Introduction

One of the essential tasks for foreign language teachers is to build an active atmosphere in the classroom and to increase the interactions in language acquisition, as teacher–student interactions improve classroom dynamics (Sandilos et al., 2023), promote the qualities of teaching and learning processes and outcomes (Hagenauer et al., 2023), and enhance students’ classroom well-being (Xiao et al., 2023). However, in traditional college classrooms in China, teaching activities are full of teachers’ “preach”. Teaching activities have evolved into teachers’ “personal shows”. At the same time, parts of students sleep in their classes and even play with mobile phones. The few teacher–student interactions in foreign language classes in China are low-quality and incomplete, most of which stop at the step of students’ feedback (Xu and Shu, 2020). In such classroom environments, some English teachers in China are loaded with high levels of teaching anxiety (Liu and Wu, 2021) and low levels of psychological well-being (Zhi and Derakhshan, 2024), the learning achievements cannot achieve the expected goals (Shen and Bai, 2024), and students’ learning interests cannot be encouraged (Peng and Wang, 2024). Thus, it is an urgent task for foreign language teachers and educators in China to find out the reasons that affect the interactions of foreign language teaching, try to draw students back to foreign language classes, and improve the quality of teacher–student interactions in foreign language teaching classes.

Literature review

Regardless of the language teaching theories in any era, almost all teachers agree that a teaching activity cannot be produced successfully without interaction (Yao, 2019). Because the interaction in language teaching is so ordinary, educators and learners have viewed interactive activities as an inseparable part of teaching activities. They have ignored studying classroom interaction independently for a long time (Xu and Shu, 2020). The first scholar who scientifically studied classroom interaction is Garfinkel (1974). He provided a methodological foundation for classroom interaction studies. Based on Garfinkel’s research method, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) proposed an IRF (Initiation–Response–Follow-up) model for studying classroom interaction. However, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) paid more attention to the static description of language use in classroom interactions and the discourse analysis of the classroom interactive languages rather than the profound relationship between classroom interaction and teaching activities. Hatch (1978) is the first scholar to discuss the relationship between classroom interaction of language learning and the acquisition of language structure. Mehan (1979) proposed an IRE (Initiation–Response–Evaluation) model of classroom interaction, emphasising the influence of teacher evaluation on classroom interaction. Since the 1980s, the study of classroom interaction has become one of the essential topics in the study of second language acquisition (Eckerth 2009).

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the study of classroom interaction in language teaching has focused on the following three aspects: the effects of classroom interaction on language learning (Bao, 2014; Bitchener, 2004; Kim, 2008; Leeman, 2003; McDonough and Mackey, 2008; Newton, 2013; Saito and Akiyama, 2017), the factors that affect classroom interaction in foreign language teaching (Lee and Ng, 2010; Liu and Jackson, 2014; Liu and Qi, 2021; Peng and Woodrow, 2010; Peng, 2019; Xie, 2010; Zhong, 2013), and the strategies to promote classroom interactions (Ding, 2021; Ma et al., 2024; Querol-Julián, 2023; Shahverdi et al., 2023).

Effects of Teacher-Student interaction on language learning

English has become a lingua franca, studied and used worldwide. Due to the cultural and environmental differences, the effects of teacher support (including teacher–student interaction) on learning outcomes varied. Teacher behaviour affected learners’ academic performance more significantly in a place that lacked a linguistic environment for learning English, such as China (Yao, 2022) and Iran (Sadoughi and Hejazi, 2021), than in a place where English is widely used, such as most countries in Europe (Calafato, 2024; Rød and Calafato, 2023), as learners who acquire English in an English immersion environment can access English after class (Schurz and Sundqvist, 2022; Sundqvist and Olin-Scheller, 2013). Previous studies have explored the effects of teacher–student interaction on English acquisition, especially in a place that lacked a linguistic environment for learning English. They have found classroom interactions are beneficial to students’ acquisition of grammar, phonetics, and vocabulary, such as improving learners’ lexical skills (Leeman, 2003) and syntactic skills (McDonough and Mackey, 2008), increasing learners’ chances of acquiring foreign language words (Newton, 2013), and improving learners’ vocabulary test scores (Kim, 2008); other studies have found that classroom interactions are beneficial to students in their using of English, such as increasing learners’ frequency of correcting their speech (Bitchener, 2004), improving the accuracy of speech acquisition (Bao, 2014), and helping learners use the target vocabulary flexibly (Saito and Akiyama, 2017). However, some scholars deny that classroom interactions can affect teaching results. For example, the study by Parlak and Ziegler (2017) reported that no matter whether in a traditional teaching model or a computer-assisted teaching model, classroom interactions do not have a significant impact on the acquisition of the stress of pronunciation.

Factors affected Teacher-Student interactions

On the topic of studying factors that affect classroom interactions, the findings obtained by scholars are pretty diverse. These factors include learners’ psychological factors, teaching factors, and cultural factors.

