the irf pattern

IRF | Jonathan Clifton | March 26th, 2001

At the moment I am working on my diss and am looking at the apparent lack of the IRF pattern in some of my lessons. I teach a lot of business English in small groups (3 or 4 students) or one to one with adults. On the whole these people are prepared to take an active role and talk about their lives/business concerns - as such, as I see it, the traditional social distance between teacher and student does not really exist (though of course the teacher still has language authority/power). Once you take away this social distance, which you have in schools with younger children, it seems to me that in the main the IRF pattern disappears and there is a much freer type of classroom interaction.

Question: is anybody else in the same situation? i.e. do you see an absence of the IRF in your teaching and if so what do you ascribe it to?

I'd be interested to hear your views on this issue. Is the IRF as ubiquitous as it is made out be???

Best

Jonathan
France

Re: IRF- what is it? | Jonathan Clifton | March 27th, 2001

IRF - what is it?

(Very quick) reply to Jerry's question:

Well it stands for, initiation, reply, feedback and it is allegedly the basic exchange in the classroom:

For example:

Teacher: what kind of word is always
Student: an adverb
Teacher: good

(This example is taken from Brazil and Sinclair's book "Teacher Talk" (1982 OUP). Julian talks about it a fair bit in about unit 4 or 5 of the FND.

Replies to Lori and Jake:

Thanks for your mails- yes I missed that idea of levels affecting interaction. Being so concentrated on the social distance ideas I missed that one. Yes I think you are right as a "rule" the lower the level the more the teacher is inclined to "structure/control" the lesson and thus use an IRF pattern. I don' teach too many low levels so missed this one even though it seems so obvious (now it is pointed out - thanks).

Yes, I agree with Jakes comments on class size. Basically the bigger the class the more need for control and I can see that when I teach larger groups (often of unmotivated young adults).

Yes, a low affective filter and the learner being willing to take the initiative (good learning styles) are also essential. I started with a new group today and was very conscious that I had to nominate speakers and really control the interaction. I think it takes time for a group to get confident and start using more initiative. On the other hand I started a new group on Monady (higher level) and I noticed one student was already speaking without being nominated by the teacher.

Also I think teachers who are less sure of themselves might be tempted to hang onto control more and use IRF as means of doing this but I've not researched this one.

Also I think it depends on the activity. Some activities might have a tendency to more controlled interaction others by their nature maybe lead to freer interaction.

Since both of you are working in an "Asian" country, how do you feel about this one, that Asian students defer so much to the teacher that they find freer interaction difficult to cope with. (Which brings us back to the idea of social distance). I read something along these lines recently about Taiwanese students at Australian universities but having no experiences with "Asian students" can't really comment.

Best

Jonathan
France

Re: IRF | John Bartrick | March 29th, 2001

Funnily enough I'd been thinking abut this IRF pattern the other day, in connection with the ways I use of giving feedback. I noticed that these included a type of "unstated" approval. What do I mean? Well, for example,

"T: George, number 7
G: He goes to school
T: Helen, number 8"

In other words I could have said, "Yes George you're absolutely right, now let's go on to the next question, Helen?...", but not surprisingly I settled for the shorter version.

I suppose that in this particular case, the new Initiation move includes an invisible type of positive feedback to the previous response.

Must dash

John Bartrick

Re: IRF | Tom Bloor | March 29th, 2001

Yes, moving on could signal positive response, but don't forget non-verbal signals, which can play an important role in interactions of this type (and others. of course).

Tom Bloor

Re: IRF | Jonathan Clifton | March 29th, 2001

I'm forwarding this to the list. See my technical PS below. Pressing the reply button means the response only gets sent to the "initiator." Any way of changing the list default so that the reply gets sent to the whole list?

Jerry wrote:

Very well put opinion. I will read Tsui's article. Seems very interesting.

I think Japanese students are trained to keep a distance from the teacher; I don't know whether this is unconsciously or consciously done. Perhaps some of both. When the gaijin teacher comes in all friendly-like ("hey, you can call me Jerry"), it puts them in a strange spot at first. Only after time, when the students and teacher get comfortable with each other, do they begin to loosen up.

You used the term "psychological soup" for what goes on in the classroom. That's it exactly! There is just so much stuff happening I can't keep track of it all. In the end, I just try to be myself. If I love and trust the students, and always go in with a humble attitude of service, then I find that all these psychological things tend to work out. It's not the techniques the teacher uses so much as their personality and energy for teaching. I've found that works best for me here in Japan.

Reply to Jerry:

Jerry you mentioned trust.

What do you make of this quote? (from Rogers Freedom to Learn p. 160 (1983))

"If I (the teacher) distrust the human being then I must cram her with information of my own choosing lest she go her own mistaken way. But if I trust the capacity of the human individual.... then I can provide her with many opportunities and permit her to choose her own way and her own direction I her learning".

The extension of this in interactional terms is, as I see it, with no trust a teacher-controlled classroom (IRF) and with a climate of trust a freer form of interaction.

I am trying to put my hand on a quote on the concept of trust from the students' perspective but can't find it. Stevick (I think) in one of he books basically says the data won't flow- in other words the students won't open up and speak about what really interests them or take the initiative unless they trust the teacher. I'll try to find the quote this weekend.

Thus unless the psychological climate is right we will always be stuck in a teacher controlled environment of meaningless drills etc - how about that for a sweeping statement but you get the gist.

How much of a chord does that strike with others on the course - loony or common sense???

Best

Jonathan Clifton

Re: IRF | Raymond Sheehan | March 31st, 2001

Non-explicit feedback (and the problems it may create for a few learners) is interesting. A useful summary of types of explicit feedback, however, is found in Lightbown and Spada's "How Languages are Learned" (highly recommended by J Willis recently), pp 103-106 especially:

*Explicit correction

*Recasts: teacher reformulates all of part of a student's utterance

*Clarification request (Has the utterance been misunderstood? Is it ill-formed?)

*Metalinguistic feedback: (T: What ending to we put on regular verbs talking about the past?)

*Elicitation:

*Repetition (T adjusts intonation to highlight error?).

The absence of feedback is not really a methodological problem but is a pedagogical decision. The real problem areas are lack of Student Response and lack of Student Initiation.

Raymond Sheehan

 

Archive Categories