IRF and ISRF Sequences and their Anti-Pedagogical Value

.

IRF and ISRF Sequences and their Anti-Pedagogical Value

Amir Marzban[1]

Qaemshahr Branch,  Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran

Baqer Yaqubi
Mojtaba Qalandari

University of Mazandaran

Initiation, Response, and Feedback(IRF) sequences are the most frequent interaction network in any classroom contexts. IRF sequences have been examined profusely in previous studies and were reported to be negatively correlated with participation opportunities (Kasper, 2006; Cazden, 2001; Ellis, 1994).In all these studies, all contingent factors of any classroom context which might influence interaction network have been overlooked. Therefore, IRF sequences have been improvidently considered as static and inflexible interaction patterns which are unfolded invariantly in classroom. Based on video- taped data from ten English as a foreign language (EFL) classes, which were analyzed within conversation analysis framework, this study uncovered a modified version of IRF sequences labeled as ISRF (Initiation, Struggle, Response, and Feedback) sequences. Previous literature reported that IRF sequences offer very limited learning opportunities. ISRF sequences, on the other hand, have been shown in this study, to destroy even those very limited learning opportunities which IRF sequences could offer. The finding can both benefit teachers and teacher educators. It warns novice teachers to avoid applying this new interaction pattern in their classes and demands teacher educators to inform their trainees of the negative effect of ISRF sequences.

Keywords: Conversation Analysis Framework, Classroom Interaction, IRF Sequences, ISRF Sequences

Within the framework of Vygotskian psychology, learning is conceived as participation in the act of learning than acquisition (Donato, 2000). This governing metaphor of learning as participation explicitly signifies the fact that the quality of learning can be gauged through the analysis of the participation quality of students. On the grounds that teacher and students' participation in classroom events is largely realized through interaction, the investigation of the classroom interaction is regarded as the principal approach through which participation can be investigated. Further, the interaction between teacher-students within classrooms is largely unfolded through Initiation, Response, Feedback(IRF) sequences.

IRF sequences

The most frequently occurring interaction system within the classroom discourse is IRF sequences which is the most investigated speech exchange system as well. Nonetheless, it is important to note as quoted by Waring (2009, p.797) that “IRF is not the only interaction that takes place in the classroom; neither is it a single sequence type”. IRFs are three parts structures, which start by initiation of a question by teacher (I), followed by a student response (R), and evaluated by the teacher feedback (F). Thinking of IRF cycles as the most frequently occurring interaction system within classroom, it becomes crystal clear that teacher’s talk takes up the most proportion of the classroom interaction, since, in each sequence teacher has privilege to contribute twice to the ongoing network of interaction in the classroom. The first contribution of the teacher is manifested in Initiation move of the IRF sequence when he, in fact, opens up the sequence. The second contribution is realized via his feedback or assessment move. Therefore, the impact of IRF cycles on the creation or suppression of learning opportunities could be thought of as originating from two different constructs within IRF sequences.

It could be argued that a moderate proportion of these impacts results from initiation move of the teacher in IRF sequences. When the teacher is launching a sequence, the type, the nature, and the function of initiation move determine the amount of student’s engagement in mental reasoning, involvement in social practice, and available space for them to maneuver on the teacher initiation. It is notable to acknowledge that the concept of initiation is not solely limited to teacher questions. The domain of the term is broad enough to cover all teacher talk or teacher behavior practices which are intended to provoke the students into doing something. By definition, therefore, initiation would be referring to a wide range of teacher behaviors, from very explicit questions like, (who knows the past form of the verb forget?) to ordinary managerial requests or ‘directive or informative’ (Hellermann, 2003, p. 80) moves like, (everybody turn to page sixty one please) and from verbal nomination patterns like, (Nasrin, would you read this part?) to non-verbal practice pointing to a student by gesture and requesting him/her to do something.

The remaining source of these impacts is the teacher's third move in IRF sequences. It is believed that the type, nature, and the function of F move impact the forthcoming learning opportunities to a large extent, an assertion which is confirmed by so many scholars (Nassaji& Wells, 2000; Waring 2008, 2009). It is notable to claim that the effect of the third move is believed to be much stronger than that of initiation move. Underlying intricacies of the feedback move of IRF cycles have been revealed before. Nassaji& Wells (2000), while investigating form and function of feedback move of IRF cycles, uncovered some occupants of the third move of IRFs. These options were asking for clarification, explanation, alternative opinions, comments or meta-comments (p. 15). In addition, Waring (2008, 2009),rather recently studied explicit positive assessment (EPA) as being one of those occupants to the third move of IRFs. He concluded the use of EPAs possessed a good amount of interactional work (e.g., nonverbal display, prosodic marking, and repetition) which tended to put the learner response on a pedestal position. Therefore, the students could not penetrate into the stringent network of IRFs and pose the questions about their problem or to request for the elaboration of the previous responses, consequently, carrying over their confusions and problem spots with themselves to the forthcoming phases of the classroom interaction. That’s why so many researchers harshly criticized IRF sequences.

