Nghiên cứu thăm dò về cách sử dụng ngôn ngữ của giáo viên trong lớp học và cơ hội học tập của học sinh trong bối cảnh trường tiểu học

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

PHAN THỊ LOAN TRANG

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON TEACHER TALK
AND STUDENTS’ LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
IN A PRIMARY SCHOOL CONTEXT
Nghiên cứu thăm dị về cách sử dụng ngơn ngữ của giáo viên
trong lớp học và cơ hội học tập của học sinh
trong bối cảnh trường Tiểu học
M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 8140231.01

HANOI, 2018


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

PHAN THỊ LOAN TRANG

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON TEACHER TALK
AND STUDENTS’ LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
IN A PRIMARY SCHOOL CONTEXT
Nghiên cứu thăm dị về cách sử dụng ngơn ngữ của giáo viên
trong lớp học và cơ hội học tập của học sinh

trong bối cảnh trường Tiểu học
M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 8140231.01
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Le Van Canh

HANOI, 2018


DECLARATION
I hereby certify that the thesis entitled “An exploratory study on teacher
talk and students‟ learning opportunities in a primary school context.” is the
result of my own research for the Degree of Master of English teaching
methodology at the University of Languages and International Studies, Viet
Nam National University. This thesis has not been previously submitted for
any other degrees. The work was done under the guidance of Associate
Professor Le Van Canh, at the University of Languages and International
Studies.

Hanoi, May 2018

Phan Thị Loan Trang

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express the deepest gratitude to my supervisor,
Associate Professor Doctor Le Van Canh for his encouragement, supervision

and support all along the course of research. This paper would not have been
accomplished without his expert, constant and valuable guidance and
criticism.
My special thanks also go to my colleagues and students at some
primary schools in Hanoi (Tu Hiep primary school, Yen My primary school,
Dong Ngac primary school) for their enthusiastic participation during the
process of data collection.
Finally, I would also like to express my sincere thank and love to my
family who gave me time and encouragement to overcome all obstacles
during the completion of this study.

ii


ABSTRACT

In the following paper, it was tried to explore the characteristics of
teacher‟s using language in the classroom as well as the influences of teacher
talk on the students‟ learning process in primary school context. Teacher talk
and its consequence on students‟ learning opportunities are put into
investigation. Within the scope of this paper, three teachers and the students
in six classes coming from three distinctive primary schools in Hanoi
participated in the study. Data was collected by nonparticipant observation
with six video recordings which were transcribed carefully later. The different
aspects of teacher talk are analyzed according to recognized frameworks. As
the result, teacher talk was used to serve different pedagogical functions:
Question strategies; Encouraging expanded answering; Giving feedback;
Elicitation; Repetition; and Code switching. The result demonstrates that
basically, the teacher talk as indicated in the observational data shows that it
matches the pedagogical functions to some extent. They tended to repeat the

basic linguistic patterns to the students and also tried to elicit as much as
possible the students in an attempt to provide them with more opportunities to
use English in their own way. However, there were not many instances of this
pedagogical purpose that were observed. In addition, teachers rarely used
their talk to provide comprehensible input to the students. Particularly, it
seems that the teachers used Vietnamese unnecessarily excessive, thus
limiting the students‟ exposure to input for learning. This has implications
both for teachers of English in primary schools and teacher educators.

iii


LIST OF ABRREVIATIONS
EFL:

English as a Foreign Language

DQ:

Display questions

RQ:

Referential questions

IRF:

Initiation-Response-Feedback

L2:

Second Language

ZPD:

Zone of Proximal Development

iv


LIST OF FIGURE AND TABLES

Figure 1. A teaching-learning model (Stern, 1983: 500) .................................. 7
Table 3.1. Frequency of question types teachers used per lesson ................... 26
Table 3.2. Frequency of teacher questioning for ............................................ 29

v


TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION .............................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF ABRREVIATIONS ....................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURE AND TABLES ................................................................ v
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1
1. Rationale........................................................................................................ 1
2. Aims of the study. ......................................................................................... 2
3. Research questions. ....................................................................................... 2

