Exploring social justice dialogues in EFL conversation clubs: discursive moves and affordances

ABSTRACT

There has recently been a growing interest in social justice language education, with the goal of challenging entrenched social, cultural and economic hierarchies within educational institutions and the society at large. Contributing to this line of research, the present study focused on an online conversation club that aimed to develop EFL learners’ communicative skills and critical literacy through the discussion of social justice issues which have traditionally been deemed ‘taboo’ and ‘controversial’. Data were collected online via demographic information survey, the recordings of the conversation club sessions, facilitator’s field notes and reflective journals, and student interviews. The results revealed several discursive moves adopted by EFL learners, which mostly revolved around that's our responsibility vs others in relation to environmental issues; and that’s the government’s-job when it comes to themes related to immigration. The findings illustrated the potential of social justice-oriented conversation clubs to foster diverse perspectives and authentic conversation in language classrooms, and to cultivate EFL learners’ critical literacy. The study provides insights into how language educators can integrate social justice issues into the language curriculum in ways that help language learners question their already-existing beliefs and take action for a socially just world.

KEYWORDS:

• Social justice, controversial issues, critical literacy, conversation clubs, english as a foreign language

Introduction

Social justice issues, those that relate to race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and so on, have traditionally been referred to as ‘controversial’, ‘emotionally charged’, ‘sensitive’ and ‘taboo’. A controversial issue can be described as ‘an unresolved question of public policy or any other social, historical, or political topics that generate significant and often emotionally charged disagreement’ (Kubota, 2015, p. 225). However, what social justice issues are deemed as ‘controversial’ in a particular context and how they are perceived and discussed vary widely across individuals, communities and societies. Historical events might lead to disputes as they may relate to national, cultural and religious group identities. They can also be sensitive – and not necessarily controversial – as they may remind people of painful and traumatic events.

Research on ‘controversial issues’ looked at teachers’ perspectives and experiences in various disciplines with few providing non-interventionist data through observations (Cassar et al., 2021; Cotton, 2006; Kello, 2016). The studies have underlined the importance of discussing these issues for improved educational outcomes (e.g. developing students’ critical thinking, interpersonal and language skills) and for the larger goal of achieving more egalitarian societies by engaging youth in policy analysis while cultivating advocacy and activism (Hand & Levinson, 2012; Hess, 2002; Pace, 2022). To the knowledge of the researchers, there is a notable gap in existing literature concerning the interactional dynamics of social justice discussions, particularly within English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms. This study, therefore, focuses on language learners’ in-the-moment discursive moves, that is, the specific actions and rhetorical strategies they adopt to express their ideas and arguments while engaging in these conversations. Scrutinising these discursive moves has the capacity to unveil the linguistic characteristics defining their stances on social justice matters, a prominence that becomes especially evident in instances where learners participate in online discussions using an additional language. Moreover, delving into the challenges and opportunities inherent in addressing such issues within EFL classrooms gains heightened significance. This is particularly relevant in a country like Turkiye, which hosts the largest number of refugees globally (UN Refugee Agency, 2023). Therefore, the present study, by focusing on an online conversation club, explores (a) the discursive moves taken by EFL learners while discussing social justice issues; and (b) the affordances and challenges involved in social justice-oriented conversation clubs.

Social justice language education (SJLE)

Underlining the political nature of language and language education, social justice language education (SJLE) aims to challenge the existing social, cultural and economic hierarchies that are extant in schools and the societies at large (Ortaçtepe Hart, 2023). The involvement of teachers and learners in utilising languages as a tool for educational and social transformation has been a focal point of practices aimed at humanisation and social justice (Ortega, 2021). SJLE draws upon various anti-oppressive, transformative frameworks such as feminist pedagogy (e.g. Granger & Gerlach, 2023), inclusive education (Jones, 2013) and antiracist pedagogy (e.g. Flores & Rosa, 2019; Wong & Ortega, 2023). Consequently, topics pertaining to sexism, racism, classism and ableism – previously deemed ‘taboo’ and ‘controversial’, leading to their widespread avoidance in language teaching materials (Gray, 2013; Risager, 2018), have started to draw the attention of language education scholars and practitioners. For instance, Kubota’s (2016) work based on a content-based Japanese course focusing on Japan's involvement in the Asia-Pacific War during World War 2, indicated how discussing ‘controversial’ topics can help promote language learners’ critical literacy. Being at the heart of Freire’s (2005) critical pedagogy, critical literacy helps learners decode the power relations and socially constructed meanings embedded in various forms of multimodal texts and discourses (Luke, 2018; Ortaçtepe Hart, 2023). Huang’s (2012) study, for instance, illustrated how reading, researching and writing about child labour, gender and global warming enabled EFL learners to perceive their lives in relation to the world with an increased awareness of the role they played at personal, cultural, social, economic and political levels.

