Understanding Language Learning Through Second Language

Classroom Discourse: Teacher Feedback vs. Evaluation
Another aspect of teacher talk is the nature of the teacher’s responses to learners’ utterances. Planning meaningful and helpful responses is important in addressing the communicative goals of a standards-based curriculum. In Chapter 1, you explored the importance of developing learners’ interactional competence so they are able to manage discussions in relevant ways. As Hall (1995, 1999, 2012) points out, the rhetorical structure of most classroom talk is IRE:

• 
  The teacher initiates an assertion or asks a question.
  
• 
  The student responds.
  
• 
  The teacher evaluates, by giving an evaluative statement such as “very good” or by asking the same or similar question of another student (Mehan, 1979).
  

The purpose of this type of questioning is for the teacher to find out whether the student has learned specific material (a grammatical structure or set of vocabulary). For example, to find out whether students can tell time in the foreign language, the teacher might use a cardboard clock with movable hands, ask students to tell what time is displayed on it, and then provide feedback to indicate whether the response was correct or not (e.g., “That’s it,” or “No, that is not right”). In this type of oral exchange, the teacher often asks assessing questions (that is, questions that usually have one right answer or a predictable set of responses) and offers an evaluative response such as “very good,” “right,” “excellent” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). While IRE may be useful for the teacher in assessing achievement of material taught in a particular unit or lesson, it leads to mechanical, topically disjointed talk and limited student involvement (Hall, 1999). Moreover, it does not lead to use of the TL for interpersonal communication as defined in the Communication Goal Area.³
R eread the scripted classroom discourse sample that appears in Case Study One in
Chapter 1. What are some examples of IRE in this script? ■
As discussed earlier in this chapter, teacher talk must be more than “comprehensible” TL input and, from the perspective of “talk-as-discursive-practice,” should be expanded to include the aspects of topic development and management (Hall, 1995). If learners are to acquire the skills necessary to be able to participate in conversations outside the classroom, then they must participate in more than just the typical IRE sequences that occur in most classrooms. Wells (1993) contrasts IRE with IRF, which he defines as the type of classroom communication that focuses on making meaning and extending discourse, not on evaluating responses:

• 
  The teacher initiates an assertion or asks a question.
  
• 
  The student responds.
  
• 
  The teacher provides feedback to encourage students to think and to perform at higher levels (e.g., “Tell me more! Are you saying that . . . ?”).
  

In this discourse model, teachers use assistingquestions, which encourage learners to think, push learners to perform at higher levels, and integrate content and topics (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). Examples of assisting questions are: “What do you mean by that?” and “That’s incredible! Could you explain that a little more?”
Furthermore, students need experience in using turn-taking, which Hall (1996, 2010) notes is a primary communicative resource in speech-based instructional practices and a crucial part of the development of sociality. In classrooms dominated by IRE, learners do not have real opportunities to engage in turn-taking, as the teacher controls who will speak and when. (Turn-taking is discussed further in Chapter 8.) The implications of Hall’s research is that, when planning for instruction, the teacher should simulate real conversations in the classroom and thereby help learners develop interactional strategies, such as turn-taking. This means that students would benefit from opportunities during which they assume the responsibility for taking a conversational turn rather than raise a hand and wait to be called upon by the teacher.
How might teachers plan to incorporate more IRF and Interpersonal Communication into their teaching?

• 
  They can plan curriculum around interesting topics and contexts in which to anchor interpersonal communication.
  
• 
  They can incorporate tasks that provide opportunities for engaging students in meaningful interaction and for asking assisting questions to move discussions forward.
  
• 
  They can change the way in which the traditional warm-up is done at the beginning of class. Instead of asking each student a question that has little communicative value (e.g., “What’s the weather like today?” or “What time is it?”), they can introduce an interesting and/or personalized topic (e.g., an upcoming dance or championship game) and engage only a few students in discussion so they are able to take multiple turns. If time does not permit participation by the whole class, those who don’t speak on a particular day will benefit from observing a meaningful conversation and will have opportunities to participate on another day.
  
• 
  They can plan opportunities for students to acquire new information and/or engage in activities in which there is an information gap with the teacher and/ or peers on a topic important to them.
  
• 
  They can seek students’ input regarding the types of topics that they would be interested in discussing in an open-discussion format where divergent answers, opinions, and IRF have a role, and students are instructed in how to make feedback moves during an interpersonal exchange.