Opponents of Use of IRF Sequences in Classroom

IRF sequences, though the most frequent interaction pattern in any type of classroom, were criticized harshly owing to their anti-pedagogical nature (Barnes, 1969, 1992, 2008;Cazden, 1986, 1988, 2001; Dinsmore, 1985; Ellis, 1994; Lemke,1990; Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976). Many of these researchers claimed that in classes in which the activities were based on strict use of IRF sequences, the teacher took up the large portion of talking and giving opinion letting only bordered space for students to come up with their very limited replies. Having examined the data from her own and some other classrooms, Cazden (1988) revealed that the teacher’s use of this speech pattern more often facilitated his control of the interaction rather than the students learning of the content of the lesson.

Similarly, Barnes (1992) studied the interaction between the teacher and the students in several classrooms which lead him to conclude that extensive use of IRF sequences in the class did not allow for the complex ways of communication. Barnes (1969) was also too much surprised to see how IRF sequences evoked the teacher to talk abundantly while a very short time was left for pupils’ answers and most importantly he was amazed by the pupils’ passivity and absence of their engagement in the issues being presented to them. More recently, Barnes (2008, p.10) noted that IRF sequences perform the function of managing the class and holding student's attention but it does not easily give opportunities for pupils to work on understanding through talk.

Moreover, Gutierrez (1994) in her study of journal sharing in language arts classroom argued that recitation scripts (IRF sequences) resulted in the creation of static and extremely structured contexts for learning. In addition, the strictness and highly controlled nature of this type of discourse provided limited opportunities for students to produce elaborated talk, especially about topics or subtopics they generated. More importantly, she claimed that the directionality of talk floods from teacher to individual student and back to teacher, therefore, creates the least possible opportunity for students to respond to one another’s utterances. Through the analysis of the patterns of interaction across those classrooms, she also showed that recitation scripts ruined the students’ chances for interacting with and receiving assistance from peers and for participating in the very discourse they were ultimately expected to produce.

The most thorough study concerning classroom interaction was conducted by Nystrand and his colleagues in 1997. They started their study by examination of 112 classrooms. They uncovered that a great majority of the teachers used IRF sequences extensively in their classes. Their findings suggested that application of IRF patterns were negatively correlated with learning. They found that students in classrooms, whose interaction was principally limited to IRF patterns, were less successful at recalling and understanding the topical content than the students who were engaged in participatory discussions.

In another study Lin (1999) discovered that extensive use of IRFs alienates the students from real learning. He argued that teacher’s frequent use of this pattern pushes the students far away from the probability of developing an interest in English as a language and culture that they can internalize for their own functional, socio-cultural and communicative purposes.

The most significant finding of these researchers was their strong conviction in the ineffectiveness of use of IRF cycles and its irrelevance to institutional setting. Indeed, a strong case could be made that the very underlying objective of classroom instruction abandons the idea of use of IRF sequences in language classes. Limited IRF cycles of classroom speech exchange system falls foul of preparing students to attain communicative skill to use in the target society which possess a severely complex nature of communication system.

Some of the strongest critics and opponents of inclusion of IRF sequences in language classrooms were, in fact, advocate of Communicative Approach to language teaching. They rejected the use of IRF sequences in language classrooms on the grounds that they were not in accordance with principles of Communicative Approach. One of the significant principles of Communicative Approach was that teachers in language classrooms should replicate an authentic or natural or genuine conversation. Nunan (1987 as cited in Seedhouse 2004, p. 68) in his characterization of genuine communication note that

 

genuine communication is characterized by the uneven distribution of information, the negotiation of meaning  (through, for example, clarification requests and confirmation checks), topic nomination and negotiation by more than one speaker, and the right of interlocutors to decide whether to contribute to an interaction or not. In other words, in genuine communication, decisions about who says what to whom and when are up for grabs.

 

Nunan (ibid) observed that there existed great discrepancies between his conceptualization of genuine communication or natural talk and the interaction which happened in language classrooms as a result of teacher's use of IRF sequences.  Therefore, he started to harshly criticize the inclusion of IRF sequences in L2 classrooms. He argued that

 

on the surface, the lessons appeared to conform to the sorts of communicative principles advocated in the literature. However, when the patterns of interaction were examined more closely, they resembled traditional patterns of classroom interaction rather than genuine interaction. Thus, the most commonly occurring pattern of interaction was [IRF] (Nunan, 1987 as cited in Seedhouse 2004, p. 71).