On learners’ psychological factors

Liu and Jackson (2014) and Peng and Woodrow (2010) have found that students with weak target language skills cannot communicate with each other in classroom interactions in their target language, which increases students’ anxiety levels, weakens their motivations to acquire a foreign language, and decreases their motivations of taking part in classroom interactions. Liu and Qi (2021) have explored the relationship between classroom interactions, emotional resistance, and learning autonomy. They have found that emotional resistance has a significant negative impact while learning autonomy has a significant positive impact on the effect of teacher–student interaction.

On teaching factors

Lee and Ng (2010) have reported that all the factors, such as teaching goals, teaching tasks, teaching activities, and learners’ target language abilities, affect classroom interactions. Xie (2010) held a similar view to Lee and Ng (2010). According to his view, Chinese teachers are accustomed to teacher-centred teaching methods, which is the main factor that affects classroom interactions. Peng (2019) analysed the factors that affected classroom interactions from the teacher’s perspective. His study reported that teachers’ voices and facial expressions could convey enthusiasm and affirmation to students, which may decrease learners’ learning anxiety and encourage them to participate in classroom interactions.

On cultural factors

Zhong (2013) has studied classroom interactions from a cultural perspective. According to his findings, most Chinese learners highlight giving correct answers in an examination rather than communicating fluently with a foreigner; in addition, frequent interactions in a classroom may be seen by others as self-exhibition. These cultural factors affect Chinese learners’ classroom interactions.

Strategies to promote Teacher-Student interactions

Scholars have focused on ways to promote classroom interactions. Ding (2021) reported that Chinese classrooms lacked an interactional climate. She proposed nine interpersonal communication skills/strategies to promote classroom interactions, which included care, confirmation, clarity, credibility, stroke, immediacy, rapport, humour, and praise. Ma and colleagues (2024) suggested that teachers promote teacher–student interaction with four strategies, including setting higher-order interactive goals, providing multidimensional advancement of interactive content, applying diversified and three-dimensional interaction methods, and using rich and intelligent interactive media. Querol-Julián (2023) proposed that giving more patience to students, teaching with emotional intelligence, and scaffolding should be ways to promote teacher–student interaction. Shahverdi and colleagues (2023) have reported that teachers can overcome obstacles to creating effective interactions with reflective questions along with descriptive ones.

The language socialisation theory

Scholars have paid much attention to the relationship between language, society, and culture for a long time. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Sapir 1929) originated in the 1920s has proposed the relationship between language, culture, and thinking. With the rise and growth of Sociolinguistics, the relationship between language and social factors has been paid more and more attention. Referenced to previous sociolinguists’ viewpoints, Schieffelin and Ochs (1986) proposed the concept of language socialisation. In the early days, when this concept was put forward, linguists mainly paid attention to language socialisation in first language acquisition, trying to find out the relationship between language socialisation and first language acquisition. With the development of language socialisation theories, linguists have discovered that language socialisation also exists in foreign/second language acquisition. In recent years, the language socialisation theory has become a critical research perspective in foreign/second language acquisition studies.

Several scholars have studied theories of language socialisation (Brown and Gaskins, 2014; Duff, 2007; Garrett and Baquedano-López, 2002; Schecter and Bayley, 2007; Schieffelin and Ochs, 1986; Watson-Gegeo and Nielsen, 2003). They gave different definitions of language socialisation. However, there are some similarities in their definitions. All their theories spotlight the inseparability of language and culture. They believe that both children’s and adults’ language acquisition must be a combination of the language learning process and cultural learning process. The language socialisation theories have many similarities with other theories about language and culture on the issue of language acquisition (Duff, 2007); they view language learning from the perspective of the combination of society, culture, interaction, and cognition, emphasising teachers’ guiding role in language learning activities. However, unlike other social and cultural theories, language socialisation theories emphasise the learner-centred approach. These theories believe that the language acquisition process is a learning process in which learners communicate with their instructor actively according to their needs, rather than accepting their instructor’s “guidance” passively. Language socialisation theories highlight the context of language acquisition. These theories believe that language acquisition is not a personal behaviour; the language and cultural ability of the learner’s group is an essential factor that affects language socialisation and language acquisition. These theories call attention to “feedback” in language acquisition and believe that language practice and cultural practice are vital factors that affect language acquisition. Language socialisation theories attach importance to languages’ cultural and communicative functions and emphasise the inlaid nature of language and culture. These theories believe that the acquisition of a language requires not only mastering the vocabulary and grammar of a language but also mastering the social and cultural features embodied in the language (Brown and Gaskins, 2014). In short, viewpoints such as emphasising learners’ central position in language acquisition, the inseparability of language and culture, and acquiring a language in language use are the most prominent features of the language socialisation theories (Duff, 2007). The current study will examine teacher–student interactions in college English classes in China under the language socialisation theory by Duff (2007) and try to find whether an interaction that meets the requirements of the language socialisation theory will be successful.

