ling209 assignment term 2 - robert love

LING209 Assignment: IRF Exchanges Robert Love

1

LING209 Assignment (Lent term 2012)

Use the IRF pattern to analyse an extract of classroom data, and discuss how the analysis can

help shed light on the relationship between language and learning.

1. Introduction

The aim of this study is to analyse an extract of classroom data with regards to the

Initiation-Response-Follow-up pattern, assessing the extent to which it can be employed for

the successful dialogic negotiation of knowledge. I first introduce and exemplify the relevant

literature before explaining the context and methodological background of the data I analyse.

This is followed by an analysis of three IRF sequences, where I discuss their use, and

usefulness, with relation to learning. I then draw the tentative conclusion that the IRF

structure can indeed be useful in the successful dialogic negotiation of knowledge, but that it

is by no means the only possible method in achieving this goal.

2. Literature review

Language is central to classroom activity (Bloome et al. 2005: xvi), in that talk

between the teacher and students is viewed as crucial to the learning process (Hardman 2008:

133). In the interaction between the teacher and the whole class, the social constructivist

model poses the teacher as manager (Nassaji & Wells 2000: 378) whereby students are to be

led as active participants in the co-construction of knowledge (Hardman 2008: 135). In this

model, it is the responsibility of the teacher to avoid transmission (presenting knowledge as

authoritative and immutable, Hardman 2008: 135), but rather aim for dialogic interaction

(Nassaji & Wells 2000: 376), where concepts are negotiated between the teacher and students

collaboratively (Hardman 2008: 135). Both transmission and dialogue can be achieved

through the IRF structure (Hardman 2008: 140):


2

- Initiation (by the teacher)

- Response (from the student(s))

- Follow-up (by the teacher)

(Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 21).

This is a participation structure that is apparent to both the students and the teacher

(Bloome et al. 2005: 29). In this study, I give focus to the moves of the teacher (and

therefore, mostly, the initiation and follow-up moves), however I also introduce response due

to its inherent relation to the other moves (Nassaji & Wells 2000: 401). See [2.1] for

exemplification (a key to transcriptions can be found in the appendix):

[2.1] Example of IRF exchange

38 T thats right (.) Josh what what have you written

39 down

40 P3 the the first one (1) it could easily have just been

41 a German stunt

42 T could have been (.) it was quite an elaborate stunt

43 [wasnt it]

In this triadic dialogue (Nassaji & Wells 2000: 376), the initiating move (line 38: Josh what

have you written down) is used by the teacher to invite a form of response from the student

(Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 28). Sinclair and Coulthard describe three categories of

initiation:

- elicitation - requesting a linguistic response (ie. interrogative):

Josh what have you written down (line 38)


3

- directive - requesting a non-linguistic response (ie. imperative):

please close the door

- informative - passing on information (ie. declarative):

it was quite an elaborate stunt (line 42)

(1975: 28).

Of course, these clause types (interrogative, imperative, declarative) also occur outside of the

IRF structure; Sinclair and Coulthard define them as initiating only when the teacher allows

the student to respond to them (1975: 35).

The response (line 40: the the first one (1) it could easily have just been a German

stunt) is dependent on the initiating move provided by the teacher (Sinclair & Coulthard

1975: 21). Because of this, Nassaji and Wells assign further distinctions of initiation moves

with regards to the responses they elicit:

- Assumed Known Information - the student is expected to supply information that

the teacher has in mind, initiated by:

Who was the king of France?

- Personal Information - the student is expected to provide their feeling about a

topic, and therefore the information is only known to addressed student, initiated

by:

What did other people think...?


4

- Negotiatory Information - the student is expected to participate in exploratory

discussion, where a resolution is reached collaboratively, initiated by:

Do you agree with Nir? Give us a reason.

(Nassaji & Wells 2000: 384-5; examples also from Nassaji & Wells 2000: 384-5).

I focus on negotiatory information, where the teacher has the opportunity to create

communities of inquiry (Nassaji & Wells 2000: 385) which is most conducive to dialogic

interaction.