4. Scope of the study. ........................................................................................ 2
5. Significance of the study ............................................................................... 2
6. Research methodology. ................................................................................. 3
7. Structure of the study .................................................................................... 3
PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 5
Chapter 1: Literature review ............................................................................. 5
1.1. Definition of teacher talk: .......................................................................... 5
1.2.The role of teacher talk in foreign language learning ................................. 6
1.3.The features of teacher talk ......................................................................... 8
1.4. Students‟ learning opportunities ................................................................ 8
1.5. Related theories .......................................................................................... 9
vi


1.5.1.Krashen‟s Input Theory ............................................................................ 9
1.5.2.The Interaction Hypothesis .................................................................... 11
1.6.Teacher talk and learner learning .............................................................. 12
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................... 18
2.1. Research methodology. ............................................................................ 18
2.2. Data Collection Instruments: ................................................................... 19
2.3. Context and Participants .......................................................................... 21
2.4. Data Collection and Data Analysis .......................................................... 23
CHAPTER 3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ......................................... 25
3.1.Questioning strategies ............................................................................... 25
3.2.Encouraging expanded answers ................................................................ 32
3.3. Giving feedback ....................................................................................... 33
3.4. Elicitation ................................................................................................. 35
3.5. Repetition ................................................................................................. 37
3.6. Code – switching ...................................................................................... 40
PART C: CONCLUSION............................................................................. 44

REFERENCES .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
APPENDIXES .................................................................................................. I

vii


PART ONE: INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale
It is no doubt that language teaching is a complex process involving many
interrelated factors. Before 1960s, teaching methodology has been explored
and an effective teaching method is tried to be found to apply for language
teaching. Since teaching methods don‟t play a decisive role in language
classrooms, the focus has shifted from teaching methods to teachers‟ talk in
classroom process. Ellis (1985:143) points out: “Classroom process research,
as Gaies calls the study of communication in the classroom, has taken
different form. The earliest was interaction analysis… An alternative
approach focused only on the language used by the teacher when addressing
second language learners. It sought to tabulate the adjustments which occur in
teacher talk.”
Teacher talk is particularly important to language teaching(Cook,
2000:144). The language that teachers use in classrooms determines to a large
degree whether a class will succeed or not. Teacher talk is estimated to make
up around 70% of classroom language. Teachers pass on knowledge and
skills, organize teaching activities and help pupils practice through teacher
talk. Teacher talk involves many aspects, in which teacher questions have
drawn much attention.
In recent years, studies on the language that teachers use in language
classroom has gradually drawn people‟s attention. However, few researches
have explored the effects of teacher talk on second language acquisition, even

hardly there are many researches exploring both positive and negative
influence on students‟ learning, especially in a primary school context.
In addition, I am myself an English teacher in a primary school. Thus, to
1


push the situation of learning language of the student, it is necessary for me to
do some researches on teacher talk which can facilitate or hinder the learning
process of my own students. Ultimately, I can pursue more suitable ways of
teaching for the enhancement of student learning.
2. Aims of the study.
The study aims at:
* Exploring the characteristics of teacher‟s using language in the classroom
* Exploring the influences of teacher talk on the students‟ learning process
3. Research questions.
In brief, these objectives can be achieved through finding tentative
answers to the following research questions:
1. What pedagogical purposes does teacher talk in the observed
classroom most serve?
2. To what extent does the teacher talk facilitate learner’s learning in
the EFL classroom?
3. To what extent does the teacher talk hinder learner’s learning in the
EFL classroom?
4. Scope of the study.
In the context of a primary school, the research is only focusing on
analyzing the critical episodes of teacher talk in the lesson which either
facilitate or hinder students‟ learning. In deep, I will investigate teacher
talk through six lessons of three teachers from three different primary
schools in Hanoi.
5. Significance of the study