Gaps in previous studies of Teacher-Student interaction

The studies mentioned above have revealed the impact of classroom interaction on teaching effects, factors that affect classroom interactions, and methods to promote classroom interactions. These findings are essential to study classroom interaction and language acquisition further. In particular, the studies on Chinese learners’ interactions in English classes are of great benefit to improving English teaching as a foreign language in China, even worldwide. English is a compulsory course in China for students from primary education to postgraduate education. Researchers and teachers have explored ways to improve English acquisition. At the current time, teachers in China prefer an English immersion teaching approach (Yao, 2022), paying more attention to the acquisition of language skills but ignoring the acquisition of cultural knowledge (Wang and Jiang, 2020; Yao, 2017). Other English teachers prefer a context-based “production-oriented” English teaching approach (Zhang, 2020), as they believe that context can play a prominent role in helping learners recognise vocabulary ambiguity (Zhao and Dong, 2009) and promoting the compilation of English textbooks (Luo, 2015). However, teachers in China do not pay enough attention to teacher–student interactions in English classes. According to the authors’ knowledge, no study reveals the frequency of classroom interaction in college English classes in China and the factors that affected Chinese learners’ classroom interactions. Furthermore, although scholars have proposed some strategies to promote teacher–student interaction, particular strategies that promote Chinese learners’ interactions in English classes are still required. That is to say, topics of Chinese learners’ teacher–student interaction in an English class need to be studied deeply. The language socialisation theories originated from studying mother tongue acquisition, emphasising language application (Perregaard, 2018). Since the theory was introduced into the study of foreign language acquisition, it has revealed the essential philosophy and the principle of foreign language acquisition, at least partially (Jiang and Zhang, 2020). Undoubtedly it is a new perspective to study teacher–student interaction in foreign language classes in China with language socialisation theories. Theoretically, the new perspective is beneficial to re-understanding and improving college English teaching in China.

About the current study

Based on the above analyses, the current study tries to answer the following three questions.

  1. 1.

    How frequently do successful teacher–student interactions occur during a 90-min English class in China? A successful teacher–student interaction includes initiation, response, and evaluation/feedback (Mehan, 1979). The study aimed to explore the frequency of successful teacher–student interactions in a 90-min English lecture in China.

  2. 2.

    What factors affected teacher–student interaction in English classes in China?

  3. 3.

    How can we promote teacher–student interaction in English classes in China?

Methodology

This empirical study documented teacher–student interactions in foreign language classes and analysed factors that affected them.

The Foreign language teaching in China for non-english major students

Foreign language education is compulsory in China. Most students choose English courses as their foreign language education. A national foreign language education policy delivered in 2020 says as follows: “College foreign language education is an important part of China’s higher education, and it is of great significance for promoting the coordinated development of college students’ knowledge, ability and comprehensive quality (University Foreign Language Teaching Steering Committee of the Ministry of Education, 2020).” The policy encourages universities to formulate their unique teaching models on their education aims.

The university selected for this study (C University, for some ethical issues, the university’s pseudonym is used here) is an ordinary undergraduate university. College English courses are compulsory for non-English majors in the university. Twenty teachers teach the course. According to the school’s policies, all the 20 teachers who taught the course are required to design the teaching plan and prepare the teaching activities collectively every week, aimed to guarantee that all the learners at this university acquire similar knowledge with similar learning progress in similar teaching methods.

Participants

A total of 4013 first-year students were enroled in C University in 2020. As there is no requirement for students’ minimal score in each course, the first-year students’ English performance varies. After the enrolment, all first-year students participated in an English examination. Then, they were classified into three levels (Level A, Level B, and Level C) and arranged into 60 English teaching classes according to their English skills. Each teaching class had 60 to 70 students. The top 600 to 700 students studied in ten A-level classes, and the bottom 600 to 700 students studied in ten C-level classes. The other students studied in 40 B-level classes. After learning the course of college English for two years, those in A-level classes can research the level of CET-6 (College English Test Bound Six), an English level in China equal to B2 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, and those in B-level can research the level of CET-4 (College English Test Bound Four), an English level in China equal to B1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. All participants in the current study were in B-level classes.

Twenty English teachers conducted English teaching in the 40 B-level classes. They prepared the teaching activities collectively. However, there are still some differences in teaching effects for each teacher. Ms H’s class is recognised by others as the most active class, with more teacher–student interactions. The study was scheduled to analyse factors that affected teacher–student interaction in college English classes by comparing two English classes (one English class with more teacher–student interactions and another English class with ordinary teacher–student interactions). Therefore, Ms H’s English class was selected as one of the investigated English classes. The study recorded and analysed Ms H’s teaching activities in a 90-min lecture. As the classroom atmospheres in other teachers’ lectures were similar to each other, the study selected a lecture on the same day as Ms H’s lecture, which Ms L taught. There were 58 students in Ms H’s teaching class. All of them attended the class when the authors observed the class. Among them, 28 were male students, and 20 were female students. The youngest one was 17 years old, the oldest one was 20 years old, and their average age was 18.3. There were 59 students in Ms L’s teaching class, but two students were absent when the authors observed the class. Among them, 22 were female students, and 27 were male students. The youngest one was 17 years old, the oldest one was 21 years old, and their average age was 18.6.

