effective oral feedback using irf

8/13/2019 Effective Oral Feedback Using IRF

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-oral-feedback-using-irf 1/5

EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK Chris Khonngam EDUC 6187 1

Effective Oral Feedback Using IRF

As identified by researchers Sinclair and Coulthard in their 1975 article, Towards an

analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils (as cited in Murray & Christison,

2011, p. 182), the Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) sequence is one of the most common

patterns of oral feedback in the SLA classroom. Its use may be traced back to parent-child

interaction (Seedhouse 1997; as cited in Waring, 2008, p. 578). Nevertheless, this technique has

received much criticism from Interaction-oriented educators that claim it is overtly teacher-

focused (Murray & Cristison, 2011, p. 182), restricts conversation (Ellis, 2014, p. 40), and

diminishes student initiative (Broady, 2002, p. 64). But as Gordon Wells points out in his 1993article Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and

discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom (as cited in Waring, 2008, p.

578), the merit of “triadic discourse” , like any method, relies on whether it is employed for an

appropriate purpose. Applicable to the current discussion, Waring (2008, p. 578) notes that the

hotbed of contention regarding IRF concerns the feedback position. I will outline some of the

limitations of providing oral feedback using the IRF method and offer some suggestions to

mitigate its perceived weaknesses.

Feedback based on purpose

Sheen and Ellis (2011) remark that feedback should differ between “accuracy” and

“fluency” work (p. 599). During “accuracy” work, I provide feedback that is immediate and

explicit (Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p. 593). The purpose of IRF is to confirm understanding by having

each student demonstrate application of knowledge in rapid-fire succession. The following is an

example of providing explicit feedback in the form of a recast (Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p. 594):

T: (Holding up a childhood picture). How did I use to look?




S: You used to looked cute.

T: I used to look cute.

While Sheen & Ellis (2011) cite many studies that discourage use of corrective feedback (CF)

during “ fluency ” work as it disrupts communication (p. 599) there is a role for feedback that

elaborates, confirms understanding, and creates interchange. In this case, the feedback is implicit

(such as asking for clarification) and delayed :


S: You used to look cute.

T: Really? You mean I’m not cute now? S: You are.

T: You mean I still am ?

S: You used to look cute and you still are.

T: Tha t’s better. Very good.

1. IRF is teacher-focused

Communicate Language Teaching (CLT) promotes many of Krashen’s Natural Approach

concepts of implicit learning through meaning-focused communication (1981; as cited in Ellis,

2014, p. 36), Long’s Interaction Hypothesis emphasizing negotiation for meaning (1996; cited in

Ellis, 2014, p. 39), and opportunities to produce meaningful output (Swain, 1995; as cited in

Ellis, 2014, p. 39). Providing ample opportunity for these student-centered activities is inversely

proportional to the amount of Teacher Talk Time (TTT), which therefore should be limited. One

criticism of IRF is that the sequence provides a lone opportunity for student talk sandwiched

between two instances of teacher talk. However, this can be mitigated several ways. The teacher

can write a pattern on the whiteboard, thus providing a single “prompt” for all of the responses. I




like to use images from a slide show to prompt students, which is not only more challenging

because students have to deduce the desired language from the image, but also removes the need

for the teacher initiation phase. Another method is to withhold the third feedback step and

instead move on to the next question, which creates a kind of Socratic dialog (Waring, 2008, p.

578) or substitute a pause to open the conversation up to peer-feedback, or other types of

“contingencies” inviting participation (Lee, 2007; as cited in Waring, 20 08, p. 579).

2. IRF restricts conversation

There are benefits to controlled conversation in the classroom. As demonstrated in the

last point, it is not necessary for the “triadic discourse” to be constrained by prescribed content. Neither does feedback have to be corrective feedback. Rather, other “contingencies” are

possible, such as a follow-up question, the elaboration technique demonstrated in the “You still

are cute” exchange, or a technique Lier and Matsuno describe as “repair -driven negotiation”

(2000, p. 267; as cited in Waring, 2008 , p. 579) which provides an opportunity for “modified

output” (Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p. 596):


S: You used to wear curly hair.

T: You’re right. I now have straight hair. What did I use to have ?

S: You used to have curly hair.

3. IRF diminishes student initiative

One of the strongest complaints against IRF is that it inhibits practice of the essential

communicative skill of initiating conversation (Broady, 2002, p. 64). However, Hansun Zhang

Waring (2009) demonstrates in his study, Moving out of IRF: A single case analysis that the IRF

sequence may provide opportunities for student initiated negotiations when the teacher is aware




and cooperates. Having this awareness means the teacher is not predisposed to respond to a

single correct answer and move on (as demonstrated in the example in Murray & Christison,

2011, p. 183), but is open to student-initiated elaboration and follow-up questions even if they

deviate from the established topic (Broady, 2002, p. 64). Student initiative may further be

fostered by utilizing open- ended questions that require “constructed responses” having no single

“right” answer (Murray & Christison, 2011, p. 190). In my example lesson, I elicit a constructed

response by having students comment on a picture as a prompt:


S: Your hair used to be curly.T: True. Lots of children have curly hair.

S: My hair used to be curly.

T: Really? You used to have curly hair? Who else used to have curly hair?

Conclusion

As Gordon Wells, a leading researcher in classroom discourse, recognized “the ubiquity

of the three-part exchange structure ” (1993; as cited in Waring, 2008, p. 578). The IRF format

has its advantages: the controlled exchange provides for focused and equal participation

(Waring, 2009, p. 797) , it provides “comprehensible input” Larsen-Freeman, 2011, p. 524), and

the immediacy of feedback exploits “windows of opportunity” (Doughty, 2001; as cited in Sheen

& Ellis, 2011, p. 596). Its weakness as pointed out by critics can be mitigated by providing

feedback suited to the lesson’s purpose, altering the format to limit TTT, providing alternatives

to corrective feedback, and encouraging student-initiated elaboration.




References

Broady, E. (2002). Changes, challenges and complexity: recent debates in English language

teaching. Language Learning Journal , 26 (1), 62-67.

Ellis, R. (2014) Principles of instructed second language learning. In Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton,

D. M., & Snow, M. A. (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (31-45).

Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Teaching and testing grammar. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty

(Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 518 – 535) . Chichester, W. Sussex:

Wiley-Blackwell.Murray, D. E., & Christison, M. (2011). What English language teachers need to know, Volume

II: Facilitating learning . New York, NY: Routledge.

Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),

Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, Volume II (pp. 593 –

607). New York, NY: Routledge.

Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF,

feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal , 92(4), 577-594.

Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation ‐Response ‐Feedback): A Single Case

Analysis. Language Learning , 59(4), 796-824.

effective oral feedback using irf

Documents