Despite these affordances, it is often difficult for teachers to address these issues in their classrooms as ‘what appears as sensitive or controversial in the classroom … much depends on pupils’ situated interpretations’ (Kello, 2016, p. 37). Studies have examined which topics were discussed most often, and which strategies were used by teachers to tackle them (Kello, 2016; Kubota, 2015; 2016). Kello’s (2016) study, for instance, revealed five positions when it comes to how teachers deal with ‘controversial’ issues in their classes: hiding or avoiding; finding common ground or smoothing edges; just doing the job; enhancing heterogeneity; and leaving the truth open. Focusing on language classrooms, Kubota (2015) mentioned two approaches: privilege vs. balanced approach. Balanced approach encourages diverse perspectives and teachers’ impartiality to develop learners’ critical thinking. However, the balanced approach could inadvertently foster the mistaken belief that all perspectives hold equal validity (Kubota, 2015). Conversely, the privilege approach recognises a teacher's standpoint on a particular issue and elevates marginalised perspectives to a central position in the curriculum. The approach can be potentially problematic for not allowing students to be open to diverse perspectives and develop arguments against opposing views (Kubota, 2015).

Considering the difficulties inherent in addressing social justice issues, particularly when unforeseen situations arise within the day-to-day classroom interactions, a structured, premeditated approach through conversation clubs emerges as a potential solution. Conversation clubs, by providing an extra-curricular space to discuss ‘controversial’ issues, have the potential to counter what is known as silenced dialogue, that is the messages conveyed through what is not said or done in the classroom (Freire, 2005). Deliberately placing social justice at the forefront of conversations, conversation clubs have the potential to motivate learners to participate in dialogues that may or may not always culminate in a consensus (Applebaum, 2009). In this approach, a facilitator assumes the role of selecting the topics for discussion. However, this is not done in a way to enforce their personal viewpoints or ideas: Once a topic is introduced to the club, learners take turns to discuss the topic, which allows all opinions to be heard and argued. Conversation clubs therefore not only facilitate learner interaction and engagement but the specific focus on ‘controversial’ issues that relate to different cultural, social, economic and political realms create opportunities for interdisciplinary learning (Cowan & Maitles, 2012).

Social justice language education in Turkiye

Over the past 20 years, Turkiye has been experiencing socio-cultural, economic and political challenges with concerns raised about issues such as human rights and the consolidation of power (Ortaçtepe Hart & Burhan-Horasanlı, 2023; O’Malley, 2021; Yazan et al., 2023). Despite the increasing numbers of gender-based violence and femicide in the country (Human Rights Watch, 2023), in 2021, Türkiye withdrew from the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (also known as the Istanbul Convention). Amidst rising anti-refugee racist rhetoric by politicians and in the media, the country hosts the largest refugee population in the world, with approximately 3.6 million Syrians and 500,000 asylum seekers from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan (Erdoğan & Erdoğan, 2020; UN Refugee Agency, 2023). This socio-political backdrop makes it crucial to explore issues related to diversity, equity and inclusion (EDI) and social justice in Turkiye’s language classrooms and beyond.