Data collection

One morning in November 2020, the research team (the two authors) walked into Ms H’s English teaching class directly without informing her in advance. After obtaining the permission of the teacher and students, the research team observed and recorded the teacher–student interactions in Ms H’s class. The observation was unstructured. The research team observed and wrote down the teacher–student interactions in the class. To avoid losing some vital information, the research team recorded the class with a video. With the permission of the teacher and the students, the research team reviewed the video several times after class and completed the observation data. In the afternoon of the same day, the research team observed and recorded the teacher–student interactions in Ms L’s class with the same procedure and method. As the college English teaching group at C University designed and prepared teaching plans and teaching procedures collectively, both Ms H and Ms L taught the exact text with the same teaching methods on the observation day. Both teachers’ teaching content and teaching methods were the same, which was very convenient for analysing and comparing the teacher–student interactions in different teachers’ lectures.

Data analysis

Based on Mehan (1979), the research team set up the criteria to distinguish a successful teacher–student interaction. Firstly, a successful teacher–student interaction should include initiation, response, and evaluation/feedback; secondly, the evaluation or feedback can be verbal or nonverbal; thirdly, keeping silence cannot be regarded as feedback. After obtaining the agreement of the participants, two authors reviewed the videos several times back-to-back. The review results of the first round revealed that there were ten teacher–student interactions in Ms H’s class and one or two in Ms L’s class. After several re-reviews of the videos and consultations with a sociolinguist, the two authors agreed on the results that there were two successful teacher–student interactions in Ms L’s class. Then, the authors explained factors that affected the success or failure of teacher–student interactions in Ms H’s and Ms L’s class based on language socialisation theory (Duff, 2007) cooperatively. The sociolinguist evaluated the two authors’ opinions. She disagreed with the authors’ explanation of one teacher–student interaction. After a discussion, the authors changed their explanation to the teacher–student interaction. At last, the study obtained the final explanations for the findings.

Findings

Ms H and Ms L taught the class with the same textbook Zoom In: An Integrated English Course (Qin and Zhang, 2014). During the class observation, both taught the third unit of the textbook, an essay entitled A Time for Memories, written by Sharon Wright. The essay includes 13 paragraphs. In the 90-min lectures, Ms H and Ms L completed the teaching task of analysing eight paragraphs of the essay. During the teaching process, there were ten teacher–student interactions in Ms H’s class, eight of which were initiated by the teacher and another two of which by the students. In contrast, there were eight teacher–student interactions in Ms L’s class. The teacher initiated all of them. As Xu and Shu (2020) have reported student-student interactions in college English classes in China, the current study focused on teacher–student interactions in college English classes solely. The teacher–student interactions in Ms H’s and Ms L’s classes are reported in detail as follows.

Teacher-Student interactions initiated by teachers

As the 20 teachers designed and prepared the English course collectively, Ms H and Ms L initiated the teacher–student interaction at the same teaching stage. However, the effects of teacher–student interactions in their classes were quite different.

The first interaction initiated by teachers

The first teacher–student interaction occurred during the warming-up activities, in which both teachers invited their students to share a memorable event with their peers. However, the two teachers initiated the teacher–student interactions in different ways. Before inviting students to share their stories, Ms H shared her story about travelling abroad with her parents. After three students shared their stories, Ms H appreciated their rich experiences, wonderful life, and high English language skills. Ms H succeeded in her first teacher–student interaction. Before inviting students to share their stories, Ms H shared in advance, which means that in Ms H’s mind, students and teachers are equal to each other in class learning. Ms H’s interaction philosophy is similar to the student-centred teaching approach, highlighting targeted problem-solving and questioning strategies rather than correcting student mistakes (Woods and Copur-Gencturk, 2024). Maybe this is one of the reasons that Ms H can succeed in her teacher–student interaction.

Unlike Ms H, Ms L invited her students to share their memorable stories directly. Two students were asked to answer this question, but both kept silent. Another student being asked to answer the question only said “I don’t know” to his teacher and peers. A class interaction should include three sections: Initiation, Response, and Evaluation (Mehan, 1979). The student offered a low-qualified response to his teacher’s question. It was hard for his teacher to give the student an evaluation. Therefore, the first teacher–student interaction in Ms L’s class failed. The teacher had to move on to other teaching tasks.

The second interaction initiated by teachers

The second teacher–student interaction occurred during the fast reading activities. Ms H asked her students to read and analyse the essay’s structure. After the fast reading activities, students shared their opinions about the structure of the essay. Some students thought that the essay could be divided into three parts, but other students regarded a five-part structure. Then Ms H asked students to have a debate with each other. After the students’ debate, Ms H gave and explained her opinion in detail. After another discussion with each other, Ms H and her students made a final decision about the structure of the essay. Ms H succeeded in her second teacher–student interaction. The second teacher–student interaction in Ms H’s class also met the philosophy of a student-centred teaching approach, highlighting targeted problem-solving and questioning strategies rather than correcting student mistakes (Woods and Copur-Gencturk, 2024). Maybe this is one of the reasons that Ms H can succeed in her teacher–student interaction.

On the contrary, Ms L asked her students to read and share their opinions about the essay’s structure. Unfortunately, no one was willing to answer Ms L’s question. Ms L gave up the interaction and explained her opinion directly. She failed her interaction again.