The results of this action research will help the author as well as the
Engllish teacher in primary schools can realize the current situation of
teacher‟s using language in the classroom and its influences on students‟
2


learning opportunites. Thanks to that, we can find out the reasonable ways to
improve the effect of teacher talk in the classes of English language teaching.
6. Research methodology.
The study is aimed at exploring the characteristics of teacher‟s using
language in the classroom and its influence on the students‟ learning process.
Thus, a qualitative classroom-based research of methodology was chosen for
the study. In this exploratory study, the videos of six lessons of three teachers
coming from three different primary schools were collected and transcribed
specificially. Then the critical episodes of teacher talk from the transcribed
version would be analyzed carfully to find out that the language the teaches
used in the primary school class can facilitate or hinder students‟ learning.
7. Structure of the study
The research consists of three main parts: Part one, Part two and Part three.
Part one : Introduction
It consists the rationale, the research question, the scope of the study, the
significance of the study, the methodology of study, the research procedure
and the structure of the study.
Part two: Development
There are three chapters presented.
Chapter one reviews the literature relevant to the study including
definition of teacher talk, the role of teacher talk in foreign language learning,
the features of teacher talk and some discussion of students‟ learning
opportunities. This chapter also presents some related theories such as
Krashen‟s input theory, the interaction hypothesis. The IRF Cycle (InitiationResponse-Feedback) with the researches relating to Interaction in the

classroom and the outstanding characteristics of very young learners as well
are also mentioned in the last part of this chapter.
3


Chapter two discusses the method used in the study. It presents a
thorough justification for the use of qualitative research and the research‟s
components.
Chapter three presents the findings and discussion of the study. This part
is apparently important because it justifies the effectiveness of the research.
Part three: Conclusion
It provides summary of the findings, implication, limitation and suggestions
for further studies.

4


PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1: Literature review
1.1. Definition of teacher talk:
It is no doubt that language teaching is a complex process involving many
interrelated factors. Before 1960s, teaching methodology has been explored
and an effective teaching method is tried to be found to apply for language
teaching. Since teaching methods don‟t play a decisive role in language
classrooms, the focus has shifted from teaching methods to teachers‟ talk in
classroom process. Ellis (1985:143) pointed out: “ Classroom process
research, as Gaies calls the study of communication in the classroom, has
taken different form: interaction analysis; teacher talk; discourse analysis”.
All dimensions of classroom process, from giving instruction to questioning or
disciplining students, providing the feedback, involve teacher talk. Study on

teacher talk has become one of the most important parts of classroom research.
There are many definitions of teacher talk given by many authors. For this
term, Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics
defines it as “that variety of language sometimes used by teachers when they
are in the process of teaching. In trying to communicate with learners,
teachers often simplify their speech, giving it many of the characteristics of
foreigner talk and other simplified styles of speech addressed to language
learners” (Richards, 1992: 471). This view is similar to what Rod Ellis (1985)
considered teacher talk as the special language that teachers use when
addressing L2 learners in the classroom. He also commented “the language
that teachers address to L2 learner is treated as a register, with its own
specific formal and linguistics properties” (Ellis, 1985: 145).
Consided as a general term for different types of teacher talk, Ellis (1998)
stated that, teacher talk is a general term for different types of teacher talk
5


which refer to as “special language the teacher uses when addressing second
language learner in the classroom.” It can be categorized according to the
linguistic aspects and functions.
In another aspect, according to Poppi (n.d), teacher talk referred to the
modifications in teachers‟ speech which can lead to a special type of
discourse. By using „teacher talk‟, teachers are trying to make themselves as
easy to understand as possible by the students, and effective teacher talk may
provide essential support to facilitate both language comprehension and
students‟ production. In the scope of this study, teacher talk referred to the
kind of language used in the classroom rather than in other settings. It is the
oral form of teacher talk that is under this investigation.
1.2. The role of teacher talk in foreign language learning
Teacher talk is considered as a special communicative activity to

