While the importance of materials in second language (L2) learning and instruction has been widely acknowledged, research on how materials mediate classroom interactions are still relatively scarce. This, however, is crucial considering the complex interplay among teacher, students and materials in classroom interactions. The study investigates this issue from an ecological perspective, regarding students’ learning through material use as holistic, dynamic, and emergent. Multiple data were collected combining classroom discourse analysis with students’ reflection and interview data. Findings revealed that: (1) different materials catalyse different patterns of classroom interactions as well as teacher and students’ talk; and that (2) while students tended to be more expressive in texts that are personally relevant, texts with literary language use and space for multiple interpretations entail complex meaning-making and lexical choice. Findings of the study suggest that adjusting features of materials can catalyse diverse opportunities for learning and interaction depending on students’ L2 proficiency and prior knowledge, thus rendering relationships between material use and students’ learning actionable.
Bardovi-HarligK. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 390–395.
2.
BrownM. W. (2009). The teacher–tool relationship: theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In RemillardJ. T.Herbel-EisenmannB. A. (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–37). Routledge.
3.
CalcagniE.AhmedF.Trigo-ClapésA. L.KershnerR.HennessyS. (2023). Developing dialogic classroom practices through supporting professional agency: Teachers’ experiences of using the T-SEDA practitioner-led inquiry approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 126, 1–17.
4.
ChengL.QiL. (2006). Description and examination of the national matriculation English test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3, 53–70.
5.
de BotK.LowieW.ThorneS.L.VerspoorM. (2013). Dynamic systems theory as a comprehensive theory of second language development. In MayoM.P.G.MangadoM.J.G.Martínez-AdriánM. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 199–220). John Benjamins.
6.
FenwickT.EdwardsR.SawchukP. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the socio-material. Routledge.
7.
FinneyS. (2022). The impact of curricular materials on learner agency: An ecological perspective on role-immersion pedagogy. In LaScotteD.K.MathieuC.S.DavidS.S. (Eds.), New perspectives on material mediation in language learner pedagogy (pp. 153–171). Springer.
8.
GhosnI.K. (2014). Talking like texts and talking about texts: How some primary school coursebook tasks are realized in the classroom. In TomlinsonB. (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 291–306). Bloomsbury.
9.
GibbonsP. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom. Heinemann.
10.
GuerrettazA.M. (2021). Coda: Materials-in-interaction as assemblages, grammars of action, and phenomenological activity. Classroom Discourse, 1–2, 168–190.
11.
GuerrettazA.M.EngmanM.M.MatsumotoY. (2021). Empirically defining language learning and teaching materials in use through sociomaterial perspectives. The Modern Language Journal, 105, 3–20.
12.
GuerrettazA.M.JohnstonB. (2013). Materials in the classroom ecology. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 779–795.
13.
GuerrettazA.M.MathieuC.S.LeeS.BerwickA. (2022). Materials use in language classrooms: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 55, 547–564.
14.
HallJ.K. (2019). The contributions of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics to a usage based understanding of language: Expanding the transdisciplinary framework. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 80–94.
15.
HennessyS. (2025). Analysing educational dialogue around shared artefacts in technology-mediated contexts: A new coding framework. Classroom Discourse, 16(2), 172–206.
16.
HousenA.De ClercqB.KuikenF.VederI. (2019). Multiple approaches to complexity in second language research. Second Language Research, 35, 3–21.
17.
InfanteP.PoehnerM.E. (2022). Mediated development: A nexus of dialogic and material mediation in the second language classroom. In LaScotteD.K.MathieuC.S.DavidS.S. (Eds.), New perspectives on material mediation in language learner pedagogy (pp. 111–131). Springer.
18.
JakonenT. (2015). Handling knowledge: Using classroom materials to construct and interpret information requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 89, 100–112.
19.
KumpulainenK.RajalaA. (2016). Dialogic teaching and students’ discursive identity negotiation in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 48, 23–31.
20.
LiD.ZhangL. (2022). Exploring teacher scaffolding in a CLIL-framed EFL intensive reading class: A classroom discourse analysis approach. Language Teaching Research, 26, 333–360.
21.
LuX. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 192–208.
22.
MatsumotoY. (2019). Material moments: Teacher and student use of materials in multilingual writing classroom interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 179–204.
23.
McGrathI. (2021). Teaching materials and the roles of EFL/ESL teachers. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2018). China’s standards of English language ability. Higher Education Press.
26.
MooreN.ColdwellM.PerryE. (2021). Exploring the role of curriculum materials in teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 47, 331–347.
27.
OrtegaL. (2015). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 82–94.
28.
PhillipsonN.WegerifR. (2020). The thinking together approach to dialogic teaching. In ManaloE. (Ed.), Deeper learning, dialogic learning, and critical thinking: Research strategies for the classroom (pp. 32–46). Routledge.
29.
RoweM.L.SnowC.E. (2020). Analyzing input quality along three dimensions: Interactive, linguistic, and conceptual. Journal of Child Language, 47, 5–21.
30.
SaldañaJ. (2021). The coding manual of qualitative researchers. Sage.
31.
SnowC. (2018). Simple and not-so-simple views of reading. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 313–316.
32.
SkidmoreD. (2016). Pedagogy and dialogue. In SkidmoreD.MurakamiK. (Eds.), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning (pp. 98–111). Multilingual Matters.
33.
ThorneS.L.HellermannJ.JakonenT. (2021). Rewilding language education: Emergent assemblages and entangled actions. The Modern Language Journal, 105, 106–125.
34.
T-SEDA Collective (2022). Toolkit for Systematic Educational Dialogue Analysis (T-SEDA): A resource for inquiry into practice, version 8b. University of Cambridge. Available at: https://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/research/programmes/tseda (accessed June 2025).
35.
van LierL. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Kluwer Academic.
36.
VrikkiM.KershnerR.CalcagniE.HennessyS.LeeI.HernándezF.EstradaN.AhmedF. (2019). The teacher scheme for educational dialogue analysis (T-SEDA): Developing a research-based observation tool for supporting teacher inquiry into pupils’ participation in classroom dialogue. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(2), 185–203.
37.
WalshS. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge.
38.
WellsG. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1–37.