A handful of studies conducted in this context have clearly documented teachers’ lack of knowledge, expertise and experience in teaching social justice topics in English language classrooms. For instance, the STEPS project (Supporting Teachers Engagement in Pedagogies of Social Justice) aimed to prepare 120 pre-service and in-service teachers from different universities in both Turkiye and the US to work with culturally diverse student groups (Akayoğlu et al., 2022). The participating teachers indicated teaching diverse learner groups was challenging, highlighting a need to integrate social-justice courses within the teacher education curriculum. The Social Justice in ELT project (2022) aimed to raise pre-service English teachers’ awareness of social justice issues and their capacity to teach for social justice. Results indicated the affordances of socially just language teaching for developing learners’ academic writing (Yılmaz, Ortaçtepe Hart, and Durmus, forthcoming) and the ways in which language teachers can be educated to become teachers who can raise social justice and equity both within schools and in societies at large (Yılmaz, Ortaçtepe Hart, and Çelik, forthcoming). In addition to these two projects, a few studies explored culturally responsive teaching (Zorba, 2020), Socratic Pedagogy and English language teachers’ critical awareness (Balbay, 2019), and translanguaging pedagogy in raising multilingual learners’ awareness of social justice within the Turkish context (Şanal & Özkaynak, 2023).

The present study

Contributing to the literature on SJLE by homing in on a less-represented but distinctive context such as Turkiye, this study focuses on a social justice-oriented conversation club organised as part of a self-access centre at a Turkish university. The club had to be implemented online because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The present study not only examines the affordances and challenges involved in discussing these issues from both EFL learners’ and teachers’ perspectives but also explores the discursive moves language learners take while discussing these issues. The reason for focusing on their discursive moves is to both capture a glimpse of how these conversations unfolded and to present EFL learners’ positions when it comes to social justice issues. We address the following research questions:

• What are the discursive moves adopted by English as a foreign language (EFL) learners who discuss social justice issues as part of an online conversation club?

• What are the affordances and challenges involved in discussing social justice issues during EFL conversation clubs?

‘Let’s talk about social justice' conversation club

Participants and context

‘Let’s talk about social justice’ conversation club was organised and held at a state university in Turkiye, with the aim to raise EFL learners’ awareness towards social justice issues, develop their critical literacy while also enabling them to practice and improve their English language skills. It allowed them to engage in extended interactions freely and spontaneously on a given topic in small groups to practice their speaking skills in English in a social context. It also provided language learners with a platform to discuss the existing social, cultural and economic issues both at local and global levels. The discussions were designed to enable participants to enhance their language skills and cultivate their critical literacy by reflecting on their own roles and responsibilities in a society concerning the social justice issues under discussion.

Overall, seven EFL learners, aged between 18-21, who were studying at the English Preparatory Program participated in the ‘Let’s talk about social justice’ conversation club for a period of eight weeks. The participants, once they completed the preparatory programme, would continue onto pursuing their major in History, Law, Economy and Psychology. In that sense, the conversation clubs with its emphasis on a variety of social, cultural, economic and political issues also provided a multidisciplinary context to support the learners’ undergraduate studies.

The participants had a B1 level of English according to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). They were from different parts of Turkiye except for one participant who was an international student from Azerbaijan. None of the students reported coming from a migrant background. Four of the participants were female- and three were male-identifying. None of the participants reported having discussed social justice issues in their classes before. However, gender inequality, poverty, immigration, racism and environment were some of the topics they noted discussing with their friends and family.

Facilitators’ role

The facilitator of the conversation club, who is the first author of this study, adopted the following principles while designing and facilitating the discussions: establishing procedural neutrality and inclusivity (Kubota, 2016), and creating safe but challenging spaces (Ortaçtepe Hart, 2023). Teacher procedural neutrality, that is, de-centreing one’s power to avoid imposition and instead allowing different voices to be heard (Kubota, 2016; Norton & Pavlenko, 2004), helped promote learner agency, reduced her authority, and encouraged diverse opinions to be raised. The facilitator also emphasised inclusivity by taking into account students’ (lack of) familiarity with the discussed topics and by including a wide range of topics to encourage everyone to listen attentively and reflect and respond critically. An additional measure was to inform the participants about the next discussion theme so that they would make necessary preparations by reading relevant articles, which provides students with background information to develop and evaluate their arguments (Hand & Levinson, 2012). The conversation clubs also offered a learning space for all students to feel not only safe but also brave to raise their voices. he facilitator underlined that these spaces can be risky and vulnerable and that the participants should be open to learn, unlearn, challenge and be challenged by different views and perspectives. As Ortaçtepe Hart (2023) has stated,

[i]nstead of allowing learners to say whatever they think, language classrooms need to encourage them to say whatever they think while also being aware that some of those things might be challenged or confronted, and to welcome these challenges as opportunities for further learning and growth. (p. 165, emphasis original).

