From feedback to follow-up in the third turn of IRF sequences: A challenge to promote genuine interaction in EFL classes

Laura Margarita Pinzón-Jácome, Carlos Augusto Lozano-Jaimes, Laura Cristina Dueñas-Angulo

Resumen


Introduction: In this paper, we present an analysis of the teacher-student interaction patterns in efl classes found at a Colombian private university. Methodology: This analysis was made during a qualitative case study in which 36 class observations were conducted. Data were coded and further categorized with the help of Nvivo10 software. Findings: Teacher-student interaction was the most common type of classroom exchange. A three-turn sequence, commonly referred to as irf, was chief among those interactions. In an irf exchange the teacher (I)nitiates the interaction, the student (R)esponds and the teacher provides (F)eedback. The third turn in irf exchanges was scarcely used to follow-up on students’ responses. Furthermore, we present the implications of using the third turn for both feedback and follow-up. Conclusions: Given the analysis made, the authors conclude that teachers should use the third turn for follow-up if the goal is to promote genuine linguistic interaction and engage students in meaningful communication.


Palabras clave


feedback; follow-up; interaction; IRF

Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


Allwright, Robert. “The importance of interaction in classroom language learning.” Applied linguistics, vol. 5, 1984, pp. 156-171.

Baynham, Mike. “Agency and contingency in the language learning of refugees and asylum seekers.” Linguistics and Education: An International Research Journal, vol. 17, 2006, pp. 24-39, doi:10.1016/j.linged.2006.08.008. Accessed 1 Sep. 2016.

Behnam, Biook, and Yassamin Pouriran. “Classroom discourse: analyzing teacher/learner interactions in Iranian EFL task-based classrooms.” Porta Linguarum, vol. 12, 2009, pp. 117-132, http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PL_numero12/8%20Biook%20Behnam.pdf. Accessed 1 Sep. 2016.

Brown, Douglas. Teaching by Principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. 3rd ed., Pearson, 2007.

Candela, Antonia. “Students’ power in classroom discourse.” Linguistics and education, vol. 10, 1998, pp. 139-163.

Creswell, John. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. 2nd ed., Sage, 2007.

Ellis, Rod. Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford UP, 1985.

---. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford UP, 2008.

Fajardo, Alberto. “Conversation analysis (CA) in primary school classrooms.” HOW, vol. 15, 2008, pp. 11-27. https://www.howjournalcolombia.org/index.php/how/article/view/85/83. Accessed 1 Feb. 2017.

Gass, Susan, and Alison Mackey. “Input, interaction and output: an overview.” AILA Review, vol. 19, 2006, pp. 3-17, doi: 10.1075/aila.19.03gas. Accessed 1 Sep. 2016.

Gündüz, Müge. “Analyzing language classrooms through classroom interaction.” Journal of human sciences, vol. 11, 2014, pp. 1149-1166, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14687/ijhs.v11i2.3044.

González, Luz Ely, and Nixdey Arias. “Enhancing oral interaction in English as a foreing language through task-based learning activities.” Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, vol. 2, 2009, pp. 1-9, http://laclil.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/LACLIL/article/viewFile/laclil.2009.2.2.10/2737. Accessed 1 Feb. 2017.

Guba, Egon. “Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic enquiries. Educational Communication and Technology.” Educational Communication and Technology, vol. 29, 1981, pp. 75-91, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30219811?origin=JSTOR-pdf&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Accessed 1 Sep. 2016.

Hall, Joan, and Meghan Walsh. “Teacher-student interaction and language learning.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 22, 2002, pp. 186-191, http://www.learner.org/workshops/tfl/resources/s2_languagelearning1.pdf. Accessed 1 Sep. 2016.

Hedge, Tricia. Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford UP, 2000.

Herazo, José. “Authentic oral interaction in the EFL class: What it means, what it does not.” PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ professional Development, vol. 12, 2010, pp. 47-61, http://www.revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/profile/article/view/13833/14541. Accessed 1 Sep. 2016.

Kumaravadivelu, B. Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Yale UP, 2003.

Lei, Xuelian. “Communicative Teacher Talk in the English Classroom.” English Language Journal, vol. 2, 2009, pp. 75-79, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1082332.pdf. Accessed 1 Sep. 2016.

Long, Michael, and Charlene Sato. “Methodological issues in interlanguage studies: an interactionist perspective.” Interlanguage, edited by Alan Davies, et al., Edinburgh UP, 1984, pp. 253-279.

Luu, Trong, and Thi Nguyen. “Theoretical Review on Oral Interaction in EFL Classrooms. Studies in literature and language.” Studies in literature and language, vol. 1, 2010, pp. 29-48, http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/sll/article/download/j.sll.1923156320100104.004/1434. Accessed 1 Sep. 2016.

Macías, Diego. “Considering new perspectives in ELT in Colombia: From EFL to ELF.” HOW, vol. 17, 2006, pp. 181-194.

Mackey, Alison, and Charlene Polio. Multiple perspective on interaction: second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass. Routledge, 2009.

Musumeci, Diane. “Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross-purposes?” Applied linguistics, vol. 17, 1996, pp. 286-325.

Mortimer, Eduardo, and Andréa Machado. “Anomalies and conflicts in classroom discourse.” Science education, vol. 84, 2000, pp. 429-444.

Patton, Michael. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage, 1990.

Rosado, Nayibe. “Contingent interaction: a case study in a colombian EFL classroom.” Zona Proxima, vol. 17, 2012, pp. 154-175, http://rcientificas.uninorte.edu.co/index.php/zona/article/viewArticle/3751. Accessed 1 Feb. 2017.

Richards, Jack, and Charles Lockhart. Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge UP, 1996.

Rivers, Wilga. Interactive language teaching. Cambridge UP, 1987.

Sinclair, John, and Malcolm Coulthard. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford UP, 1992.

Suter, Christoph. Exploring Teachers' Questions and Feedback. 2001, http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/cels/essays/languageteaching/suter1.pdf

Truscott, Anne-Marie. Lineamientos para la educación bilingüe en Colombia: Hacia una política coherente. Informe de investigación. 2006, http://www.colombiaaprende.edu.co/html/productos/1685/articles-266111_archivo_1.pdf

Van Lier, Leo. Interaction in the language curriculum: awareness, autonomy and authenticity. Longman, 1996.

Walsh, Steve. “Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom.” Language Teaching Research, vol. 6, 2002, pp. 3-23, doi: 10.1191/1362168802lr095oa. Accessed 1 Sep. 2016.

---. Classroom interaction for language teachers. TESOL P, 2015.

Wells, Gordon. “Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and language classroom.” Linguistics in education, vol. 5, 1993, pp. 1-37.

Yin, Robert. Case study research: Design and methods. 3rd ed., Sage, 2003.


comments powered by Disqus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16925/ra.v18i33.1846

Métricas de artículo

Cargando métricas ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM


Contacto

Línea gratuita nacional

01 8000 420101

Dirección

Facultad de Ciencias Administrativas, Económicas y Contables
Calle 44 No. 15 28 oficina 105
Bogotá, D.C.

Teléfono

(57) (1) 2859500 ext 112

Revista en OJS implementada por Biteca Ltda.