The follow-up move (or feedback, or E for evaluation, Seedhouse 2004: 56) (line 42:

could have been) is more difficult to define because it is not predictable like the response

move (Nassaji & Wells 2000: 401). Follow-ups often commence with an acceptance (Sinclair

& Coulthard 1975: 36). In addition, I focus on three types of follow-up that are also frequent:

- Evaluation commenting on the quality of the response (Sinclair & Coulthard

1975: 36), often the result of an appeal for Assumed Known Information (Nassaji

& Wells 2000: 384):

thats right (line 38)

- Comment developing a response by exemplification, expansion or justification

(Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 36; Nassaji & Wells 2000: 379):

ah (1) there we go (.) so we could have written

down (.) this proves reincarnation (line 60)


5

- Sustaining strategy acknowledgment of response (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975:

42) as well as encouragement to continue (Tough 1979: 91):

yeah (line 10)

Initiation, response and follow-up are each known as moves which combine to create

exchanges (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 21) (like example [2.1]), which in turn often chain

together to form larger transactions (Hardman 2008: 138). In this sense, IRF has the potential

to be used as a powerful tool in the formation of collaborative learning (Nassaji & Wells

2000: 400).

However, its use outside of the discussed dialogic realm has been criticised as being

asymmetrical (Seedhouse 2004: 104) and too restrictive of learner-agency (Waring 2009:

816), especially when used in closed-question, recitation-style patterns (Hardman 2008: 135).

Waring advocates a departure from IRF due to the opportunity for student initiation (2009:

816), which is not usually possible in a traditional analysis of IRF exchanges (Sinclair &

Coulthard 1975: 37). She concludes that the irresponsible use of uninterrupted IRF exchanges

can be problematic if the student is not afforded the windows of opportunity (2009: 806) to

address issues they may have (2009: 818).

3. Context and methodology

I have chosen to analyse the IRF exchanges from a Year 8 (ages 12 13) religious

education lesson at a secondary school in southern England. At the start of the lesson, the

male teacher introduced two case studies about people (James and the boy in Beirut) who

had claimed to have been reincarnated. The pupils were then given a few minutes, working in

pairs, to write down some simple explanations to prove or disprove the evidence of the case

studies. The piece of classroom interaction (or transaction, Hardman 2008: 138) I have


6

chosen begins as the teacher draws the writing period to a close and gathers ideas from the

pupils as a whole-class discussion.

The data was recorded using a sound recording device that the teacher placed at the

front of the classroom. The conversation was originally recorded for another university

students dissertation (on an unrelated topic), and I was given permission to use the data for

the purposes of this study. The university student was not present in the classroom during the

recording of the data.

I transcribed the recording (lasting two minutes and thirty five seconds) using a

system based on Have (1999: 213-4) (both the entire transcription and a key can be found in

the appendix). I transcribed the audio as accurately as possible, however due to the recording

device being at the front of the classroom, some of the pupils responses (presumably from

those who were sitting further towards the back of the classroom) were difficult to transcribe

with certainty. In these situations I replace what should be a transcribed utterance with

(XXX).

4. Analysis

The following is the analysis of the teachers use of IRF patterns in the extract of

classroom data. I have selected three IRF exchanges, analysing how each works to develop a

consolidation of the students ideas. Exchange 1 is a demonstration of a standard IRF

sequence. Exchanges 2 and 3 relate to two different methods the teacher uses to either retain

or depart from the IRF structure. This is followed by discussion of the teachers strategies

with regards to the relationship between language and learning.


7

4.1 Exchange 1: Framing and negotiating

4.1.1 Exchange 1: data

The first exchange shows the teacher terminating the writing period before selecting

the first student to contribute their ideas about the reincarnation case studies:

[4.1] Exchange 1

1 T ok (.) erm (3) couple of minutes there (1) let me

2 just (2) let me just draw you to a quick

3 conversation I had with Jessie there (.) erm (.)

4 (lowers voice) we need to start writing (XXX) (2)

5 (raises voice) what explanations can you come up

6 with for this (.) so (.) the boy in Beirut and for

7 James (.) what did we say (XXX)

8 S1 erm that people could go on the internet and find

9 out about how people died and=

10 T yeah

11 S1 so go on family trees to find out about them

12 T it could be in todays age (.) we could very easily

13 find out about other families (.) very close details

14 of another family and we could pretend we could make

15 it up we could be acting (.) the young man in the

16 first erm YouTube clip (.) he hes written a book

17 the family have written a book called Sole Survivor

18 (.) its a good way of (.) selling that book perhaps

19 if were being cynical (.) and saying well they just

20 wanna sell the book they just wanna make some money

21 they wanna rip us off (1) and so hes gonna say (.)

22 all these details about it (.) but it it was a

23 convincing story and (XXX) (.) that as a partnership


8

4.1.2 Framing the transaction

In line 1, the teacher uses the frame marker (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 22) ok,

indicating the boundary in the lesson (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 22) between the writing

activity and verbal feedback. This is also likely an attempt to draw the attention of the

students to himself, so that he can frame the next transaction by informing (Sinclair &

Coulthard 1975: 28) the class about what is going to happen (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975:

22). What follows in lines 1-3 is likely further attempts at gaining the attention of the class

(or focusing, through metastatements about the discourse, Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 22,

ie. couple of minutes there and let me just draw you to a quick conversation). This could

be interpreted as cued elicitation, in that the teachers framing strategies provide warning

that a question, and indeed an entire transaction, is approaching (Edwards & Mercer 1987,

cited in Hardman 2008: 139).