To achieve this goal, a list of the guiding principles and practices (Appendix A) were designed and shared with the participants at the beginning of the first meeting, which was then re-visited periodically.

Data collection

Data were collected online via multiple instruments: demographic information survey, the recordings of the conversation club sessions, facilitator’s field notes and reflective journals, and student interviews. A short demographic information survey was conducted online to find out students’ age, gender, hometown, undergraduate degree and English proficiency level. No other information was collected directly from the participants regarding their background to create a safe space within the conversation clubs without putting any pressure on their identities, and to preserve the authenticity and spontaneity of the discussions.

‘Let’s talk about social justice’ conversation club began in May 2020, and continued on a weekly basis until mid-June. There were overall eight online conversation club sessions, ranging from 35 to 90 minutes. The topics included poverty, environment and pollution, gender, charity, immigration, racism, childrens’ rights and disability. The total duration of the recorded sessions was 533 minutes revealing 102 pages of transcripts.

The facilitator kept journals immediately after each session to reflect on her experiences. The ongoing controlled journals consisted of six items regarding (a) what went well, (b) what was surprising and unsettling, (c) any agreements with students’ positions, (d) any disagreements, and if yes, how it was handled, (e) competency in discussing a particular topic/issue and (f) suggestions/improvements for the next discussion. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with each participant at the end of the conversation club discussions. The questions were related to three specific subcategories: (a) affordances and (b) challenges of discussing social justice topics and (c) suggestions for discussing social justice issues in EFL contexts to promote learners’ critical literacy.

Data analysis

All video-recorded online discussions and student interviews were transcribed verbatim for data analysis with suprasegmental features (e.g. pitch, stress) also added into the transcriptions. All data were thematically analysed according to Hand and Levinson’s (2012)’s categorisation of recurrent themes, patterns and categories. The thematic codes that emerged from open coding were connected to the second research question to understand the affordances and challenges of conversation clubs. Ten percent of the qualitative data were also shared with an expert in the field who coded the data thematically to establish inter-rater reliability.

While the primary analytical framework was thematic analysis, we also benefited from critical discourse analysis (CDA) (Wodak & Meyer, 2009), which connects the microanalysis of texts to the macroanalysis of social contexts (Azzopardi, 2022). The analysis at this stage focused on turns, which sometimes referred to a single turn, but when a clarification question was asked after a student response, the response was also included as part of the same turn. CDA allowed us to identify participants’ attributions of responsibility (e.g. governments, self, others) as well as their language use in these attributions (e.g. should, I vs people) to understand how the formal, linguistic features of their discussions trace back to their interpretation of these social justice topics, and as a result, of the society at large. We paid attention to both causal and treatment responsibilities, the former relating to the question of who causes the problem, and the latter concerning who should be responsible for solving it (Kim et al., 2010).

Results

EFL learners’ discursive moves during conversation clubs

Our analysis revealed evidence of the following discursive moves: that's-what-my-religion-says, that’s-the-government’s-job, that’s-why-we-need-education, it’s-about-culture and family, and that’s-my vs others’ responsibility. Table 1 presents the themes discussed and the corresponding moves learners engaged in in each discussion.

Table 1. Themes and discursive moves adopted by EFL learners.

Themes	Discursive moves
	that's-what-my-religion-says	that’s-the-government’s-job	that’s-why-we-need -education	it’s-about- culture and family	that’s-my responsibility	that’s-others’ responsibility
Poverty	1	3			8	2
Environment		8	5		11	8
Gender	1	3		3	3	2
Charity		7	1		9	1
Children		7	2	14	3	4
Disability		4	5	1	4	2
Immigration		8	3		1	2
Racism		2	2	3	2

As seen in Table 1, our EFL learners’ discursive moves mostly revolved around that's our responsibility vs others when it comes to environmental issues, and that’s the government’s-job when it came to themes that revolved around the Syrian refugees in Turkiye (e.g. immigration, racism and children). The next sections will focus on these two discursive moves.

that’s-my vs others’ responsibility

When discussing environmental issues, our EFL learners attributed responsibility to themselves, to others, and to the government. These discursive moves illustrated how they positioned themselves in relation to environmental issues and what it meant to protect the environment. Interestingly though, when they attributed responsibility to their individual selves, it was done through we-language rather than I-language. Excerpt 1 illustrates this finding clearly:

Excerpt 1(Beren)

We don't use pipettes [straws]. Even this prevents pollution. Maybe, we can attend some kind of communication, some kind of social group, community. If we use mobile phones less than now, uh, we don't need electricity to charge phones. We can use also [public] transportation, we can [commute] together And, we build like community, like green peace. Greenpeace local community, for example Yenimahalle Greenpeace.