The third interaction initiated by teachers

The third teacher–student interaction occurred in analysing the first paragraph of the essay. In this part, the essay’s author revealed her memories of playing in the park with her parents when she was a child. Before learning this part, Ms H introduced the different viewpoints of nursing children between Chinese and Western parents and then asked her students to recall the most impressive things with their parents. Two students took the initiative to share their stories, which were about how their parents helped them with their homework and how their parents encouraged them to produce academic achievements. After the students finished their story, Ms H summarised the different opinions on education between Chinese and Western cultures. Ms H succeeded in her third teacher–student interaction. In the third teacher–student interaction, Ms H highlighted both language skills and cultural knowledge, which met the requirements of the language socialisation theories (Duff, 2007). Maybe this is one of the reasons that Ms H can succeed in her teacher–student interaction.

Ms L initiated a teacher–student interaction in learning this part as well. She invited two students to share one of their most memorable things with their parents. One of the students only said, “I don’t know”, and then stopped the interaction. Another student shared his story, but halfway, he ended his story as he could not express himself in English. After Ms L heard the student’s half-story, she asked the students to read more English essays and practice oral English after class. This teacher–student interaction can be seen as a successful one in Ms L’s class. However, Ms L’s interaction is low-quality and incomplete as her conversations stopped at the step of students’ feedback (Xu and Shu, 2020).

The fourth interaction initiated by teachers

The fourth teacher–student interaction occurred in analysing the second paragraph of the essay. The English word “date” appeared in this part, meaning a romantic meeting between two persons. Chinese students tend to confuse this word with “conference”, which refers to a business meeting. When explaining this word, Ms H shared an experience of her first date in advance and then asked her students to describe their first date or imagine what their first date would be like. In answering this question, one student expressed herself by gestures rather than some English words as she could not express herself well in English. Seeing this situation, Ms H allowed the student to answer the question in Chinese, but the student was required to invite one of her peers to translate what she said into English. After the two students finished the task corporately, Ms L explained the differences between “date” and “conference” semantically, and then asked students to use the word “date” to make sentences. Ms H succeeded in her fourth teacher–student interaction. On the contrary, when Ms L asked the same question to her students, no one responded to her. Ms L had to end her interaction. She failed her interaction for the third time. Ms H explained the meaning of new words with context and paid much attention to language use. Maybe this is one of the reasons that Ms H can succeed in her teacher–student interaction.

The fifth interaction initiated by teachers

The fifth interaction occurred in analysing the third paragraph of the essay. In this paragraph, the author of the essay described the relationship with her mother with a metaphor of a growing pine tree. After Ms H asked her students to think about what rhetoric method the author used in this paragraph, a student answered “metaphor” in Chinese immediately. Ms H admitted that the student’s answer was correct, but she preferred the student to answer the question in English. Another student looked up the word in a dictionary and answered the question in English. After the two students corporately gave the correct answer to the question, Ms H introduced the popular rhetoric methods in English. She explained the similarities and differences between Chinese and English rhetoric methods. Ms H succeeded in her fifth teacher–student interaction. Ms L asked the same question as well, but no student responded to her question. Ms L gave up the teacher–student interaction and introduced the popular rhetoric methods in English directly. Ms L failed her classroom interaction. In the fifth teacher–student interaction, Ms H negotiated questions with students, and Ms L commended her students. Ms H’s teaching is more like a student-centred approach, while Ms L’s teaching is more like a teacher-centred approach. Maybe this is one of the reasons that the two interactions get different results.

The sixth interaction initiated by teachers

The sixth interaction occurred in analysing the fourth paragraph of the essay. In this paragraph, the mother talked about death with the essay’s author. Ms H introduced the similarities and differences in attitude towards death between Chinese and Western cultures and then invited a student to share his viewpoints on death. The student was not confident enough in his spoken English and did not know how to express himself in English. Ms H allowed the student to answer questions in Chinese, and at the same time, she invited another student to translate what the first student said into English. In this way, the two students gave an excellent answer to Ms H’s question corporately. Ms H evaluated the two students’ answers highly for their novel ideas and their cooperation skills. In addition, she expressed her expectations that the first student was required to answer questions directly in English next time. Ms H succeeded in her sixth teacher–student interaction. In this teacher–student interaction, Ms H focused on both English skills and Western culture, which met the requirements of the language socialisation theory (Duff, 2007). Maybe this is one of the reasons that Ms H can succeed in her teacher–student interaction.

Ms L invited two students to answer the same question as well. Both students told Ms L that they had no idea about the question. Ms L stopped her teacher–student interaction and explained the similarities and differences in viewpoints towards death between Chinese and Western cultures directly.