communicate with students and

develops

students‟ foreign language

proficiency. Teacher talk is used in class when teachers are conducting
instructions, cultivating their intellectual ability and managing classroom
activities (Feng Qican, 1999: 23). Teachers make use of the target language
to promote their communication with learners. In this way, learners practice the
language by responding to what their teacher says. As the result, the
communication between learners and teachers is encouraged. Therefore we can
say teacher talk is a kind of communication-based or interaction-based talk.
By the way, talk makes up around 70% of classroom language (Cook,
2000; Chaudron, 1988; Zhao Xiaohong, 1998). As Nunan (1991) points out:
“Teacher talk as discussed by (Cook, 2000:144), teacher talk is particularly
important to language teaching. According to pedagogical theory, the
language that teachers use in classrooms determines to a larger degree
whether a class will succeed or not. Many scholars found teacher is of crucial
6


importance, not only for the organization of the classroom but also for the
processes of acquisition. It is important for the organization and management
of the classroom because it is through language that teachers either succeed or
fail in implementing their teaching plans. In terms of acquisition, teacher talk
is important because it is probably the major source of comprehensible target
language input the learner is likely to receive.”. Teachers pass on knowledge
and skills, organize teaching activities and help students practice through
teacher talk. In English classrooms, teachers‟ language is not only the object

of the course, but also the medium to achieve teaching objective. Both the
organization of the classroom and the goal of teaching are achieved through
teacher talk. Thanks to Stern with his teaching-learning model which reveals
the important role of the language teacher and teacher talk during the process
of language learning

Figure 1. A teaching-learning model (Stern, 1983: 500)
Besides, there is a range of authors like Richards( 2015: 113) Ellis
(2005) believed that teacher talk is affected by language proficiency .Teachers
with a high level of target language proficiency are to be more competent in
providing extensive input for learners, which, as states, is a key principle for
successful instructed language learning. The same idea with Kim and Elder
(2008), Freeman et. al., (2015) maintain that the relationship between
teachers‟ target language proficiency, their classroom teaching and student
7


learning is really complex. With the scope of this research, this relationship
will be discussed concentratively on the teacher‟s ability to use language (
even mother tongue through the oral form of talk) to support student learning
in the L2 classroom.
1.3. The features of teacher talk
Basing on the definitions, we can see that teacher talk in English
classrooms is regarded as one special variety of the English language with its
own specific features as well as special style. In the researches of some
scholars (Hu Xuewen, 2003; Dai Weidong & Li Ming, 1998), teacher talk is
discussed in double features. The first one refers to the form of teacher talk,
such as the speed, pause, repetition, modifications of teacher talk. The second
one, which refers to the features of the language that teachers use to organize
and control classes, includes the following aspects: the quality and quantity of

teacher talk; the questions teachers use; interactional modifications and
teachers‟ feedback. In this study, these features are going to be discovered in
the English teachers‟ talk in the primary schools.
1.4. Students’ learning opportunities
There is no learning without input that is used to describe the way in
which learning opportunities are created in the L2 learning environments. It
is defined as a consequence of participation and use (Van Lier, 2014: 92) or
“Where language use and pedagogic purpose coincide, learning opportunities
are facilitated; conversely, where there is a significant deviation between
language use and teaching goal at a given moment in a lesson, opportunities
for learning and acquisition are, I would suggest, missed.” stated by Wale(
2002:5). He also presented the features of teachers‟ classroom language use
that can facilitate learning include direct error correction, content feedback,
checking for confir- mation, extended wait-time, and scaffolding. In addition,
8


from a conversation analysis perspective, Wong and Waring (2010: 278)
suggest teachers to be highly alert and deeply reflective about their
instructional practices so

as not to shut down opportunities for student

participation with their language use.
As Musumeci (1996: 314) suggests: „teachers . . . speak more, more often,
control the topic of conversation, rarely ask questions for which they do not
have answers, and appear to understand absolutely everything the students
say, sometimes before they even say it!‟
The work of Musumeci and others (see also Love (1991)) has clear
relevance to the EFL classroom where the ability by learners to formulate, reformulate, clarify and seek clarification are important indicators not only that

