, you know, it has transformed a lot in the past few years. The whole experience hits me deeply. The cool thing is, when I talk about these changes, I can throw in some of the new sentence structures and phrases we just picked up in today’s lesson. It adds a nice touch to the whole description” (S7I1109). Despite language challenges, she deeply engages, articulates personal experiences, and demonstrates critical thinking, reflecting adaptability and growth within a foreign language learning context.

Conclusion

The current study illuminated the dynamic and evolving nature of learner interaction with lecture materials. Following the framework proposed by Choi and Nunan (2022), the study refined learner actions during the use of lecture materials that advance through a progression involving five levels: awareness, involvement, intervention, creation, and autonomy. The study also identified intrinsic motivation, classroom discourse space, and the cultural model of learning as pivotal factors influencing learner actions during EFL lectures. Intrinsic motivation spurs proactive participation, discourse space for classroom participation fosters a supportive environment, and the cultural model encourages active contributions, particularly in cognitively demanding lectures.

The study verified the transactional view, emphasizing the impact of the reciprocal relationship between affordances and autonomy on learner contribution during materials use. Empirical evidence of students’ actions during lectures offers useful insights for developing pedagogical strategies aimed at advancing learners’ action continuum, heightening learners’ awareness of self-directed learning in lecture-based classroom interactions. Such insights are valuable for promoting understanding of how learners might be effectively supported in using provided spoken-discourse materials, whether from teachers or materials developers. Furthermore, the study substantiated that interactive lectures do not guarantee the occurrence of high-level student engagement as expected, echoing Zhao et al.’s (2014) argument that interaction may result in one-way communication. This inconsistency is attributed to the varied levels of intrinsic motivation, strategies aimed at encouraging supportive and interactive discourse space, and profitable use of learning opportunities embedded in cultural values. This is evidenced by the prevalence of learner actions at lower levels and a lack of sufficient data on the autonomy level of learner actions.

The relatively limited number of lecture-discussions in this empirical study warrants caution when generalizing the findings to diverse contexts. Nonetheless, the study’s exploratory nature and the evolving dynamics of learner actions during lecture use offer valuable insights into transforming lecture use into an effective opportunity for EFL learners’ participation in learning. The coding scheme can provide possible directions to examine the process of lecture use in comparable educational contexts, particularly those resembling the Chinese educational contexts. Further empirical studies are necessary to comprehensively understand the complexity of lecture-initiated interactions within EFL classrooms, exploring when and how students contribute learning inputs inside diverse language classrooms.

Appendix

Coding scheme of learner actions in lecture-initiated interaction

Level	Learner action	Input	Examples
1	Awareness	Learners are made aware of the different types of meaning-making resources in the lecture materials they are using, e.g. semiotic, conversational, or embodied resources in a lecture	• question-answering for comprehension • question-answering for agreement • question-answering for confirmation • reading-aloud • oral repetition of T’s word pronunciation • laughing out loud
2	Involvement	Learners are involved in interpreting the perceived meaning-making resources and selecting additional/alternative input from a range of options, e.g. which additional information to use in a translation task	• question-answering for clarification • concluding T’s utterance voluntarily • discussion for interpretation and selection
3	Intervention	Learners are involved in modifying and adapting the meaning-making resources for a lecture-initiated activity, e.g. in a sentence-paraphrasing activity, modifying and providing further interpretation of the language use to reflect their learning outcome	• discussion for input modification; • presentation of translated works
4	Creation	Learners input drawing on their own knowledge and experiences	• voluntary explanations of their strategy use • voluntary explanations of the differences in language use • presentation of translated works • presentation of self-created flow charts of text structure • output of oral tasks • self-feedback on language use
5	Autonomy	Learners select or generate input beyond the classroom, e.g. interviewing and recording tourists’ impressions of their city	• presentation of self-created flow chart of text structure based on self-selection of materials outside the traditional classroom setting • summary of strategy use based on students’ self-selection and self-organisation of relevant knowledge outside the traditional classroom setting

1. Source: derived from a list of steps in Choi and Nunan (2022)