Investigating Teacher-Learner Classroom Interaction: Learner-Contingent Feedback across Proficiency Levels and Teacher Experience

Subject Areas : All areas of language and translation

Mina Esmaeili Bavili ¹ , Zohreh Seifoori ² , Touran Ahour ³

1 - PhD Candidate of TEFL, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
2 - Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
3 - Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

Received: 2021-08-13 Accepted : 2021-08-13 Published : 2021-10-01

Keywords: Teaching Experience, proficiency level, Classroom Discourse, Graduated/Contingent Feedback, IRF,

Abstract :

Initiation, Response, and Feedback (IRF) is the dominant classroom interactional pattern that, if employed adequately, can facilitate learners’ transition from other-regulation to self-regulation by providing scaffolded learner-contingent feedback. However, the extent to which the teaching experience and learners’ proficiency level may impact teachers’ employment of this interactional resource still awaits scrutiny. Hence, the present ethnographic classroom research explored possible variations in novice and experienced teachers’ use of IRF patterns and graduated/contingent feedback (GCF) when teaching upper and lower intermediate classes. To serve the purpose, 20 English classrooms at nine branches of a well-known language school in Tabriz during the same semester were selected that were being taught by five novice and five experienced teachers teaching based on purposive sampling. The classroom procedures were observed, recorded, and transcribed based on a validated researcher-designed observation form. The frequency of the IRF and GCF in the transcribed data were estimated and analyzed through a Chi-square test to find out variations across the proficiency level and teaching experience. The results revealed that teaching experience could predict the frequency of the IRF pattern use but not the GCF in the final turn; GCF was significantly disproportionate to the general use of IRF patterns and more frequent at a lower intermediate level.

References:

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The modern language journal, 78(4), 465-483.

Altman, D. G. (1999). Some common problems in medical research. Practical statistics for medical research.

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574.

Brown, R. A., & Renshaw, P. D. (2000). Collective argumentation: A sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching and learning.

Cazden, C. B. (2001). The language of teaching and learning. The language of teaching and learning, 2.

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences: Academic press.

Cromley, J. G. (2005). What do reading tutors do? A naturalistic study of more and less experienced tutors in reading. Discourse Processes, 40(2), 83-113.

Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues. Language teaching, 40(4), 309.

Ellis, N. (2007). The associative-cognitive CREED. Theories in second language acquisition: an introduction. B. VanPatten and J. Williams: New Jersey, Erlbaum.

Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition 2nd Edition-Oxford applied linguistics: Oxford university press.

Fuller, F. F. (1970). Personalized Education for Teachers. An Introduction for Teacher Educators.

Gass, S. (1997). 1997: Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gass, S. M. (2017). Input, interaction, and the second language learner: Routledge.

Gholami, J., & Talebi, Z. (2012). The effects of implicit and explicit feedback on EFL learners’ grammatical accuracy; the case of regular past tense in English. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 2(6), 39-62.

Han, Y. (2010). The effect of implicit and explicit feedback: A study on the acquisition of Mandarin classifiers by Chinese heritage and non-heritage language learners: University of Florida.

Jafarpour, A. A., & Hashemian, M. (2013). Impact of recasts and prompts on the learning of English third person singular marker by Persian learners of English. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1(2), 35-48.

Johnson, M. (2008). A philosophy of second language acquisition: Yale University Press.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics, 159-174.

Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development.

Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(7), 619-632.

Leont’ev, A., & Wertsch, J. (1981). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. JV Wertsch (Ed. & Trans.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology, 37-71.

Li, J. (2018). Investigating the Initiation-Response-Feedback cycle from moves to discourse: A comparative study of Chinese and Australian English language classrooms.

Lier, L. V. (1996). Interaction in the Language Classroom: Awareness, Autonomy & Authenticity: Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.

Liu, Y. (2008). Teacher–student talk in Singapore Chinese language classrooms: a case study of initiation/response/follow-up (IRF). Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(1), 87-102.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Handbook of second language acquisition.

Molinari, L., Mameli, C., & Gnisci, A. (2013). A sequential analysis of classroom discourse in Italian primary schools: The many faces of the IRF pattern. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 414-430.

Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross-purposes? Applied linguistics, 17(3), 286-325.

Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole-class discourse. Research papers in education, 21(1), 19-41.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language awareness, 9(1), 34-51.

Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of’triadic dialogue’?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied linguistics, 21(3), 376-406.

Ortega, L., & Byrnes, H. (2009). The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities: Routledge.

Ozemir, O. (2009). Three turn sequences in reading classroom discourse. The British Association of Applied Linguistics. Website: http://baal. org. uk/proc09/ozemir. pdf.

Pawlak, M. (2013). The effect of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on eliminating pronunciation errors Teaching and researching English accents in native and non-native speakers (pp. 85-101): Springer.

Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context: Oxford university press.

Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of child language, 24(1), 139-161.

Sheen, Y. (2010). Introduction: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 169-179.

Snikdha, F. R. (2016). Analyzing classroom discourse: an exploratory study on IRF at a private university of Dhaka. BRAC University.  

Sundari, H. (2017). Classroom interaction in teaching English as foreign language at lower secondary schools in Indonesia. Advances in language and Literary Studies, 8(6), 147-154.

Swain, S. (1996). Hellenism and empire: language, classicism, and power in the Greek world, AD 50-250: Oxford University Press.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context: Cambridge University Press.

Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 385-395.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language-Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The modern language journal, 92(4), 577-594.

Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and education, 5(1), 1-37.

Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: An ethnographic study of L2 socialization. Tesol Quarterly, 29(3), 473-503.

Xin, L., Luzheng, L., & Biru, S. (2011). EFL (English as a Foreign Language) Classroom Discourse Analysis of a Vocational College and Some Reflections. Online Submission.

Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 2(426-443).

Zarei, M., Ahour, T., & Seifoori, Z. (2018). The Effects of Implicit, Explicit, and Emergent Oral Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners’ Accuracy, Fluency, and Attitude. Language Horizons, 2(2), 75-102.

Zarei, M., Ahour, T., & Seifoori, Z. (2020). Impacts of implicit, explicit, and emergent feedback strategies on EFL learners’ motivation, attitude and perception. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1727130.

Zohrabi, M., Yaghoubi-Notash, M., & Khiabani, S. Y. (2014). Teachers’ Use of Display vs. Referential Questions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(2), 96-100.