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.
LANGUAGE FOR TEACHING A LANGUAGE 245Comments on Sequences 1 and 2Sequence 1 illustrates some patterns which typify most classroom talk. First, the teachertook longer turns at speak<strong>in</strong>g than any students. Second, she asked all the questions.Observational rcscarch has shown that <strong>in</strong> classroom conversations teachers usually ask thegreat majority of questions, usually - as <strong>in</strong> this case ~ to elicit some k<strong>in</strong>d of participatoryresponse from the students. She then evaluates the replies they give. She is also us<strong>in</strong>g questionsto direct the topic or content of the talk towards issues that she wishes to focus attentionon. Look<strong>in</strong>g more carefully at Sequence 1, we can see that there is a structural pattern tothe talk: a teacher’s question is followed by a student response, followed <strong>in</strong> turn by some teacherfeedback or evaluation. This structural element of classroom talk was first described by thel<strong>in</strong>guists S<strong>in</strong>clair and Coulthard (1975; see also Mehan, 1979; Van Lier, Chapter 5 of thisbook) and usually known as an Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) exchange. For cxample:T: . . . Have you got any toy animals? S- {Name of child} IS: (Stand<strong>in</strong>g up) I have got a cat, aRT: No, sit down, <strong>in</strong> your place.FIRF exchangcs can be thought of as the archetypal form of <strong>in</strong>teraction between a teacherand a pupil ~ a basic unit of classroom talk as a cont<strong>in</strong>uous stretch of language or ‘text’.They do not typify the pattern of talk <strong>in</strong> all classroom activities; other k<strong>in</strong>ds of talk <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>gdifferent patterns of exchanges (e.g. <strong>in</strong> which students ask questions of teachers, or of otherstudents) may happen too. And outside the most formal and traditional of classrooms, theymay not often be found <strong>in</strong> their classic, simple form. But IRFs have been observed as acommon feature <strong>in</strong> classrooms the world over, and <strong>in</strong> other languages bcsides <strong>English</strong>.In Sequence 1, the IRF exchanges are be<strong>in</strong>g used to perform a common function <strong>in</strong>classrooms, one that is almost certa<strong>in</strong>ly familiar to you from your own schooldays: a teacheris elicit<strong>in</strong>g from learners their knowledge of the relevant curriculum subject (<strong>in</strong> this case,<strong>English</strong>). Rcsearch shows that this particular hnd of use of question-and-answer by a teacherask<strong>in</strong>g questions to which thc teacher knows exactly what answers she seeks ~ is the mostcommon function of IRFs <strong>in</strong> classrooms. Here students are essentially try<strong>in</strong>g to provide the<strong>in</strong>formation that the teacher expects them to know. As the classroom researchers Edwardsand Wcstgate say:Most classroom talk which has been recorded displays a clear boundary bctweenknowledge and ignorance . . . To bc asked a question by someone who wants to knowis to be given the <strong>in</strong>itiative <strong>in</strong> decid<strong>in</strong>g the amount of <strong>in</strong>formation to be offered andthe manner of tell<strong>in</strong>g. But to be asked by someone who already knows, and wants toknow if you know, is to have your answer accepted, rejected or otherwise evaluatedaccord<strong>in</strong>g to thc questioner’s beliefs about what is relevant and true. (1 994, p 48)Teachers need to check students’ understand<strong>in</strong>g of procedural, factual matters, and that iscommonly the function of IRF cxchangcs. Sequence 1 illustrates also how ‘feedback’ froma teacher may also be used to control students’ behaviour. These are quite legitimatefunctions of teacher-talk, and all teachers might expect to use language <strong>in</strong> this way quitefrequcntly. But the danger of rcly<strong>in</strong>g hcavily and cont<strong>in</strong>uously on traditional, formalquestion-and-answer reviews for guid<strong>in</strong>g learn<strong>in</strong>g is that students then get little opportunityfor us<strong>in</strong>g language <strong>in</strong> more creative ways ~ such as experiment<strong>in</strong>g with ncw types of languageconstructions.