language acquisition has taken (or is taking) place but also that something is
being understood and eventually learnt. By „filling in the gaps‟, teachers may
facilitate a coherent and flowing discourse, but they may be denying their
learners opportunities to get to grips with the subject matter and to identify
potential problems in understanding. In the words of Scott Thornbury (2000:
28): “Moreover, language classrooms are language classrooms and for the
teacher to monopolise control of the discourse – through, for example, asking
only display questions – while possibly appropriate to the culture of
geography or maths classes, would seem to deny language learners access to
what they most need – opportunities for real language use.”
1.5. Related theories:
1.5.1. Krashen’s Input Theory
Input plays a critical role in language learning. There is no learning
without input. The language used by the teacher affects the language produced
by the learners, the interaction generated, and hence the kind of learning that
takes place. The problem is what type and how much of input is appropriate
9


and useful for language learners in classrooms.
In Krashen‟s view, learning only takes place by means of a learner‟s
access to comprehensible input. “Humans acquire language in only one way -by understanding messages or by receiving comprehensible input. Learning
will occur when unknown items are only just beyond the learner‟s level. It is
explained in detail “i+1”structure. “i” stands for the learners‟ current
linguistic competence, and “1” stands for the items the learners intend to
learn. The Input Theory also has two corollaries (Krashen, 1985: 2):
Corollary 1: Speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause; it emerges as
result of building competence via comprehensible input.
Corollary 2: If input is understood and there is enough of it, the necessary
grammar is automatically provided. The language teacher need not attempt

deliberately to teach the next structure along the natural order -- it will be
provided in just the right quantities and automatically reviews if the student
receives a sufficient amount of comprehensible input.
By examining the idea of comprehensible input and the two corollaries,
one can find that comprehensive and right quantity input is the central concern
with which learners are able to learn language. It is the foundation or premise
of the occurrence of learning. This provides implications for language
teaching: teacher talk should be comprehensible in different forms and in right
quantities. But how could teachers know whether their input is enough or not?
How could they make their input comprehensible? Krashen describes two
ways: the linguistic resources are insufficient for immediate decoding.
Simplified input can be made available to the learner through one-way or twoway interaction, with the former including listening to a lecture, watching
television and reading, and the latter occurring in conversations. Krashen
stresses that two-way interaction is a particularly good way of providing
10


comprehensible input because it enables the learner to obtain additional
contextual information and optimally adjusted input when meaning has to be
negotiated because of communication problems.
In Krashen‟s view, acquisition takes place by means of a learner‟s access
to comprehensible input. He comments that the input, which is totally
incomprehensible to learners, is not likely to cause learning to tack place.
Teacher talk, actually serves as main sources of input of language exposure
as well as the opportunities for students to take part in the lesson, then achieve
new knowledge by themselves in classroom learning, is more important for
foreign language learning. So teachers should make their input comprehensible
and in right quantities.
1.5.2.The Interaction Hypothesis
The Interaction Hypothesis claims that it is in the interaction process that

acquisition occurs: learners acquire through talking with others (Johnson,
2002: 95). In recent years, a great deal of researches (Allwright, 1984; Ellis
1990; Long, 1983; 32; Swain, 1985) in the field of L2 acquisition reveals to a
great extent the importance of classroom interaction that involves both input
and output. According to Allwright and Ellis, classroom teaching should be
treated as interaction. Now, it is clear that the language used in classroom
affects the nature of the interaction, which in turn affects the opportunities
available for learning, the study of interaction is therefore critical to the study
of language classroom learning. Van Lier (1988) pointed out that if the keys to
learning are exposure to input and meaningful interaction with other speakers,
we must find out what input and interaction the classroom can provide… we
must study in detail the use of language in the classroom in order to see if and
how learning comes about through the different ways of interaction in the
classroom. He also pointed out that interaction is essential for language
11