 

In accordance with Nunan’s conviction with anti-pedagogical feature of IRF sequences, Dinsmore (1985) had previously made similar points. He had also argued that in IRF sequences most of the talking power was devoted to teacher and students had a limited power take on the talking floor. Therefore, he claimed that a tinge of natural conversation is probable to happen in language classrooms which are orchestrated through IRF sequences.

Modified Version of IRF Sequences Called ISRF Sequences

So far all the data concerned the anti-pedagogical nature of IRF sequences and how their underlying system and other contingent forces had potential to present highly limited learning opportunities. Here we turn to the examination of excessive detriments of a renewed interaction network within these ten classrooms which has not been presumably reported before. This anti-pedagogical interaction network is actually a totally modified version of IRF exchange. The main point of difference is actually the fact that the number of moves and the roles of participants changes in this new pattern. This new interaction network would be labeled as ISRF (Initiation, Struggle, Response, and Feedback) sequences for easier reference here. Not unlike a common feature of IRF sequences (Sinclair &Coulthard, 1975), in ISRF sequences, an initiation move addressing a specific student is projected by the teacher. Most of these initiations are personal questions (Wells &Nassaji, 2000, p.388). In the case of IRF sequences, in the second moves, students are provided with a turn to come up with their answers. Whereas in ISRF, because of the abrupt projection of subsequent move, students have only a short time to struggle and show only their readiness to answer using a physical gesture. Immediately following the second turn, the third turn of ISRF sequence is projected by the teacher himself and surprisingly, it contains a complete answer to his own projected initiation at the beginning of the sequence. The answer is so complete both in terms of its communicative function and linguistic accuracy and also in terms of its discoursal relevance that no need is felt by the student to introduce his/her own response. In the third turn of ISRF sequences, it could be claimed that the teacher is actually insincerely robbing a student’s participation opportunity and appropriates the chance for himself. The nature of the fourth move of ISRF sequence is again surprising in terms of both its content and origin. As a key feature of IRF sequences, a specific type of feedback or any other type of follow-ups (Wells &Nassaji, 2000, p.379) were provided by the teacher to indicate to the students, the quality of their responses or to show whether they needed to add some new aspects to their answer or produce it differently. Similarly in ISRF sequences a feedback is provided to ensure the appropriateness of the answer given in the previous turn. Nonetheless, this time, as it may seem surprising, the feedback move is projected by the student. In all the cases of ISRF sequences which were investigated for this research, unexceptionally all the feedback moves of the students were limited to a single word turn-constructional units (TCUs) (Schegloff& Sacks, 1974), as it is noticeable in the excerpt A (line 293).Operating in this way, we would present evidence of transcript data drawn from ten English as Foreign Language classes to reveal how a modified version of IRF sequences called ISRF sequences are proved to be much more harmful than IRF sequences.

Method

The primary source of data for the present study was ten two-hour adult English as a foreign language classes which the researcher recorded data private language school in Naqadeh in summer, 2011. These classes ranged in level from beginner to intermediate and advanced. The data was actually collected by four different procedures within those classes. These resources were video-tapes, audio-recordings, transcriptions, and field notes.

Since video-taping has the potential to capture a much fuller view of any context, they were used as the major source for data-collection in the present research. The classroom events, therefore, needed to be video-taped considerately and with a great deal of care and attention. For the ease of implementation of analysis, the researcher himself took on the responsibility of filming the classes. Normally, video-taping a class can easily affect both teacher and students’ performance in any type of classroom. Several factors presumably played down such intervening influences in these classes. The most influential factor was the fact that the researcher who filmed the classes had previously taught to most of the students. Therefore, most of the students felt quite easy to have an ex-teacher as a guest to their classes. The teacher was also a colleague of the researcher for several years and had frequently visited each other’s classes before. In addition, the researcher intentionally filmed the class for three consecutive sessions. The data from the first and second filming was totally put away and was not used for research purposes. The first and second sessions were intended to accustom the students and teacher to the presence of researcher and these bizarre instruments.   

The audio-recorded and video-taped data were transcribed attentively line-by-line based on a simplified version of Jefferson's model developed by Ten Have (2007) (see Appendix A).  The final analysis was conducted based on the transcripts. Though, in different stages of the analysis, video-tapes, audio recordings, and sometimes field notes were resorted to arrive at better understanding.

