English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES IN CLASSROOM TALI< 97Intr<strong>in</strong>sic motivation and learner autonomyIntr<strong>in</strong>sic motivation can be def<strong>in</strong>ed as the human response to <strong>in</strong>nate needs for competence,relatedness, and autonomy (Deci and Ryan 1992; Deci,Vallerand, Pelletier, and Ryan 1991).It expresses <strong>its</strong>elf as a here-and-now <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> conduct<strong>in</strong>g an activity for <strong>its</strong> own sake, forthe pleasure, stimulation, or challenge the activity provides. Intr<strong>in</strong>sic motivation is closelyrelated to the perception of be<strong>in</strong>g able to choose and of be<strong>in</strong>g somehow <strong>in</strong> control of one’sactions. Actions that are perceived as be<strong>in</strong>g externally controlled have a tendency to reduce<strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic motivation, as do extr<strong>in</strong>sic rewards and praise or criticism (see Deci and Ryan 1985,1992 for examples and summaries of research <strong>in</strong>to <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic motivation; see van Lier 1996a).S<strong>in</strong>ce IRF is clearly other-controlled (from the learner’s perspective) and s<strong>in</strong>ce therewards (<strong>in</strong> the form of teacher approval or praise <strong>in</strong> the third turn) are extr<strong>in</strong>sic, prolongeduse of the IRF format may have a negative effect on <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic motivation and cause a decrease<strong>in</strong> levels of attention and <strong>in</strong>volvement. IRF exchanges are like discoursal tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g wheels.In bicycle rid<strong>in</strong>g the tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g wheels must eventually come off, and likewise <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>teractionIRF must be replaced by free social <strong>in</strong>teraction.Accord<strong>in</strong>g to proponents of <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic motivation (see van Lier 1996a), pedagogicalaction must be oriented toward <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g levels of <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic motivation and hence toward<strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g self-regulation and autonomy. IRF must break <strong>its</strong> lockstep and yield to otherparticipation patterns, ones that allow student <strong>in</strong>itiative and choice to develop.Transformation; or, chang<strong>in</strong>g educational reality through <strong>in</strong>teractionCritical pedagogy seeks to transform exist<strong>in</strong>g structures of control and <strong>in</strong>equality (Young1992; Darder 199 1) and to allow students to f<strong>in</strong>d voices of their own and become criticaland autonomous learners (Wertsch 1991). This emancipatory process requires truedialogue, which, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Paulo Freire (1 972), can flourish only <strong>in</strong> a climate of equalityamong participants. Freire ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s that dialogue is <strong>in</strong>dispensable for education: “Withoutdialogue there is no communication, and without communication there can be no trueeducation”.Characterized by one-sided control, IRF is only m<strong>in</strong>imally dialogic, and the students’participation <strong>in</strong> <strong>its</strong> construction (and <strong>in</strong> the progression toward the overall goal) is largelypassive. Therefore IRF cannot not be regarded as foster<strong>in</strong>g equality or contribut<strong>in</strong>g to atransformation of educational reality; it embodies the status quo.Yet, as <strong>in</strong>dicated above, itmay bc uscd as a preparatory step toward more emancipatory forms of discourse; it maybe valuable not for what it is but, rather, for what it potentially leads to. For that potentialto be realized, discourse must move from the patterns RobertYoung (1992) aptly callsWDPK (What do pupils know?) and GWTT (Guess what teacher th<strong>in</strong>ks) to more discursivepatterns marked by shared <strong>in</strong>quiry. It thus becomes important to <strong>in</strong>vestigate how IRF <strong>its</strong>elfcan be transformed and how transitions from IRF to other discourse forms can be effected.Equality and symmetryThe IRF structure is clearly a significant advance over the ritual magisterial performancesBourdieu and Passeron rcferred to as “theatrical monologue” (sce above), s<strong>in</strong>ce at least it<strong>in</strong>volves students and asks them to contribute, albeit with<strong>in</strong> someone else’s agenda.Howcvcr, <strong>in</strong> terms of communication, control, <strong>in</strong>itiativc, mean<strong>in</strong>g creation and negotiation,message elaboration, and a number of other features characteristic of social <strong>in</strong>teraction, thelearner’s side of the IRF <strong>in</strong>teraction is seriously curtailed.