learning which occurs in and through participation in speech events, that is,
talking to others, or making conversation (Van Lier, 1988:77-78).
Ellis (1985) pointed out: classroom instruction, both in the form of
meaningful interaction, and in the form of linguistic rules, may influence the
rate of acquisition. Teachers can influence the kind of interaction that occurs
in their own classrooms. In another word, teachers use the language to
encourage the communication between learners and themselves. Therefore we
can say teacher talk is a kind of communication – based or interaction – based
talk. Successful outcomes may depend on the type of language used by the
teacher and the type of interactions occurring in the classroom. We can say
how a lesson progresses and whether it is successful largely depend on the
interaction between the students and the teacher.
Thus in order to improve students learning outcomes, it is necessary to

engage students in meaningful interactions with teachers and other students.
When learners are given opportunities to take part in conversational
interaction, they have to “negotiate for meaning”. This term refers to those
modifications, which speakers make during the interaction in order to be
understood or to understand each other. This process of negotiation is thought
to lead to L2 development specifically communicative abilities. The result of
the negotiation of meaning is that particular types of input and interaction
result (Ellis, 1985:142). Teachers carry out all his teaching tasks by teacher
talk, an understanding of the aspects of teacher talk and their functions in the
classroom interaction is, therefore, very important.
1.6. Teacher talk and learner learning
As mentioned above, this paper is based on the theory of Interaction
hypothesis. Therefore, in this section, I will discuss the most common feature
of teacher-student interaction which is found in the classroom and often
12


mentioned in research on classroom interaction (e.g., Macbeth, 2000; Walsh,
2011):

Initiation-Response-Feedback

(IRF).

Next,

the

outstanding

characteristics of very young learners who are at the age of primary school
will be made clear in this interaction.
Firstly, the IRF Cycle(Initiation-Response-Feedback) in language
teaching which is first described by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975)is the
familiar sequence of teacher-student-teacher turn-taking in the classroom. In
the “initiation” (I) phase the teacher usually asks a question, to which the
student responds (R). Then, it is followed by some sort of feedback by the
teacher. In other words, the role of teachers in IRF is asking students knownanswer questions (Heritage, 2005; Hosoda, 2014; Lerner, 1995; Schegloff,
2007), to which students respond, and teachers give feedback based on the
accuracy of the student's response. IRFs are an important feature of classroom
discourse. As discussed by Van Lier(2001: 94), three factors in the cycle have
great influences on each other, in detail, “depending which questions are
asked, the initiation stage may „…require students merely to recite previously
learned items.”. On the contrary, he goes on to say: “ At the most demanding
end of IRF, students must be articulate and precise; they are pushed by
successive probing questions, to clarify, substantiate, or illustrate a point that
they made previously.”. While the IRF format may not be inherently
ineffective, it could be considered restrictive, in that students aren‟t able to
initiate themselves. (Van Lier, 95). The IRF sequences have been blamed for
constraining the development of authentic discourse in classrooms. For
example, van Lier (1996: 151) states,
At times...the IRF structure makes it unattractive and unmotivating for
students to participate in classroom interaction, since their responses
may be evaluated or examined publicly, rather than accepted and
appreciated as part of a joint conversation.
13


However, Van Lier uses „at times‟ meaning for many teachers, eliciting is
heavily ritualised, and virtually the only way they know how to talk to