The analysis phase of this study was conducted within conversation analysis framework. Conversation analysis (CA)is a tool for analyzing sequential development of classroom interaction generally for the purpose of carrying out micro-analysis of classroom discourse. It is noteworthy to mention that CA has the potential to investigate talk-in-interaction meticulously and present a detailed account of how different components of talk-in-interaction create or inhibit learning opportunities in instructional practices. Therefore, using CA framework, we tried to investigate this question: Do IRF sequences have a fixed structure? If they undergo any modification in their internal structure, how does such change have potential to suppress learning opportunities? The final data for this study were extracted from teacher C and G’s class (as will be explained later).

 

Findings

Single ISRF sequences

Excerpt A is an example of a single ISRF sequence which is taken from Teacher C’s Elementary class where she is going to review the previous lesson and elicit some information about Mattie Smith. The grammatical focus of the lesson under question is past tense of verbs after several elicitations concerning Mattie Smith’s past life, the topic of discussion changes to personal questions about teacher. She provides students with some personal questions about herself in Turkish, and entices students to render the given question into English, (line 249) of the excerpt A. Her last question which later turns out to launch an example of ISRF sequences is actually addressing all the students of the class. In line 249 Teacher D asks the class to translate a question into English and ask her. (i.e. ne zeman bashladin ishlemega?[when did you start to work?]). All the class interestedly gets engaged in the ongoing process of producing the given question correctly. All the students have opportunities to come up with their answers and try to test their hypotheses (lines 249- 272).

 

Excerpt A: A single ISRF sequence (Taken from Teacher C’s class)

0249     (Teacher C):            ((asks in Turkish)) Soal sorushun manan, mana deyin                                                                                nezeman bashladin ishlemega?

                                                                    (Ask me a question; ask me, when did you start to work?)

0250                                           (1.59)                                                   

0251          LL:                                         [when] do(.) you started when do you started

0252          (Teacher C):        whe:::n <di::d you=

0253          LL:                                         =[ when did you started your work?/ your job?]=

0254          (Teacher C):        = sorushunzama::ne Gozashte(ask in past tense)                                                                                                                   ,(.) a::sk me question in past form(.)   past simple (.)                                                                                                    te::nse↑(( she is wiping out the whiteboard)

0255                                 (2.43)

0256          (Teacher C):        ne zemanbashladinishlemega?

(when did you started your work)

0257          LL:                                                         when/when]

0258          (Teacher C):                        whe:::n↑

0259          LL:                                                         when/when did you

0260          (Teacher C):                        <di:::d↑

0261          LL:                                                         did you::

0262          (Teacher C):                        <you

0263          LL:                                                         started/started/start?

0264          (Teacher C):                        you::? =

0265          LL:                                                         started/started/

0266          (Teacher C):                        (.) start or started?

0267          LL:                                                         start/started/

0268          (Teacher C):                        sta::::rt↑

0269          LL:                                                        start/start to work/work

0270          (Teacher C):                        to:::↑?

0271          LL:                                                        to work/work

0272          (Teacher C):                        to:: < work (.) o:: k <answer>

0273          (Mohamad ):                        I started to work when I=

0274          (Teacher C):                        =aha

0275          (Mohamad ):                        = when I was

0276          (Teacher C):                        I:::↑?

0277          (Mohamad ):                        =  twenty

0278          (Ali):                                                      I started to work

0279          (Teacher C):                        started

0280          (Ali):                                                      to work when I was=

0281          (Teacher C):                        to:: work ?

0282          L:                                                                            when you was

0283          (Ali):                                                      when I was(.)

0284          (Teacher C):                        I wa::s < I was↑>

0285          (Ali):                                                      ten

0286          (Teacher C):                        ten you were kid?

0287          L:                                                                            بیست

0288          (Teacher C):                        twenty

0289          (Reza ):                                  = or I never start to work

0290          (Teacher C):                        you never started to work?(.) why::?=

0291          (Reza ):                                  ((struggling to answer)) - =

0292          (Teacher C):                        = because you are a co:::llege student↑?