The seventh interaction initiated by teachers

The seventh interaction occurred in analysing the fifth paragraph of the essay. The author and her mother talked about death in previous paragraphs. In this paragraph, the mother kept silent. Ms H asked her students to think about why the mother became silent. Two students gave their opinions on this question. One’s opinion was as follows: the mother wanted to live for a long time; when she thought of death, she was depressed; therefore, she became silent. Another student believed that the mother was sad when she thought her daughter would feel alone after she died, which was the reason that the mother became silent. Ms H agreed with their opinions and believed both opinions were reasonable. In addition, Ms H told her students that readers should ask some questions when they read essays; in this way, readers could develop their reading and critical thinking abilities. Ms H succeeded in her seventh teacher–student interaction. In the teacher–student interaction, Ms H encouraged students and appreciated students’ opinions. She discussed questions with students, which met the philosophy of a student-centred teaching approach, highlighting targeted problem-solving and questioning strategies rather than correcting student mistakes (Woods and Copur-Gencturk, 2024). Maybe this is one of the reasons that Ms H can succeed in her teacher–student interaction.

Ms L asked the same question to her students as well, but no volunteer among her students was willing to answer the question. A student was forced to answer this question by Ms L. He believed the mother kept silent because she did not know how to answer her daughter’s question. Ms L continued the discussion with the student and asked whether he could give more reasons. The student said that he could not give out more reasons. Ms L gave high evaluations to the student for his excellent academic performance. After Ms L gave her opinions about this question, she completed her teacher–student interaction successfully.

The eighth interaction initiated by teachers

The eighth interaction occurred in analysing the seventh paragraph and the eighth paragraph of the essay. In these two paragraphs, the mother told the author of the essay that she would die in a short period of days. Ms H introduced how the Western culture viewed death and how Western hospitals communicated with patients in advance if the patient would die. Then she invited her students to share their opinions about the different ways of communicating with patients between Chinese and Western cultures. Three students answered this question. Then, Ms H evaluated the students’ answers and gave her opinions. Ms H succeeded in her teacher–student interaction. Ms L introduced the viewpoints towards death in Western culture and the relationship between illness and personal privacy in Western society and then invited her students to share their opinions about death and privacy. Unfortunately, none of her students was willing to answer these questions. Ms L stopped the teacher–student interaction and gave her views on the issues. She failed the teacher–student interaction.

Both Ms H and Ms L highlighted language and culture in the eighth teacher–student interaction, but the results were different. Ms H prefers a student-centred teaching approach, and her students like interacting with her. Ms L prefers a teacher-centred teaching approach, and her students are used to learning English passively. The two teachers and their students are accustomed to their teaching approaches. Although Ms L highlighted culture in the eighth interaction, her students did not like interacting with her. The eighth interactions between the two teachers and their students reveal that language socialisation theories (Duff, 2007) are complicated theories. It is unpractical to promote teacher–student interaction with one principle of language socialisation theories mechanically.

Teacher-Student interaction initiated by students

Student-initiated interaction refers to a kind of teacher–student interaction in which students (or one student) initiate(s) a question, the teacher responds to the question, and then, the students give feedback to their teacher. During the observation period, there were two teacher–student interactions initiated by students, both of which took place in Ms H’s class.

The first interaction initiated by students

The first teacher–student interaction initiated by students occurred in analysing the second paragraph of the essay. An expression of “the facts of life” was used in this paragraph. Ms H told her students this was a euphemism and then planned to analyse other parts of the essay. At this time, a student asked Ms H about the definition of euphemism and the differences between Chinese and English euphemisms. Ms H answered these questions in detail. After Ms H’s explanation, the student gave some examples of euphemisms in Chinese and English and asked whether his examples were correct. Ms H appreciated the student’s critical thinking abilities. The teacher–student interaction initiated by students ended successfully for the first time.

The second interaction initiated by students

The second teacher–student interaction initiated by students occurred in analysing the fourth paragraph of the essay. The word “sunny” was used in this paragraph. A student asked the teacher to help them summarise the words related to the weather. Ms H introduced the words such as “rainy”, “windy”, “snowy”, “gloomy”, “foggy”, “drizzle”, and “shower”. At the same time, she searched for pictures related to the words on the internet. After her introduction, Ms H asked students to remember these words. Then, Ms H asked the students to summarise the words related to time and related to season after class. The teacher–student interaction initiated by students ended successfully for the second time. After the teacher–student interaction, Ms H continued her teaching activities.

Discussion

This study observed two teaching classes and found that the frequency of teacher–student interaction in college English classes in China varied, ranging from two to ten times in a 90-min lecture. The study also aimed to analyse the factors that affected teacher–student interactions in college English classes. Both Ms H and Ms L were young lecturers at C University. They taught the same essay with the same methods. Both of them initiated eight teacher–student interactions, but the results were different. Ms H was unique among the 20 teachers as her class was recognised as the most active one. Ms L was not unique among the 20 teachers. Her class was similar to other teachers’ classes. With the comparison of Ms H’s class and Ms L’s class, the study analysed the factors that affected teacher–student interactions in Chinese universities. The language socialisation theory by Duff (2007) served as a guiding theory in the process of analysing factors that affected teacher–student interactions in college English classes in Chinese universities.

Teacher-Student equality: a precondition of Teacher-Student interaction

In traditional Chinese culture, teachers are superior to their students, like fathers to their sons in Chinese families. In a teaching activity, the teacher is in a leading position and has the power to decide what to teach and how to teach; students are required to do what the teacher asks them to do passively. In teacher–student interactions, students are responsible for answering questions and accepting evaluations from their teachers. The teacher–student interactions are viewed as methods for teachers to check their students’ knowledge.