As seen above, when learners attributed responsibility to themselves, this was done in a more collective manner, I as part of we, but when other-attributions were used, learners either used passive voice with no clear agent, or preferred people-language in a way that excluded themselves from the category.

Excerpt 2 (Beren)

People throw their rubbish around. I think this is very nasty. They must keep the surroundings clean.

Excerpt 3 (Seda)

I think we always see this [as] government duties, but it is people’s responsibility.

These excerpts indicate our participants perceived environmental issues as requiring collaborative endeavors. When assigning responsibility to others, students often alluded to a collective entity, frequently employing the term ‘people’. Conversely, when they attributed responsibility to themselves, they conveyed the idea that ‘I’, as an individual, should contribute within the context of a community. Although both stances recognise that individual actions alone may be insufficient in addressing challenges such as pollution, they might also function to distance oneself from accountability, especially in ways that could potentially enable their involvement in broader social initiatives.

that’s-the-government’s-job

As Turkiye holds the position of the world's largest host for refugees, providing shelter to 3.6 million Syrians (UN Refugee Agency, 2023), immigration emerged as a highly debated topic among our EFL learners in the club. Throughout discussions on immigration, children, and racism, a prevalent tendency was observed wherein learners predominantly assigned responsibility to the government. In contrast, instances of attributing individual or collective responsibility were relatively scarce. While a few participants voiced support for Syrian refugees, expressing sentiments like ‘we should do something’, the dominant discourse revolved around the perception that the Turkish government bore responsibility for causing the issue and, consequently, it was their duty to resolve it – preferably by facilitating the return of refugees to their home countries. Excerpts 4 and 5 below highlight the participants’ perspectives on refugees in Turkiye, emphasising how they attribute responsibility to the government for seemingly prioritising the well-being of refugees over Turkish citizens who contend with poverty.

Excerpt 4 (Mete)

Turkish people are racist. That's true. But they are, uh, right about some points. Actually, they don't like the Syrian people yes, but issue is not their nationality or color. Problem is economic issues. Turkish people actually criticize our government. Uh, because our government has ideas, it is Pan Islamism and actually Turkish people criticize our government because they have a lack of money and they don't have a good life.

Excerpt 5 (Seda)

I want to add one more point to governmental issue. According to the law, immigrants should be shipped after their country is a normal position. Instead of that, government naturalized some of them. And some Turkish local people don't find a job. For earn money, you know, this economical issues, all troubles or problems. Instead of local people, Syrian people is more important for government. It is really irritating for me because before they came to [Turkiye], we are in there. I think we should be equal.

These two excerpts shed light on the origins of the animosity towards Syrian refugees in Turkiye and the government's dual role in both causing and resolving these issues. However, there were noticeably few instances where individual responsibility was acknowledged within the context of immigration. When learners touched upon the responsibility of others, their conversations often centred around expectations for Syrian and other refugees to assimilate into Turkish customs and norms. The beliefs and responses of the participants inadvertently contributed to the perpetuation of the prevailing xenophobic discourse in Turkiye towards immigrants. Similar to discussions related to environmental justice, the conversations seldom delved into considerations of how they could collectively participate in social actions to challenge established norms in Turkiye regarding immigration.