learners. It might be possible to conclude, therefore, that this form of
interaction could be viewed as more pedagogically sound if the teacher were
to ask more referential questions vs. display questions, which would give IRF
the purpose of scaffolding, as Van Lier (2001: 96) suggests: „The initiationresponse-feedback exchange, at least when it moves beyond mere recitation
and display, can be regarded as a way of scaffolding instruction, a way of
developing cognitive structures in the zone of proximal development, or a
way of assisting learners to express themselves with maximum clarity.‟
Perhaps he is advocating that we design our questions with consideration to
Vygotsky‟s (1978: cited in Van Lier, 2001: 96) “zone of proximal
development.”
According to Walsh (2011), the IRF exchange structure is "the most
commonly occurring discourse structure to be found in classrooms all over
the world" (p. 23). Ohta (1999) examined instances of IRF sequences in
teacher-student interaction, and student-student interaction in Japanese
language classrooms and reported that the IRF sequences have power in the
language socialization of classroom interaction (p. 1495). Similarly, in
another study Ohta (2001) reported that “ne-marked” assessments (i.e.
assessments followed by the word “ne” which is used to show agreement or
emphasis a prior word or sentence) in the third turn of IRF sequences were
frequent and explicitly worked as an agreement token to the ongoing
interaction, or an affiliation to the talk the student is producing. Nassaji and
Wells (2000) argue that the IRF structure has several functions and can take
various forms. This paper investigates how IRF sequences are performed in a
team-teaching context involving a native-and non-native speaking English
14


teacher”. It also examines the different forms that the IRF can take, detailing
exactly what happens before and after as well as between each of the turns in
the IRF sequence. In classroom interaction the teacher often controls the topic

and the amount of attention that each student receives, and allocates turns
(Erickson, 2004). On occasions where a teacher proceeds with the interaction
without providing feedback, Seedhouse (2004) argues that the lack of the F
turn (i.e., the feedback part of IRF) implies a positive assessment even though
one is not explicitly given. Sometimes sequence closing thirds, words such as
"oh" and "okay," which minimally expand the preceding adjacency pair,
occupy the F position in the IRF sequence (Schegloff, 2007). However,
minimal responses in classroom interaction sometimes work as feedback and
demonstrate the convergence of pedagogical goals (Walsh, 2012). Beach
(1993) points 178 Jeffrie Butterfield and Baikuntha Bhatta out that "okay" can
signal an activity shift. This paper describes not only how IRF sequences are
co-constructed between teachers, but also what happens at and after the F
position, and how teachers close the sequence or begin a sequence closing
sequence. It also explicates how sequence closing sequences are dependent on
the nature and goal of the activity.
Most of the researches of the sequence of interaction in the classroom
are commonly applied on adult learners. In the paper, I will discuss in deep
this aspect in the context of primary school; in another words the interaction
between teacher and very young learners who have special characteristics in
learning as well as dealing with teachers in the classroom. In the following
part, these features related to the interaction process will be made clear.
Piaget( 1970) pointed out that children are active learners and thinkers.
Except for through their own individual actions and exploration, They
construct knowledge from actively interacting with the physical environment
15


in developmental stages and learn through social interaction. This view is
similar to what Vygotsky (1962) stated that children construct knowledge
through other people, through interaction with adults. Adults/teachers work

actively with children in the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD) = difference between the child's capacity to
solve problems on his own and his capacity to solve them with assistance
Children learn effectively through scaffolding by adults. (Bruner, 1983) The
adult‟s role is very important in a child‟s learning process. Like Vygotsky,
Bruner focused on the importance of language in a child‟s cognitive
development. He shows how the adult uses “scaffolding” to guide a child‟s
language learning through finely-tuned talk. (Cameron, 2001) Effective
Scaffolding (Bruner, 1983) includes the following conditions: creating
interest in the task; broking the task down into smaller steps; keeping child
“on task” by reminding him of the purpose or goal;

pointing

out the

important parts of the task; controlling the child‟s frustration during the task;
modeling the task, including different ways to do the task. It is obviously that
all of them belong to the circle IRF, especially in the first stage where teacher
talk happens the most.
Adopting the position that maximizing learner involvement is
conducive to second language acquisition, Walsh (2002) examined the
ways in which teachers, through their choice of language, construct or
obstruct learner participation in face-to-face classroom communication.
Walsh concluded that teachers‟ ability to control their use of language is at
least as important as their ability to select appropriate methodologies,
because teacher talk can either facilitate and optimize or obstruct learner
contributions has implications for both teacher education and classroom
practices. According to Walsh,
16