The data from the observation showed that Ms L implemented the traditional Chinese teaching philosophy well in her class. She was only a question-maker and a judge and never lowered her position to discuss questions or share information with her students. From these findings, we conclude that Ms L regarded herself as the centre of the teaching activities, and students were required to follow her orders. The teacher–student interaction was a way for Ms L to control her students’ learning activities and to evaluate her students’ English skills. On the contrary, Ms H revealed a completely different teaching philosophy. Almost during every teacher–student interaction, she talked about her stories or shared her viewpoints as a student did in advance and then invited her students to participate in teacher–student interactions. The teacher–student interactions initiated by students in Ms H’s class were other examples that revealed the equal relationship between Ms H and her students. From these findings, we conclude that Ms H regarded students as the centre of her teaching activities. The teacher–student interactions were methods for Ms H to help students cultivate their independent thinking abilities. Ms L and Ms H had different viewpoints on the relationship between teachers and students in language learning activities. The different viewpoints on the teacher–student relationship in language learning resulted in different social distances between teachers and students. There was a close social distance between Ms H and her students in her English class, thus resulting in more teacher–student interactions. On the contrary, there was a long social distance between Ms L and her students in her English class, which led to few teacher–student interactions. It was because of different viewpoints on the teacher–student relationship in language learning that Ms H and Ms L employed teacher–student interactions with different purposes, which resulted in different social distance between teachers and students in English classes and then ultimately led to different interaction effects.

A previous study has reported that Chinese teachers are accustomed to teacher-centred teaching methods, which is the main factor that affects classroom interaction (Xie, 2010). The current study obtained a similar finding to the previous one. However, the previous study (Xie, 2010) does not offer the reason why teacher-centred teaching methods affect classroom interactions. The current study reveals that an equitable/inequitable teacher–student relationship is an essential factor that affects teacher–student interactions in college English classes.

Emphasis on both language acquisition and cultural acquisition: a fundamental concept of Teacher-Student Interaction

The Chinese official document entitled College English Teaching Guide (2020 Edition) stipulated the aims of college English: to cultivate students’ English application abilities, to enhance students’ cross-cultural communication awareness and communication skills, to develop students’ autonomous learning abilities, and to cultivate students’ humanistic spirit and the critical thinking abilities (University Foreign Language Teaching Steering Committee of the Ministry of Education, 2020). However, practically, teachers and students pay more attention to English language skills. They highlight students’ scores of CET-4 and CET-6. In some universities, those who do not pass the CET-4 cannot obtain Bachelor’s degrees. Missing a degree means more difficulties in finding a job. In class teaching, teachers tend to spend more time acquiring English skills related to CET-4 and CET-6 directly while paying less attention to cultural knowledge. With this teaching philosophy, teachers prefer an English immersion teaching approach in a college English class, in which teachers and students only speak English (Yao, 2022). They believe that an immersion English environment helps students input more English, resulting in more English productions. Ms L employed this teaching philosophy in her class. In the third teacher–student interaction, when students did not know how to express themselves in English and kept silent, Ms L immediately ended the teacher–student interaction. However, Ms H’s teaching philosophy was different from Ms L. She paid attention to improving students’ language skills and cultural knowledge. When students could not express themselves in English during the teacher–student interaction, Ms H allowed her students to look up the word in a dictionary (the fifth interaction) or allowed them to express their viewpoints in Chinese and then invited other students to translate what previous students said into English (the sixth interaction). The different viewpoints towards the teaching goals of college English led to considerable differences in teacher–student interactions between the two teachers.

Language and its related culture are two sides of one coin. They cannot separate from each other. The outcomes of a foreign language acquisition include not only linguistic proficiency but also intercultural competence. Intercultural competence training equips educators with skills to navigate diverse cultural dynamics in the classroom. The aims of a foreign language education are not just about teaching foreign language skills but also preparing students to navigate the complexities of a globalised world by fostering an understanding of diverse cultural perspectives. Previous studies (Wang and Jiang, 2020; Yao, 2017) have reported that paying more attention to acquiring language skills but ignoring the acquisition of cultural knowledge leads to lousy learning performance. The current study found that paying more attention to the acquisition of language skills but ignoring the acquisition of cultural knowledge resulted in a low frequency of teacher–student interaction in English classes. The results of previous studies and the current study have some indirect cause-effect relationships. Maybe the lousy learning performance increases the low frequency of teacher–student interaction, or maybe the low frequency of teacher–student interaction worsens the learning performance.

Appropriate context: an essential factor for teacher–student interactions

In some countries where English is widely used, learners can learn the English language and experience the related culture outside of school (Calafato, 2024; Rød and Calafato, 2023; Schurz and Sundqvist, 2022; Sundqvist and Olin-Scheller, 2013). However, China lacks a linguistic environment for learning English, as native Chinese speakers have few opportunities to speak English in their home country (Author 2022). Therefore, English teaching in China requires establishing an appropriate context. A good context contributes to the achievements of language learning and culture learning. A target language environment can enhance target language input in foreign language acquisition (Kang et al., 2021; Krüger, 2023) and increase learners’ confidence and motivation to continue their learning activities (MacCann et al., 2014). A previous study (Zhang, 2020) has reported that a context-based “production-oriented” English teaching approach can improve the effect of college English acquisition. In addition, context plays a prominent role in helping learners recognise vocabulary ambiguity (Zhao and Dong, 2009) and promoting the compilation of English textbooks (Luo, 2015).

