Classroom Discourse Analysis

726 Words3 Pages
and Teacher Revoicing The significance of examining discourse has been acknowledged for a long time (Mehan, 1979). Classroom discourse portrays the spoken social interactions between teachers and students (Harkness & Wachenheim, 2008). It is believed that discourse in the classroom is essential instrument for student cognitive development (McKeachie, 1994) and the quality of classroom discourse might set an appropriate ambiance for learning and transmitting teachers’ expectations for their students’ thinking (Nystrand, 1997). Nystrand (1997) stated that some kinds of classroom talk might provide more opportunities and flexibility for students to internalize new information. For example extended I-R-F patterns, student questions, authentic…show more content…
Cazden (2001) makes obvious differences between traditional and non-traditional classrooms. In traditional classrooms, a three-part turn sequence: teacher initiation, student response, and teacher evaluation or follow-up (I-R-E or I-R-F) was usually used (Cazden, 2001). In this type of discussion, typically, the teacher asks a question or initiates the discourse with a statement (I), and elicits a response from the students (R), and then follows up and/or concludes the conversation with an evaluation of the accuracy and/or appropriateness of the students’ response (F). Thus, it would not be wrong to say that teachers generally dominate the class talk; students have fewer opportunities to ask their own questions or generate contributions to the topic in traditional lessons (Gutierrez, 1994). The IRF was regarded as the default or unmarked pattern of classroom interaction (Cazden, 2001). Results of research reiterated the dominance of the IRF pattern in many traditional classrooms (Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Cazden, 2001; Smith, Hardman, Wall, & Mroz, 2004; Wells, 1999). For instance, Wells (1999) stated that the IRF pattern represented about 70 percent of all classroom discourse in both secondary and primary schools. Generally, student participation was limited in the classrooms dominated by the IRF pattern because teachers had the rights to initiate speech, and evaluate students’ statements, on the other hand students were restricted in terms of participation, asking questions and negotiating meaning (Cullen, 2002; Lee, 2007; Markee, 2000; McCarthy, 1991; Walsh, 2002). Typically an IRF includes two teacher turns but only one student turn. Wilson and Smetana (2011) argued that the IRF led to making students passive and portrayed a non-engagement mode towards learning. On the other hand, in

More about Classroom Discourse Analysis

Open Document