0293          (Reza ):                                  =yes=

0294          (Teacher C):                        = < ok> very good

 

Finally, through their collaboration and with joint help of their teacher, students could arrive at the correct form of the question. Subsequently, the teacher demands the students to answer the question. Mohamad who is one of the most active students of the class, easily takes the talking floor. His classmates join him and help him to produce an accurate and appropriate answer which is then successfully accomplished through intimate cooperation of the teacher. Reza who is a less active student, compared to his classmates, seems to be less satisfied with his passivity in class discussion. Therefore, he ventures to take the floor and produce an alternative answer to the given question (line 289). His reply is pleasantly a personal and self- directed response to the question at hand ( or I never start to work). Showing a sincere interest in Reza’s personal answer and the fact that he actually tried to participate, teacher C repeats his question in high pitch to appreciate his contribution. After the teacher’s repetition, the interaction pattern changes and ISRF sequence unfolds.  Following her repetition of Reza’s question in line 290, she asks a referential question which shows her full understating of the significance of the opportunity under question. In the last TCU of line 290,she initiates a new sequence ‘why?’ and expects him to come up with an appropriate answer. Teacher C’s ‘why’ is actually the first move of ISRF sequence. As a result of the teacher’s initiation move, Reza is struggling to provide a give up response in his second move. Through his physical gesture, he shows that he is, in fact, undertaking the process of meaning making and is trying to come up with an answer. Quickly following Reza’s second turn, teacher’s third turn unfolds which contains an appropriate answer to her own ‘why’ in the initiation move. The answer in line 292 is a clue to the fact that teacher C has a good amount of information about Reza. When she gives the answer in line 292(i.e. because you are a co:::llege student↑?), the smile on her face and her declarative tone of the statement shows that she is quite certain about the accuracy of the response. Finally as a matter of fact, Reza inevitably orients to the teacher’s modification to interaction network and readily adopts the role of providing the teacher with feedback in the forth move of ISRF sequences. Therefore, he comes up with answer ‘yes’ (line 293) to certify the accuracy of  the teacher’s response, though his dissatisfaction for the lost participation opportunity was like a visible color on his face. There were also some other unintelligible utterances in Turkish by another student which seemed to be addressing this issue.

Embedded ISRF sequences

Excerpt B which is an example of a triple ISRF sequence is taken from teacher G’s intermediate class where he is trying to warm-up the class for the forthcoming discussion of the lesson.  Embedded ISRF sequence refers to any type of interaction network in which several ISRF sequences unfold quickly following each other. Embedded ISRF sequences are more detrimental than single ISRF sequences on the grounds that they destroy several learning opportunities in a very short period of time. As the scrap of Activity 1 from textbook shows, the topic of discussion is generally about the favorite places for vacation in January. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher G tries to heat up the discussion about the vacation. Therefore, he starts to ask students one by one about their favorite vacation destinations in summer and Nowrouz holidays, as is illustrated in lines 208-227 of excerpt B.

Excerpt B: An Embedded ISRF sequence (Teacher G’s intermediate Class)

0227   (Teacher):                            good , summer  ah so we could see that summer                                                                                                                   and Norouz holidays is so common here in Iran= it’s                                                                                                  suitable for us

0228   (Teacher):                            = aa what about ..aah winter ah … I mean ah Day                                                                                              Bahman

0229   (Teacher):                            or in Christian months January, February, what                                                                                                                     about these months?

0230   (Teacher):                            = do you like or it’s better to say would you like go                                                                                               on vacation … [in this months] January?

0231   ( Whole Class ):   [ (( 3 ))]

0232   (Teacher):                            January?

0233   ( Neda ):                                                yes

0234   (Teacher):                            do you like?

0235   ( Whole Class ):   yes

0236   (Teacher):                            ok where ?

0237   ( Neda ):                                                =uh uh  … Ardabil

0238   (Teacher):                            =why Ardabil?

0239   ( Neda ):                                                = Because of  Avaz

0240   (Teacher):                             = because of ?

0241   ( Neda ):                                                = Alvarz

0242   (Teacher):                            =  AhaAvaZ?

0243   ( Neda ):                                                = Alvarz

0244   (Teacher):                            = [ Aha]

0245   ( Neda ):                                                = [(( 2 ))]

0246   (Teacher):                            = aha yeah(.) ok <Arezoo:: you=  

0247   ( Roya ):                                                = º I don’t like º

0248   (Teacher):                            = you do:::n’t li::ke?, •h•go on vaca::tion/ <in                                                                                                                                        J<a::>nuary?↑=

0249   ( Roya ):                                                =(( struggling to answer):)

0250   (Teacher):                            <ºyouº>, do:::n’t li::ke?↑

0251   ( Roya ):                                                = ºyesº=

0252   (Teacher):                            = <why?↑=

0253   ( Roya ):                                                =(( struggling to answer):)

0254    (Teacher):                           = <Beca:use it’s so:: cold↓=

0255   ( Roya ):                                                = yes ( nodding)

0256   (Teacher):                            =hhh you:: want to stay ho::me (.) wa::rm↑?

