English Language Teaching in its Social Context

CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES IN CLASSROOM TALI< 97Intrinsic motivation and learner autonomyIntrinsic motivation can be defined as the human response to innate needs for competence,relatedness, and autonomy (Deci and Ryan 1992; Deci,Vallerand, Pelletier, and Ryan 1991).It expresses itself as a here-and-now interest in conducting an activity for its own sake, forthe pleasure, stimulation, or challenge the activity provides. Intrinsic motivation is closelyrelated to the perception of being able to choose and of being somehow in control of one’sactions. Actions that are perceived as being externally controlled have a tendency to reduceintrinsic motivation, as do extrinsic rewards and praise or criticism (see Deci and Ryan 1985,1992 for examples and summaries of research into intrinsic motivation; see van Lier 1996a).Since IRF is clearly other-controlled (from the learner’s perspective) and since therewards (in the form of teacher approval or praise in the third turn) are extrinsic, prolongeduse of the IRF format may have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation and cause a decreasein levels of attention and involvement. IRF exchanges are like discoursal training wheels.In bicycle riding the training wheels must eventually come off, and likewise in interactionIRF must be replaced by free social interaction.According to proponents of intrinsic motivation (see van Lier 1996a), pedagogicalaction must be oriented toward increasing levels of intrinsic motivation and hence towardincreasing self-regulation and autonomy. IRF must break its lockstep and yield to otherparticipation patterns, ones that allow student initiative and choice to develop.Transformation; or, changing educational reality through interactionCritical pedagogy seeks to transform existing structures of control and inequality (Young1992; Darder 199 1) and to allow students to find voices of their own and become criticaland autonomous learners (Wertsch 1991). This emancipatory process requires truedialogue, which, according to Paulo Freire (1 972), can flourish only in a climate of equalityamong participants. Freire maintains that dialogue is indispensable for education: “Withoutdialogue there is no communication, and without communication there can be no trueeducation”.Characterized by one-sided control, IRF is only minimally dialogic, and the students’participation in its construction (and in the progression toward the overall goal) is largelypassive. Therefore IRF cannot not be regarded as fostering equality or contributing to atransformation of educational reality; it embodies the status quo.Yet, as indicated 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 thinks) to more discursivepatterns marked by shared inquiry. It thus becomes important to investigate how IRF itselfcan 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), since at least itinvolves students and asks them to contribute, albeit within someone else’s agenda.Howcvcr, in terms of communication, control, initiativc, meaning creation and negotiation,message elaboration, and a number of other features characteristic of social interaction, thelearner’s side of the IRF interaction is seriously curtailed.