4.1.3 Initiation: Negotiatory elicitation

Following the preparation, the teacher initiates the first exchange:

[4.2] Initiation of IRF exchange 1

5 what explanations can you come up



This is an elicitation (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 28). The use of interrogatives in lines 5 and

7 indicate the expectation of a linguistic response from a student. In what is probably an

additional attempt at framing, the teacher includes a clue (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 38), so

(.) the boy in Beirut and for James, to assist in responding to the elicitation. Furthermore, the


9

first interrogative (line 5) indicates the teachers desire for negotiatory information (Nassaji

& Wells 2000: 385), implying the beginning of a constructivist approach to the discussion

(Hardman 2008: 135). It is assumed that the second interrogative, what did we say, acts to

nominate (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 42) a particular student, because S1s response (line 8)

occurs immediately following this elicitation.

4.1.4 Follow-up: Negotiating the response

Indeed, the elicitation is met with a suitable linguistic response from S1, providing an

interpretation of the evidence for reincarnation:

[4.3] Response to initiation of IRF exchange 1



10 T yeah


It could be said that the teachers follow-up move begins in line 10; the acknowledging

yeah (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 42) is likely a form of acceptance of S1s contribution

(Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 36). The main body of the follow-up (lines 12-23) is crucial to

how the teacher uses the students response in the co-construction of knowledge (Hardman

2008: 132). In lines 12-13 (it could be in todays age (.) we could very easily find out about

other families), the teacher develops the response with informative comments (Sinclair &

Coulthard 1975: 28) that have lexical similarity to S1s response (the modal auxiliary could

and phrasal verb find out). The teacher does not provide an evaluation; he does not confirm


10

nor dismiss S1s response as the answer (Nassaji & Wells 2000: 384). Rather, the teacher

negotiates (Nassaji & Wells 2000: 385) the response as one of several possible answers.

Furthermore, it could be argued that the following hypothetical comments are

intended to expand the thinking of the students (Hardman 2008: 132):

[4.4] Hypothetical follow-up comments



21 they wanna rip us off

It appears that these open-ended, informative statements about what we (presumably the

teacher and students as a collective whole) could think about reincarnation is intended to

provoke the students into further exploration (Hardman 2008: 136), likely working to relate

the response from S1 to the thinking of the entire class.

4.2 Exchange 2: Maintaining control

4.2.1 Exchange 2: Data

In this exchange, the teacher gathers the view of another student, revealing how the

teacher attempts to maintain control of the IRF structure:


11

[4.5] Exchange 2


24 go on what what did you two think

25 S2 erm (.) maybe one day he was out (.) like (.) cos

26 the mechanic was only twenty five most (.) most

27 likely most of his ha family m might be alive so he

28 could of heard a=

29 T yes

30 S2 coincidence and then (.) maybe dream about it or

31 maybe just (.) thought or just maybe (.) just put it

32 together

33 T (1) yes I think thats a fairly decent thing isnt

34 it cos theres not so much of an age gap between the

35 young boy and the [mechanic here]

36 S2 [theres only] seven years between

37 them


4.2.2 Initiation: Promoting collaborative negotiation

Line 23 is the first example of the teacher chaining the IRF exchanges (Hardman

2008: 138). The second initiation is note-worthy in that the teacher directs the elicitation at

two students (what did you two think) without nominating an individual to provide the

expected linguistic response (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 28). This supports the social

constructivist aim for collaboration (Hardman 2008: 135), not only between teacher and

student, but between the students themselves. S2s subsequent response is the result of two

students collaborating to present negotiatory information (Nassaji & Wells 2000: 385).


12

4.2.3 Follow-up: Maintaining control

Like Exchange 1, in both lines 29 and 33 the teacher uses the acknowledgement yes

(Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 42). It appears that the first is used as a sustaining strategy

(Tough 1979: 91); it is not accompanied by any further follow-up and indeed the teacher

allows the student to continue their response. The second yes, however, immediately

precedes a comment follow-up move (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 36) (in similar negotiatory

style to the follow-up in Exchange 1, Nassaji & Wells 2000: 385) and is therefore unlikely to

be a sustaining move. However, S2 continues with the line 36 interruption theres only

seven years between them, seemingly adding comment to the teachers move. The teacher

responds with the positive evaluation thats right (line 38), before initiating a new IRF

sequence. In terms of the teachers apparent collaborative approach (Hardman 2008: 135), it

seems that his non-sustaining follow-up (lines 33-35) is intended as a form of concluding

strategy (Tough 1979: 91), in that he has gathered a sufficient contribution from S2 to move

on to the next student. In this interpretation, he is forced to maintain control by assuming the

role of the primary knower (with the authority to directly evaluate S2s response, Nassaji &

Wells 2000: 378).

