English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
96 LEO VAN LIERbe called a closed rather than open discourse format, <strong>in</strong> that it structurally and functionallycontrols what takes place. It is like a discursive guided bus tour, but the it<strong>in</strong>erary is oftenunknown to the students.Students’ opportunities to exercise <strong>in</strong>itiative (see van Lier 1988; K<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>ger 1994) orto develop a sense of control and self-regulation (a sense of ownership of the discourse, asense of be<strong>in</strong>g empowered) are extremely restricted <strong>in</strong> the IRF format. Not only are studentutterances often highly elliptical and syntactically reduced, occurr<strong>in</strong>g only <strong>in</strong> the responseslot, sandwiched between two teacher turns (van Lier 1996a), they also prevent the studentfrom do<strong>in</strong>g turn tak<strong>in</strong>g, topic development, and activity structur<strong>in</strong>g work. They do notallow, to any significant extent, negotiation of the direction of <strong>in</strong>struction.Given these basic features, how does IRF relate to current recommendations ofco-construction, responsive teach<strong>in</strong>g (Bowers and Fl<strong>in</strong>ders 1990; Shuy 1991), or the <strong>in</strong>structionalconversation (Tharp and Gallimore 1988), especially if such recommendations arediscussed from the perspective of critical pedagogy (Darder 1991 ; Shor 1992)? I explorethis question from three different though related angles.Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and the notion of pedagogicalscaffold<strong>in</strong>gLev Vygotsky discusses the range of activities a learner can accomplish with the assistanceof a more capable person, such as a teacher. At any po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> a learner’s development, someactivities (skills, operations, etc.) are with<strong>in</strong> the learner’s competence (this might be calledthe area of self-regulation), others can be accomplished only with special guidance, and yetothers lie entirely outside the learner’s scope.The middle band of activity, which is naturallythe focus of pedagogical action, is referred to by Vygotsky as the zone of proximaldevelopment (1978). Work<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> this 7one (the “construction 7one”<strong>in</strong> Ncwman, Griff<strong>in</strong>,and Cole), a teacher develops strategies for assist<strong>in</strong>g the lcarner. The various k<strong>in</strong>ds ofassistance, which guide a learner <strong>in</strong>to an activity that <strong>in</strong>itially is too complex, are often calledscaffold<strong>in</strong>g (Rruner 1983).The <strong>in</strong>itiation-response-feedback exchange, at least when it moves beyond mererecitation and display, can be regarded as a way of scaffold<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>struction, a way of develop<strong>in</strong>gcognitive structures <strong>in</strong> the zone of proximal development, or a way of assist<strong>in</strong>g learners toexpress themselves with maximum clarity. IRF is frequently used to draw on students’ priorexperiences and current background knowledge to activate mental schemata and to establisha platform of shared knowledge that will facilitate the <strong>in</strong>troduction and <strong>in</strong>tegration ofnew knowledge. IRF used <strong>in</strong> several steps <strong>in</strong> a lesson or dur<strong>in</strong>g one activity among otheractivities (see Wells 1993), contributes to the atta<strong>in</strong>ment of a larger goal. Once it has served<strong>its</strong> purpose, it yields to other ways of structur<strong>in</strong>g participation.Scaffold<strong>in</strong>g, to be of true pedagogical benefit, must be temporary. The scaffold must begradually dismantled as the learner shows signs of be<strong>in</strong>g capable of handl<strong>in</strong>g more of thetask <strong>in</strong> question.This process is called handover (Bruner 1983), and without it scaffold<strong>in</strong>gwould simply breed dependence and helplessness. It is unclear whether IRF has <strong>in</strong> <strong>its</strong>structure the flexibility to effect handover. I suspect that, for handover to be possible, IRFmust be abandoned at some po<strong>in</strong>t to make place for autonomous learner discourse. Thisswitch from IRF to more open discourse structures may be a crucial pedagogical decisionpo<strong>in</strong>t, and research should focus on it closely.