Está en la página 1de 5

EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK Chris Khonngam EDUC 6187 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 teacherfocused (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 1993 article 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?

EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK Chris Khonngam EDUC 6187 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: T: (Holding up a childhood picture). How did I use to look? S: You used to look cute. T: Really? You mean Im not cute now? S: You are. T: You mean I still am? S: You used to look cute and you still are. T: Thats better. Very good. 1. IRF is teacher-focused Communicate Language Teaching (CLT) promotes many of Krashens Natural Approach concepts of implicit learning through meaning-focused communication (1981; as cited in Ellis, 2014, p. 36), Longs 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

EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK Chris Khonngam EDUC 6187 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, 2008, 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): T: (Holding up a childhood picture). How did I use to look? S: You used to wear curly hair. T: Youre 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

EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK Chris Khonngam EDUC 6187 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: T: (Holding up a childhood picture). How did I use to look? 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 lessons purpose, altering the format to limit TTT, providing alternatives to corrective feedback, and encouraging student-initiated elaboration.

EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK Chris Khonngam EDUC 6187 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. 518535). 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 (InitiationResponseFeedback): A Single Case Analysis. Language Learning, 59(4), 796-824.

También podría gustarte