4.3 Exchange 3: Moving away from IRF and reducing teacher-student asymmetry

4.3.1 Exchange 3: Data

This exchange occurs immediately after the third student has provided their first

response to an elicitation:


13

[4.6] Exchange 3


43 [wasnt it]

44 S3 [yes (.)] but (2) it wouldnt (.) to get (.) it

45 could have just been a (.) struggling newspaper

46 trying to get a nice story

47 T yeah (.) [yes]

48 S3 [and also] (.) w was drawing fighter planes

49 (XXX) rare in young boys

50 T no I thought that when I first saw those pictures

51 of a fighter plane [bombs and things]

52 S3 [yeah I (.) Ive got] hundreds of

53 those [things at home]

4.3.2 Initiation: Tag-question as dialogic and not necessarily IRF

In this sequence, the teacher provides an expansion follow-up move (Sinclair &

Coulthard 1975: 36), the informative it was quite an elaborate stunt (line 42). Had he ended

the move there, it would likely resemble a concluding move (see lines 33-35, section 4.2.3),

since S3 has already contributed a response (it could easily have just been a German stunt,

line 41) which the teacher has accepted (could have been, line 42). However, the addition

of the tag-question wasnt it (line 43) acts as an initiating move, eliciting a further response

from S3. This creates a dependent exchange (Nassaji & Wells 2000: 379), and is important

because it is indicative of a truly dialogic interaction; the teacher is beginning to move away

from the stringently structured (Waring 2009: 807) chain of IRF sequences.


14

4.3.3 Follow-up: Reducing teacher-student asymmetry

I focus on the following sequence of moves, due to their apparent departure from the

asymmetrical interactional structure (Seedhouse 2004: 104) of the standard IRF sequence:

[4.7] Departure from IRF







Line 48 is S3s third response in this exchange, the teacher having already applied the

sustaining strategy (Tough 1979: 91) yeah (.) yes in line 47. The fact that the teacher allows

S3 so many opportunities to contribute, unlike the expected asymmetrical turn structure

(Seedhouse 2004: 105), implies a departure from IRF. Furthermore, the teachers turn in line

50 is important because it appears as less of a follow-up move, but rather what could be the

response of a fellow student. The use of the verb thought (line 50) resembles a response to

an elicitation of Personal Information (Nassaji & Wells 2000: 384) in that the teacher appears

to present his personal opinion, rather than an authoritative (Hardman 2008: 135) expansion

(Sinclair & Coulthard 1975: 36). As Nassaji and Wells note, the teacher places his own

opinions on an equal footing to those of the student, promoting an environment for further

collaborative negotiation (2000: 385). From the students perspective, they have been

allowed to contribute responses that may not have arisen (Waring 2009: 815) had the teacher

adopted a similar restricting strategy to Exchange 2. For this reason, the case could be argued

for an increase in learner-agency due to the departure from IRF (Waring 2009: 816).


15

4.4 Discussion: Implications for learning

The exchanges I have analysed reveal the teachers commitment to a dialogic

approach to learning. It is clear that he is keen to gather a range of ideas from the pupils,

providing preparatory cues and indeed clues to assist them in responding to his initiations

(Exchange 1), which are encoded as demanding negotiatory information. He even states

explicitly that his role is not to prove or disprove (line 66) the students ideas. Indeed it is

apparent that the teacher uses IRF to consider a variety of alternatives (Nassaji & Wells

2000: 400), rather than a single authoritative explanation of the case studies for reincarnation.

What is evident from Exchange 3 is that this dialogic interaction is equally attainable

without the structure of IRF patterning. In Exchange 2, the teacher resorts to using a direct,

authoritative and evaluative follow-up move to terminate the students turn (only after the

student had responded sufficiently). Exchange 3, however, shows how relaxing the

established teacher-student asymmetry can also produce relevant contributions to the

dialogue, in an environment where the student is trusted with an increased learner-agency.

What can be taken from this is that the IRF structure, if applied responsibly, can indeed be

useful in the successful dialogic negotiation of knowledge, but that it is by no means the only

(or most effective) method in achieving this goal.