The data from the classroom observation revealed that Ms H is good at creating context and initiating teacher–student interactions. In the fourth teacher–student interaction, Ms H created a context of her first date, through which she helped students distinct the two words “date” and “conference”, leading to a successful teacher–student interaction. However, Ms L did not create any context and explained the semantic similarities and differences between the two words directly, which caused the failure of teacher–student interactions. Previous studies have not yet analysed the factors that affect teacher–student interactions from the perspective of setting up contexts in foreign language acquisition, and the discovery of the influence of a context on teacher–student interaction in foreign language acquisition in the current study is a new achievement in the field of teacher–student interaction studies.

Pedagogical implications of the study

The findings revealed that the relationship between teachers and students in an English class, teachers’ viewpoints on the nature of a foreign language acquisition, and the context in which a foreign language is acquired are essential factors that affect teacher–student interaction in college English classes in China. Creating an active classroom atmosphere, enhancing teacher–student classroom interaction, and cultivating English application abilities are the goals of college English teaching in China (University Foreign Language Teaching Steering Committee of the Ministry of Education, 2020). The study delivers the following teaching suggestions based on the findings of the current study, aimed to promote teacher–student interactions and cultivate students’ English application ability. Firstly, teachers are encouraged to promote the “student-centred” teaching concept in college English teaching, put down their status, and integrate into course learning as learners, which is beneficial to create a relaxed and harmonious language acquisition environment. Secondly, it is essential to clarify the educational goals and teaching goals of college English and select teaching methods according to students’ English ability. Teachers are required to create opportunities for those who are weak at English listening and speaking to participate in teacher–student interactions. Thirdly, it is essential to establish a vivid learning environment with the help of diversified teaching methods and teaching equipment, which is beneficial for students to understand new knowledge. A previous study has reported that one of the factors that affect language learning effectiveness is the amount of understandable language input rather than the amount of language input (Yao, 2022). Therefore, teachers should create context through various means to help students understand the learning knowledge and thus improve learning effects. Fourthly, the study delivered three suggestions to promote teacher–student interactions based on English education in China. As there are many similarities in the English education policy and pedagogy between countries in Asia (Fenton-Smith et al., 2017), the findings of the current study can be referenced by other Asian countries as well.

Limitations of the current study and suggestions for future studies

Looking back on the study, we find several limitations. Firstly, language socialisation theories are diverse. They have different connotations in different scholars’ definitions (Garrett and Baquedano-López, 2002; Schecter and Bayley, 2007; Schieffelin and Ochs, 1986). The study analysed the factors that affected teacher–student interaction in classes with three points of language socialisation theory delivered by Duff (2007). Maybe the findings can be analysed by other aspects of the language socialisation theories in a different way. Secondly, the study takes only two classes in one university as research examples, which is weak to the diversity of the research subjects. It is better to enlarge the research subjects in future studies. Thirdly, the study delivered some teaching suggestions based on its findings. However, all the suggestions are not examined by teaching practice. Whether these suggestions are helpful in teaching activities is still in the dark.

The limitations of the current study should be overcome in the future. It is necessary to examine teacher–student interaction with other language socialisation theories, which can help understand teacher–student interactions, language acquisition, and the relationship between language and culture deeply and clearly. Future studies need to investigate teacher–student interactions of more learners, especially learners from different countries and cultures. Only in this way can we get universal theories about teacher–student interactions. It is strongly suggested to test the teaching suggestions delivered by the current study in teaching practice. Only a suggestion examined by teaching practice is a real suggestion that can guide teaching activities.

Conclusion

Language is both a communication instrument and a culture. A well-known learning philosophy of learning through interactions is the best way to acquire a foreign language (Yao, 2019). After analysing and comparing the data from two lectures by Ms H and Ms L, the study has answered the research questions delivered previously. The frequency of teacher–student interaction in college English classes in China varied, ranging from two to ten times in a 90-min lecture. The factors that affect teacher–student interactions include the teacher–student relationship, the understanding of language acquisition, and the viewpoint on the function of a context in foreign language acquisition. As teacher–student interactions are fundamental elements in foreign language learning, the study suggested that teachers set up a student-friendly and vivid learning environment with the help of diversified teaching methods and teaching equipment, teaching English with clear-reaching goals. These suggestions promote teacher–student interactions in a college English class potentially.

This study is only an explorative study of teacher–student interactions among Chinese college students with a language socialisation theory. The findings obtained from the study are only based on 180-minute observations of two teachers’ lectures at C University. In the future, more studies in related fields are required to find the fundamental factors that affect teacher–student interactions in English classes. It is believable that the studies of teacher–student interactions in foreign language acquisition classes will receive more attention from scholars, especially those interested in teaching English in China.