0257   ( Roya ):                                                = h <yes ( nodding)

0258   (Teacher):                            = ok (.) Samira

0259   ( Samira ):                            = yes uh I like uh going on vacation January

0260   (Teacher):                            = in January↑

0261   ( Samira ):                            = in January yes ah [urm]

0262   (Teacher):                            = [where?]

0263   ( Samira ):                            = um cold places [uh]

0264   (Teacher):                            = [cold places?]

0265   ( Samira ):                            =  where place where has mountains

0266   (Teacher):                            = MOUNtains.

0267   ( Samira ):                            = yes

0268   (Teacher):                            = ok

0269   ( Samira ):                            = (( 2 ))

 

After several elicitations, he skillfully swerves the topic to January vacations. As is shown in lines 228, he launches questions about students’ favorite places for winter vacation. His purpose seems to be offering opportunities for students to produce their own personal opinions about winter vacation. Probably pursuing this objective, surprisingly, he ends up in projection of a triple embedded ISRF sequence. After Farzaneh provides teacher G with a seemingly expected response (line 245), the teacher offers her an evaluative expression in the first part of F move of IRF sequence (i.e. = aha yeah (.) ok<Arezoo:: you=). In addition to evaluation, in the second part of F move of IRF sequence he launches another initiation addressing Arezoo. In his new initiation (i.e. <Arezoo:: you=), he is trying to provide Arezoo with an opportunity to come up with an answer mentioning the name of the places she likes to travel in winter. After the initiation in the first move, the speaking right is passed to Arezoo to produce an answer for the teacher’s initiation. She immediately delivers her speaking turn in the second move but not seemingly containing the expected response. Thus, in line 248, teacher G tries to set up another initiation to give her more chance to eventually articulate the expected response (i.e. = you do:::n’t li::ke?, •h• go on vaca::tion, <in J<a::>nuary?↑=). But unfortunately this initiation turns out to be the harbinger of ISRF sequence which terminates all possible language learning opportunities much stronger than IRF sequences could. Arezoo struggles and shows readiness by her physical gestures that she has, indeed, a reply for the initiation. But because of the totally limiting nature of ISRF sequences, Arezoo could not manage to launch her response. Consequently, the teacher’s response to his own initiation unfolds immediately in line 250. Since the response is given by the teacher, as a result, both Arezoo and the teacher orient to the fact that the right of launching feedback move is passed down to Arezoo. Therefore, in line 251, she offers feedback to the teacher’s response to either certify the accuracy of his statement (i.e. yes) or to agree with him due to ethical issues. Probably informed of his highly anti-pedagogical conduct, he tries to offer another chance (line 252) to Arezoo to respond (i.e. why?). Not unlike her struggle turn in line 249, Arezoo again struggles and attempts to respond to the teacher’s referential question (line 253); as a matter of fact, she cannot manage to provide a response in the available fraction of time. Immediately following her turn, the teacher’s third turn which contains a response for his own initiation unfolds. As it might seem clear, this initiation also turns out to be an ISRF sequence. Therefore, Arezoo is authorized to launch the feedback move which she accordingly carries out in line 255 (i.e. yes). Subsequently after Arezoo’s feedback turn, the teacher comes up with a complementary answer to his initial enquiry in line 256. Since this answer is again launched as a response turn of ISRF sequence, the right for the feedback turn is again passed over to Arezoo which she accordingly delivers in line 257. The eventual sketch of these sequences can be pictured in this way: three ISRF sequences happened immediately following each other and terminated all possible language learning opportunities for Arezoo.

Discussion

We previously discussed that IRF sequences were negatively correlated with language learning opportunities. However it can be assumed that regardless of their negative effects, IRF sequences could indeed benefit language learning contexts in some ways. The reason is the fact IRF sequences assign a response turn for students to produce a response. As one of the harshest critics of IRF sequences, Waring (2009, p. 815) along with his criticism on IRF sequences, appreciated their value in this way:

Without a doubt, IRF ensures the efficient undertaking of a preplanned ,teacher-designed learning activity. It also allows for, along with the ‘teacher nomination’ turn allocation system, individual access to the opportunity of displaying one’s basic understanding of the grammatical item in question (i.e., present perfect and present perfect progressive) within the limited context of a ‘fill-in-the-blanks’ exercise.

