The IRF exchange structure 33

The study by Bellack, et al. (1966) opened the door to classroom discourse analysis. With his focus on the pedagogical moves and the teaching cycle, the study of interaction in the classroom, first viewed through the moves between the teacher and the student, evolved to a detailed analysis of the whole interaction process. Building on the interaction moves initially described by Bellack, Sinclair and Coulthard were one of the first to advance an approach for systematic analysis of classroom interaction through discourse analysis. They wanted to analyze real examples of performance through which the intent of the speaker in a particular context could be explained. Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) created a hierarchically structured model of interaction built up out of four ranks, each rank narrowing the units of the previous rank. Ranks reflect size, not importance within the structure. Of particular importance for this research project was Rank III, labeled “Exchange (teaching).” This rank involved the IRF teaching-exchange or the initiation-response-feedback cycle. This IRF structure replaced the labels for the pedagogical moves introduced by Bellack. Example (2.1) illustrates the difference between social interaction and an IRF exchange:

25 FOCUS is reproduced and illustrated in Allwright and Bailey (1991, p. 207- 212).

(2.1) Social and classroom interaction sequence

Social interaction Classroom interaction

A: What day is it today? Teacher: What day is it today? (initiation)

B: Friday. Student: Friday. (response)

A: Ah, thank you. Teacher: Yes, very good. (feedback) In social as well as in classroom interaction, both the question and the response to that question are the same. The difference lies in the final response. In social interaction, where the question is genuine, the final response is one of gratitude. In classroom interaction, the teacher is testing the student’s knowledge, and in the final response, he gives his evaluation of the student’s answer to his question. Consequently, the interaction has an instructional overtone; the teacher is expecting a predetermined answer. In classroom interaction it is most often the teacher who initiates the interaction by asking for or giving information. In turn, it is most often the student who responds to the teacher. Finally, it is again the teacher who may respond in various ways to the student with feedback. This pattern is the IRF exchange structure. Instructional interaction, as illustrated in (2.1) distinguishes itself from real conversation in that it is more concerned about how something is said than what is being said.

As previously shown by Bellack, the teaching cycle, now termed IRF exchange,26 _{plays a dominant role in classroom interaction and}

particularly in teacher-centered or teacher-fronted type of classrooms where the teacher controls all the classroom events from topic choice to activity and interaction structure (e.g. Cazden, 1988; Ellis, 1990, 1999; Johnson, 1995; Mehan, 1979; Van Lier, 1996, 2001). In such interactions the relationship between the participants, the teacher and the students, is usually not one of equality. The teacher is, as a rule, the central figure. Around him pivot all the events. He is the one who initially decides what is to be done, when it is done, where it is done, how it is done, with whom it is done and even why it is done (Ellis, 1990; Johnson, 1995; Van Lier, 2001). In 1974 Cazden and Mehan collaborated in an educational venture, which culminated in two publications (Cazden, 1988; Mehan, 1979). Mehan found that more than 58% of the exchanges were IRF structures. In comparison, Bellack found that 85.5% of classroom interaction was teacher initiated and of these moves, 67% were soliciting-response moves. Extending these statistics to the Mehan study, this means that 57.3% were IRF exchanges. Cazden remarked that such a high percentage is not surprising as teachers are “doing what comes naturally” (1988, p. 53).

26 Mehan (1979) refers to these three steps of interaction as the IRE structure: initiation, response, and evaluation. IRF and IRE structures are the same. In this present study the letters IRF will be used.

There has also been considerable criticism on a too frequent reliance on the use of the IRF structure in the language classroom as it does not allow for student variation or experimentation. The IRF exchange pattern does not leave room for asking questions, expanding on requests, self-correcting, or even initiating an exchange outside the requested response. In other words, the student is limited in his responses (Ellis, 1999; Long, 1980; Long, Adams, McLean, Castaños, 1976; Mercer, 2001; Sinclair & Brazil, 1982; Van Lier, 2001). Long postulates that the IRF structure, also referred to as lockstep teaching, hampers language development. Instead classroom group work should be stimulated for it enhances real interaction and language learning (Long, et al., 1976).

In spite of all these drawbacks IRF is not necessarily static. Hewings (1992, p. 185) mentions that each move in an IRF exchange can be expressed in various ways. An initiation move can be a question, but also it can give information. A response can be an answer to that question, or another question can be asked, or more information can be given. The feedback to the response can be an acknowledgement of that response, another statement, or a repetition of the response using the same or other words. Similarly, Van Lier (1996, 2001) argued that the IRF exchange can be a valued pedagogical tool with different pedagogical purposes. Depending on the type of questions asked, the student can be requested to produce learned material, explain usage or even display understanding. If viewed from this angle the IRF exchange structure becomes an important didactic tool in classroom interaction. It is now not a question if this pattern occurs, but rather, as Van Lier explained, how it is manipulated.