5. Conclusion

With the view that language is central to classroom activity (Bloome et al. 2005: xvi)

this study has aimed to shed light on the extent to which the Initiation-Response-Follow-up

structure can be employed for the successful dialogic negotiation of knowledge. Through the

analysis of classroom data I have found that indeed the IRF structure does have a place in the


16

social constructivist view of classroom language, but that it is by no means the only method

in achieving profitable student-teacher dialogue that is conducive to learning.

[2704 words]


17

References

Bloome, D., Carter, S.P., Christian, B.M., Otto, S. and Shuart-Francis, N. (2005) Discourse

Analysis and the Study of Classroom Language and Literacy Events: A Microethnographic

Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Edwards, D. and Mercer, N. (1987) Common Knowledge: The Development of

Understanding in the Classroom. Abingdon: Methuen.

Hardman, F. (2008) Teachers Use of Feedback in Whole-class and Group-based Talk. In Mercer, N. and Hodgkinson, S. (eds.) Exploring Talk in Schools: Inspired by the Work of

Douglas Barnes. London: SAGE Publications Inc. Pp. 131-150.

Have, P. t. (1999) Doing Conversational Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Nassaji, H. and Wells, G. (2000) Whats the Use of Triadic Dialogue?: An Investigation of Teacher-Student Interaction. In Applied Linguistics, 21 (3). Pp. 376-406.

Seedhouse, P. (2004) The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A

Conversation Analysis Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards and Analysis of Discourse: The English Used

by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tough, J. (1979) Talk for Teaching and Learning. London: Ward Lock Educational.

Waring, H.Z. (2009) Moving out of IRF: A Single Case Analysis. In Language Learning, 59

(4). Pp. 796-824.


18

Appendix

1. Key

Blue initiation

Red response

Bold red teacher response

Green follow-up

T teacher

S1 student 1

S2 student 2

S3 student 3

S4 student 4

[ initial point of overlap

] end point of overlap

(.) brief pause

(number) pause (number indicates length in seconds)

(text) paralinguistic information

(XXX) unidentifiable utterance

/ interruption

= latching (the next turn begins immediately after the

current turn ends)

(Simplified and adapted from Have 1999: 213-4).


19

2. Transcription

1 T ok (.) erm (3) couple of minutes there (1) let me

2 just (2) let me just draw you to a quick

3 conversation I had with Jessie there (.) erm (.)

4 (lowers voice) we need to start writing (XXX) (2)

5 (raises voice) what explanations can you come up





10 T yeah


12 T it could be in todays age (.) we could very easily

13 find out about other families (.) very close details

14 of another family and we could pretend we could make

15 it up we could be acting (.) the young man in the

16 first erm YouTube clip (.) he hes written a book

17 the family have written a book called Sole Survivor

18 (.) its a good way of (.) selling that book perhaps



21 they wanna rip us off (1) and so hes gonna say (.)

22 all these details about it (.) but it it was a


24 go on what what did you two think

25 S2 erm (.) maybe one day he was out (.) like (.) cos

26 the mechanic was only twenty five most (.) most

27 likely most of his ha family m might be alive so he

28 could of heard a=

29 T yes

30 S2 coincidence and then (.) maybe dream about it or

31 maybe just (.) thought or just maybe (.) just put it

32 together


20

33 T (1) yes I think thats a fairly decent thing isnt

34 it cos theres not so much of an age gap between the

35 young boy and the [mechanic here]

36 S2 [theres only] seven years between

37 them


39 down

40 S3 the the first one (1) it could easily have just been

41 a German stunt


43 [wasnt it]

44 S3 [yes (.)] but (2) it wouldnt (.) to get (.) it

45 could have just been a (.) struggling newspaper

46 trying to get a nice story

47 T yeah (.) [yes]







54 T [yeah (.) yeah] (.) youve probably drawn them

55 yourselves almost havent you (1) Sally

56 S4 erm I just (classroom noise builds)

57 T /guys listen to one another (1) Sally

58 S4 erm it could have actually he could have actually

59 been reincarnated

60 T ah (1) there we go (.) so we could have written down

61 (.) this proves reincarnation (.) he could have (.)

62 it could (.) I mean you mustn't be too (.) erm (1)

63 dismissive of it (.) oh rubbish (.) absolutely

64 nonsense you know (.) because it (1) (lowers voice)


21

65 might be true (1) we dont know Im not here to

66 prove or disprove it for you am I

ling209 assignment term 2 - robert love

Documents

teacher response

teacher bloome

irf structure hardman

teacher sinclair coulthard

irf pattern

irf sequences

irf exchanges robert

moves nassaji wells