Here we turn the discussion to a modified version of IRF sequences which fails to possess even these minor benefits. These modified versions of IRF sequences were labeled as ISRF sequences. ISRF sequences were classified into two distinct categories based on their functions and structure. The first category was referred to as single ISRF sequences and the other embedded ISRF sequences. Now we turn to draw a link between ISRF sequences and our operational conception of language learning opportunities. Learning is believed to be a totally complex phenomenon in the framework of Vygotskian psychology. Therefore, evaluating any learning event from this perspective necessitates the practice of having in mind a wide range of beliefs and concepts. Generally, learning is a socially situated activity within which participants get engaged in a joint construction of a common knowledge. Operating in this way, more competent peers try to provide scaffolded help to less competent peer. It is compulsory for such help to be in the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD) of the less competent party. By the same token, less competent peers appropriate the mediated language of the expert peers in the process of internalization.

Examining ISRF sequences based on such Vygotskian principles, leads to uncovering sharp discrepancies between the function of ISRF sequences and phenomena underlying socio-culturalism. Such contradictions can be regarded as evident clues as to why ISRF sequences are believed here to possess greatly detrimental effects.

Initiation move of ISRF sequences exactly correspond to ‘I’ move of IRF sequences. It actually projects an exchange which is directed to students of class as was the case with IRF sequences. Nonetheless, forthcoming moves are of completely different nature in ISRF sequences.

As we showed before, when Reza delivers his second turn, he is actually getting involved in a social event with his teacher. But the social event underway is of no value from sociocultural perspective. The fact is that Reza has no right or chance in this turn to help the teacher to locate his ZPD. Therefore, it can be argued that Reza, by no means, will manage to internalize teacher C’s mediated language owing to the following principles.

First he had neither the chance nor the right to exercise his own curiosity in that situation. Therefore, he might resist such a response because he received it without trying to seek for it. Moreover, it’s against Goodwin’s (2007, as cited in Waring, 2009, p. 815) ‘occasioned knowledge exploration’ in which learners themselves get down on exploring the needed response. Second, considering the fact that ZPD possesses a dynamic nature, there is no evidence on the teacher’s part to guarantee that his response is, indeed, in Reza’s ZPD in that specific moment. Prior to his response, the teacher has, in fact, no idea about how Reza might undertake such a meaning making process. Therefore, his response is in the position that he is not sensitive to Reza’s ZPD. Third, one of the fruitful moments for learning is when the object of learning evolves from the students themselves. As Waring (2009) maintains students might alienate from such a response simply on the grounds that it does not belong to him. Fourth, teacher C is actually superimposing his response to Reza at this special point. Without waiting to receive willingness from Reza to give a response on behalf of him, teacher C is pre-emptively loading his response on him. As Hawkins (2007)puts, a rich learning environment is where the teacher bends towards the students to grasp their understandings before getting the students converge to his own expert understandings. Therefore, the teacher’s response in that special case might lead to any microgenetic development.

Therefore, it can be strongly claimed that ISRF sequences are anti-pedagogical sequences on the basis of aforementioned reasons along with some other reasons which are latent at the moment (e.g. the fact that they shift the feedback provision role for students which is mostly limited to a single TCU). Turning our attention from single ISRF sequences to embedded ISRF sequences, leads us to a far more detrimental kind of ISRF sequences. The reason is that in embedded ISRF sequences any potential harm is doubled or tripled. The extract of ISRF sequence which was examined in section B is an example of a triple ISRF sequence. As it was shown in the excerpt, Arezoo and her teacher jointly undertook the construction of a triple ISRF sequence in which teacher B destroyed three invaluable learning opportunities for Arezoo.

Therefore, all the above mentioned negative features of ISRF sequences afflicted Arezoo on three consecutive occasions. If the given events were at least unfolded through IRF sequences, the case underway could have been much more educational. Students in this case could at least have been awarded with a sufficient time to decode the initiation posed by the teacher. Later, they could have undergone too much of those cognitive processes to articulate an appropriate answer. As was discussed before, the mere practice of talking is learning in Vygotskian psychology. More participation turns and longer moves would mean that students will speak out more and their voices will be heard in the classroom. When students feel that their voices are heard, they easily attempt to obtain other turns and try to give longer answers (Waring, 2009).But the reality was completely the opposite. In fact, they only produced a single word TCU feedback move.

Conclusion

The present study was actually intended to investigate the negative relevance of a modified form of IRF sequences called ISRF sequences to learning opportunities. We discussed that IRF sequences have been criticized harshly within the field of language teaching. In addition to these criticisms, our finding managed to cast light on two related issues concerning IRF sequences. First was the fact that IRF sequences do actually undergo internal modifications. We labeled these modified forms as ISRF sequences. And the second is that these types of interaction patterns have potential to be twice as detrimental as IRF sequences are. The reason of such degree of drawback is that within ISRF sequences, students are bereft of even response turns. In these sequences the teacher appropriates both initiation and response moves to himself. That is to say, these sequences strongly obstruct learning opportunities of students. By the same token, they support participation opportunities of the teacher. Therefore, based on our findings, it is compulsory for the teacher to exclude ISRF sequences on the grounds that these sequences have potential to destroy any participation opportunities nearby. In order for a successful learning to occur in classroom settings, teachers should create rich participation contexts where students are provided with multiple opportunities to easily grasp the speaking floor and manage the discourse and to choose when they want to speak. Working in this way, they can provide invaluable space for students to practice the skills needed for the realities of the target society. It is also advisable for teachers to help students to build on previous utterances, to engage others (specifically low achievers) in interaction, to negotiate in the current discussions of the classroom, and in some instances to offer them extended wait-time.