Affordances and challenges involved in discussing social justice issues

Language-related affordances

The findings revealed two key benefits related to the language development of the participants: authentic conversation and improved vocabulary retention. Initially, the selection of ‘controversial’ topics sparked a strong eagerness among students to respond promptly to their peers. This inclination facilitated authentic conversations and, at times, evolved into robust discussions within the club. These selected topics effectively provided a real-life context, motivating learners to place a higher emphasis on honing their ability to counter arguments or offer immediate support for their own viewpoints. Consequently, grappling with real-world issues made language learning more relevant and meaningful for the participants. The EFL learners stated:

We even forgot we were speaking English. It actually feels good, making one feel like it's their native language … Instead of thinking about how to construct this sentence, I was contemplating how to defend my opinion, and English words were coming to my mind directly. (Seda)

The topics discussed in other classes, such as movies and hobbies, feel artificial. I never think that people actually discuss such topics. For example, I would never ask someone, ‘Which movie character would you like to be?’ I wouldn't even ask in Turkish, but I can discuss social justice because it is a more realistic topic. (Mete)

I was thinking more about how to reflect my ideas rather than how to use English … While expressing our thoughts, language was a tool, and that’s the way it should be. We were getting carried away with social justice topics. (Beren)

The above-mentioned comments, in that sense, concur with Reagan (2016) who has argued that discussing social justice issues in the language classroom enables language learners to focus both on form and meaning at the same time, ‘which is largely absent in other approaches to the teaching of foreign languages’ (p. 187).

The conversation clubs additionally provided a context for students to employ vocabulary associated with social justice issues. Our participants became acquainted with subject-specific vocabulary related to each issue, which had not been covered in traditional language classrooms before. The facilitator's practice of informing them about the conversation club topics a week in advance allowed students to read relevant texts before the sessions, leading to increased exposure to words related to social justice issues. They noted:

Every topic we discussed had its own jargon. We used and learned the important words to catch up with world news. For example, when I open a news article, I see racism, and I have learned the words related to racism. (Beren)

Before the session, I was researching relevant words to express my ideas more comfortably and contribute to the discussion. During my research, I often came across interesting news or information. As I read them, I was learning multiple words because I needed to understand different terms. (Remzi)

Having a series of conversation clubs revolving around the overarching theme ‘social justice’ also proved to establish a context where specialised vocabulary related to social, economic, and cultural issues was reiterated. As Nermin stated:

During the discussions, I heard the words ‘justice’, ‘rights’ ‘diversity’, ‘discrimination’ and ‘equity’ so many times that after the first two sessions, I found myself using them in my own sentences.

In summary, our participants expressed the discussions served a dual purpose. Not only did they refine their ability to express themselves more effectively during these sessions, owing to their pre-discussion preparation involving reading relevant articles, but they also acquired valuable vocabulary that could prove beneficial in their upcoming academic pursuits.

Social-justice related affordances

In this study, the cultivation of critical literacy among our EFL learners centred on activities such as actively listening to diverse opinions, fostering empathy and exploring potential avenues for social action. Our participants mentioned:

I liked it, of course, because everyone was saying something different. Especially if everyone had said the same thing, it would have been a boring environment, but everyone saying different things led to the emergence of different ideas, which made me happy … (Seda)

The topic of gender equality was wonderful because there were men as well, and we could see it from their perspective, too … maybe we had enlightened them and they had enlightened us. The topic of migration was also great because seeing those different views and having discussions with ones studying law was enjoyable. Approaching the subject from different angles and looking through their lenses was beautiful … (Beren)

Exposure to a variety of viewpoints also motivated our EFL learners to broaden their perspectives beyond their own experiences. This exposure facilitated their recognition and, in some instances, prompted a reevaluation of the diverse experiences and needs of other individuals within a given society.

They stated:

[discussing gender] It really saddened me to see those people facing social exclusion and bullying, and I put myself in their shoes. (Seda)

Social consciousness can also contribute to the awareness of inequality and social injustice. We can discuss possible solutions. (Mete)

[discussing charity] That day I realized how much I wanted to help people, and that associations could also help us. I even researched some environmentally-related associations after the club. (Seda)

As hinted in Mete and Seda’s comments above, our participants not only evaluated their own actions for social justice but also considered the possibilities for social action in the near future. Participating in discussions about diverse perspectives and cultivating empathy empowered participants to acknowledge their social responsibility in promoting social justice. However, upon examining the discourse surrounding the strategies they endorsed, it became evident that their proposed solutions primarily revolved around actions that governments or educational institutions could take, rather than emphasising what learners themselves could do to challenge practices within their societies.

Challenges

Our findings indicated language barrier, avoidance and emotional labour as the main challenges the EFL learners encountered when participating in the social-justice oriented conversation clubs. Although they reported the conversation club contributed to their language skills, there were times that they tended to be silent since they did not feel proficient enough to express themselves in English. Mete stated:

I thought I wouldn't be able to explain this topic [immigration] because my English wasn't sufficient. The topic could have taken a different direction, and I wouldn't be able to express myself. Especially due to my lack of vocabulary knowledge about the theme, I didn't want to delve into this subject.

While some students identified a lack of proficiency and limited access to the correct terminology in English as challenges, for some participants, avoidance was a tendency regardless of the language in which they expressed themselves. Nermin noted:

I couldn't engage in the subject maybe due to my nature or feeling uncomfortable or tense in the environment. It could be personal or the importance of the topic put pressure on me. I was afraid of not being able to express myself correctly. This could be in Turkish or English.

Lastly, the emotional labour involved in these conversations also turned out to be a challenge. Participants indicated there were times they felt anger, disappointment and shock during the discussions. They stated:

I got mad at Remzi because, in my opinion, helping someone solely based on religious beliefs doesn't necessarily show you are a good person or you are genuinely helping. You are only doing it to achieve a perfect life in the religion you believe in. In reality, you are doing it for yourself rather than to help that person. I think this is not helping; it is just a self-serving act of worship. (Ethem)

Perhaps I have read too much about gender studies. Maybe my friends had insufficient knowledge on this subject. I respected them, but I was shocked. I thought everyone knew this information, but it turns out that's not the case. I wasn't belittling; I was just expressing my surprise. (Beren)

The emotional labour and the feelings of guilt, shame, anger, resentment, hatred and helplessness involved in social justice-related endeavors have been well documented by scholars who argued for social-justice oriented educational pedagogies and praxis (Boyd, 2017; Zembylas, 2019). What was missing in our findings, however, was how these feelings could be transformed into social action and how our EFL learners could position themselves as agents of social change.

Discussion

The present study focused on an online conversation club that aimed to develop EFL learners’ communicative skills and critical literacy through the discussion of social justice issues which have traditionally been deemed ‘taboo’ and ‘controversial’. In doing so, the study not only examined their discursive moves but also the affordances and challenges experienced while discussing these issues. Our findings indicated the EFL learners’ discursive moves during social-justice focused conversation clubs mostly revolved around that's our responsibility vs others when discussing environmental issues, and that’s the government’s-job when it came to themes that revolved around the Syrian refugees in Turkiye (e.g. immigration, racism and children). These findings can be discussed in relation to the role of discussing ‘controversial’ topics in language classrooms to challenge the existing stereotypes within societies while also promoting learners’ language skills and critical literacy.

In our research, when the participants discussed the concept of responsibility, even when they directed their attention inward, their focus was on collective responsibility rather than individual accountability. Their use of we-language (e.g. we should) signified that, at least in the context of environmental issues, they were not attributing responsibility to themselves as individuals. While collective action is undoubtedly crucial, this type of attribution can absolve individuals of the responsibility to take action at a personal level. Assigning responsibility to governments, particularly in matters related to race, immigration and poverty, similarly deflects individual responsibility. This approach not only curtails the potential for further discussion but also inhibits critical reflection and inquiry into the actions or inactions of governments that contribute to these issues. It also hinders the examination of the role of collective action in pressuring governments to implement more equitable policies. In other words, simply stating that the responsibility for Syrian refugees lies with the government, or that Turkish people experience poverty due to immigrants in Turkiye, perpetuates the existing racist discourse in Turkiye (Efe, 2019) and obstructs broader discussions concerning systemic and institutionalised inequities in our societies.

Students’ attributions of responsibility to the government as the sole authority were also in line with their perceptions regarding ‘talking about politics’. In one of the excerpts, one of the students had to mention that ‘politics is not a bad thing’. This was one of the shortcomings perhaps of the conversation club that the connection between politics, individuals, institutions (including governments) and society has not been underlined by the facilitator, and political engagement therefore meant talking about political parties and policies as entities and processes detached from the individual life and responsibility. Understanding the discursive moves individuals, in this case EFL learners, take when discussing social justice issues, can help uncover the many ways in which semiotic and social practices construe aspects of the world and reinforce existing power relations, but also to disrupt and remedy them (Fairclough, 2001). In that sense, this study has important implications for all teachers as they can be better prepared to tackle them and steer the conversations in a way to delve deeper into the topics and to encourage both individual and collective action. If language teachers and scholars can better understand these dominant, normalised discourses that construct and reinforce framings of responsibility, we can better suggest pedagogical and empirical ways to disrupt them not only within classrooms but also across the society.