The Authors

Amir Marzban is an assistant professor of TESOL at Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr branch. His research interests include conversation analysis, L2 reading, CALL, materials development, and teacher education. He has published in both Iranian and International journals and also has presented in many international conferences.

Baqer Yaqubiis an assistant professor of TESOL at University of Mazandaran. His main research interests are interlanguage pragmatics, classroom discourse and CA for SLA.

Mojtaba Qalandari is an MA graduate of TEFL from University of Mazandaran and currently teaches at Azerbaijan universities. His research interest is the relevance of classroom interaction and language learning.

References

Barnes, D. (1969). Language in the secondary classroom.In D. Barnes, J. Britton & H. Roses (Eds.), Language, the learner, and the school (pp. 11-77).Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Barnes, D. (1992). From communication to curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Barnes, D. (2008).Exploratory Talk for Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/23512_01_Mercer_Ch_01.pdf

Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse.  In Handbook of research on teaching (3^rd  ed., pp. 432–463). New York: Macmillan.

Cazden, C.B.(1988). Classroom discourse.The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.      

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse (2^nd  ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Dinsmore, D. (1985). Waiting for Godot in the EFL classroom.ELT Journal, 3: 225-234.

Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–50). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Gutierrez, K. (1994). How talk, context, and script shape contexts for learning: a cross case comparison of journal sharing .Linguistics and Education. 5, 335-365.

Hawkins, B. (2007). Open-endedness, the instructional conversation and the activity system: How might they come together? In R. Alanen& S. Poyhonen (Eds.), Language in action: Vygotsky and Leontievian legacy today (pp. 245–279).  Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Hellermann, J, 2003. The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: teacher repetition in  feedback moves. Language in Society. 32, 79–104.

Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA.AILA Review, 19, 83–99.                                                                                        

Lin, A. (1999). Doing-English-Lessons in the reproduction or transformation of social worlds?TESOL Quarterly. 33(3): 393-412

Lemke, J. L. 1990.Talking science: Language, Learning and Values.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mehan, H. (1979).Learning Lessons: social organisation in the classroom.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nassaji, H. & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’? An investigation of  teacher-learner interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21, 376– 406.

Nystrand, M. (1997). Dialogic instruction: When recitation becomes conversation. In M. Nystrand, A. Gamoran, R. Kachur, & C. Prendergast (Eds.), Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom (pp. 1–29). New York: Teachers College Press.

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1974).Opening up closings.In R. Turner (Ed.) Ethnomethodology (pp. 233–264).Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.                    

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Sinclair, J. M., &Coulthard, M. (1975).Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

Ten Have, P. (1999). Doing Conversation Analysis: A practical Guide. London: SAGE Publications.

Waring, H. Z. (2008).Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities.Modern Language Journal, 92, 577–594.

Waring, H. Z. (2009).Moving out of IRF: A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59(4), 796-824.

Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976).The Role of Tutoring In Problem Solving.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17: 89-100.

 

Appendix A

Transcription Convention:

(.)                                        untimed perceptible pause within a turn

Underline  stress

CAPS                     very emphatic stress

↑                                         high pitch on word

↓                                        low pitch on word

.                                          sentence-final falling intonation

?                                         yes/no question rising intonation

,                                          phrase-final intonation (more to come)

-                                          a glottal stop, or abrupt cutting off of sound

:                  lengthened vowel sound (extra colons indicate greaterlengthening)

=                                         latch

→                                       highlights point of analysis

[ ]                                        overlapped talk

◦soft◦                                  spoken softly/decreased volume

><                                       increased speed

( ) (empty parenthesis)      transcription impossible

(syll)                                                                                               count of unclear syllables

(Words)                                                                 uncertain transcription

.hhh                                                                                                inbreath

(Whole class)                                             all the students of the class

LL                                                                                      all the students of the class

L:                                                                                                   unknown speaker

(Unknown speaker)                      unknown speaker

(sentence)                                                               translation from fist language

 

Article View: 429

PDF Download: 213