In the present study, one of the social justice-related affordances of conversation clubs appeared to be its potential for bringing forward diversity of views on a particular issue (e.g. Hand & Levinson, 2012) and as a result enhancing heterogeneity in the classroom (e.g. Kello, 2016). In our conversation clubs, different opinions were not seen as a problem but rather as an opportunity to hear a variety of opinions on a particular issue. They enabled critical reflection and argumentation, and therefore, contributed to EFL learners’ critical literacy. In terms of the language-related affordances, the participants’ comments regarding how the discussion of current, controversial, hot topics enabled them to even forget that they were using another language other than their mother tongue, confirm how these social justice topics prepare them to ‘participate fully and competently in a form of political engagement that is authentic to the world outside the classroom’ (Hess & Avery, 2008, p. 507). This study highlights the potential of discussing social justice issues as a means of offering opportunities for authentic conversations in EFL contexts. In such settings, where language learners often have limited chances to use and interact in the target language beyond the classroom, engaging in conversations around social justice proves to be a significant factor in motivating language development.

Although our findings provide evidence for the ways in which EFL learners’ show respect and appreciation of diversity of opinions and diversity of identities, what we have not seen any evidence of, however, is whether learners formed new opinions, altered already-existing ones and how their critical literacy could potentially translate into social action and transformation. This study in that sense resonates with Boyd and Glazier (2017) who examined the conversations of secondary school teachers – when ‘controversial’ topics are raised – during a professional development programme. When teachers discussed difficult topics such as race and sexuality, the tendency was to engage in what the researchers called ‘comfortable collaboration’, (e.g. providing uncritical, though helpful support) rather than ‘critical colleagueship’ that encouraged them to have a more open but challenging dialogue. Similarly, in our study, despite the emotional labour experienced, they all worked towards maintaining harmony, rather than working towards disrupting the oppressive tendencies within the group.

Conclusion

Our research underscores the significance of conversation clubs in providing an interactive and multidisciplinary platform for addressing social justice issues in a structured and deliberate manner, in contrast to classroom discourse where these challenging moments tend to arise spontaneously and are often sidestepped by classroom teachers. The findings have brought to light numerous language and social justice-related affordances that highlight the role of critical literacy within the language education curriculum, particularly in terms of nurturing language learners’ critical social awareness through practices such as critical writing (e.g. Huang, 2012) and dialogue journaling (e.g. Ghahremani-Ghajar & Mirhosseini, 2005).

The findings provide insights for the affordances and challenges regarding social justice language education in contexts such as Turkiye, a country that hosts the largest refugee populations in the world while also tackling concerns over the well-being of women and children (Human Rights Watch, 2023). In this study, the conversation club discussions particularly revealed the divisive nature of the refugee crisis in Turkiye which was manifested in the opinions and concerns of our EFL learners regarding Syrian refugees in the country. In such a socio-political context, where teachers and scholars may feel silenced to speak up about social justice issues due to potential harmful consequences (Ortaçtepe Hart & Burhan-Horasanlı, 2023; Yazan et al., 2023), engaging youth in social-justice oriented discussions becomes even more essential as a means of fostering a more democratic and egalitarian society that embraces diversity.

The present paper, due to word limitations, exclusively focused on EFL learners’ discussions, with the facilitator's comments and questions during the conversation club sessions left unexplored. We aspire to analyse this additional dataset to gain insights into the facilitator's discourse, offering guidance on how facilitators in similar clubs can promote courageous conversations with their language learners. Further studies can also examine how us vs them constructions take place in these discussions and in what ways teachers can disrupt these while also providing a safe but brave space for everyone to raise their voices. It is hoped that the findings will help language educators not only to tackle moment-to-moment discussions of ‘controversial’ issues, but also systematically integrate social justice issues in language curriculum in ways that would help learners question their already-existing beliefs and take action for a socially just world.

Disclosure statement

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