In this chapter, the literature related to the present study will be reviewed in the following two sections. The first section compares the different views between classroom interaction and natural conversation. Next, the relationship between classroom interaction and language learning will be explored and the exchange of classroom interaction will be addressed. The second section states the definition, the importance, and the effective characteristics of teacher follow-ups in language classrooms respectively. An overview of related empirical studies which
investigates the effects and the use of teacher follow-ups in language classrooms is presented.
Classroom Interaction
“Interaction is the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas
between two or more people, resulting in a reciprocal effect on each other” (Brown, 2001, p.212). Classroom interaction refers to the interaction between teachers and students in the classrooms and usually has a pedagogical purpose. When referring to interaction, we cannot but mention interaction in daily conversation. The
differences between classroom interaction and natural conversation will be discussed
in the following.
Classroom Interaction vs. Natural Conversation
Many researchers indicated that classroom discourse is different from natural daily conversation (Garton, 2002; Hsieh, 2008; Seedhouse,1996; Sinclair &
Coulthard, 1975; Walsh, 2002; Yeh, 2007). Thornbury and Slade (2006) presented ten ways in which classroom talk and conversation are different (shown in Table 1).
Table 1
Ways in Which Classroom Talk Contrasts with Conversation
Classroom talk Conversation
adjacency pairs; „chat and chunk‟
turn self-selected self-repair high contingency
(Thornbury and Slade, 2006, p.240) In the classroom, it is necessary to accomplish a pre-selected pedagogical goal, so the talk in the classroom is product-oriented. To achieve certain goals, the talk of classroom is more transactional because teachers have to transmit subject-matter
knowledge to learners. However, in daily conversation, people have less motivation to achieve a specific objective; thus, it is more process-oriented. The conversation is interactional because there is no need to reach a particular goal. Most of the classrooms are teacher-led, so teachers hold the rights to start the discourse. Thus, the choices of topic are largely decided by teachers (Boyd & Rubin, 2002; Consolo, 2000; Hall, 1998). To make the class smooth, IRF is the predominate sequences of the class discourse. Teachers always ask display questions (Chang, 2005;
Thornbury, 1996; Walsh, 2002). Display questions mean the asker asks the question that he/she already knows the answers. In addition, if something goes wrong, such as wrong pronunciation by the student, teachers instead of the student often repair the errors. Within this sequence, the classroom talk between the teachers and students are asymmetrical and the turns are always nominated. Besides, it makes the talk in a low contingency. On the contrary, in daily conversation, people jointly construct the discourse; therefore, people share to choose the topic of talk. Most of the talks are referential questions. Referential questions refer to the asker asks the questions that he/she did not know the answers beforehand. In daily conversation, people tend to repair their own utterances if saying something wrong. The conversation talk follows the chat and chunk development. Due to this kind of development, conversation is symmetrical and the turns are self-selected. The talk is in high
contingency.
The nature of daily conversation has significant differences from classroom talk.
Students may have difficulties to learn real communicative skills in the language classrooms, since the features of classroom interaction are helpful in achieving specific instructional purposes. It is necessary to discuss the relationship between classroom interaction and language learning.
The Relationship Between Classroom Interaction and Language Learning
Classroom interaction plays a fundamental role in language learning. As Hall and Walsh (2002) stated, “classroom interaction is one of the primary means by which learning is accomplished in classrooms” (p.187). Verplaetse (2000) mentioned classroom interaction is important in language learning because the activities used in the classrooms are mostly applied through classroom discourse. It reveals that the relationship between classroom interaction and language learning cannot be undervalued.
Language learners can promote their language learning through classroom interaction. “ Interaction is viewed as significant because it is argued that 1) only through interaction can the learner decompose the TL structures and derive meaning from classroom events, 2) interaction gives learners the opportunities to incorporate TL structures into their own speech (the scaffolding principle), and 3) the
meaningfulness for learners of classroom events of any kind, whether thought of as interactive or not, will depend on the extent to which communication has been jointly constructed between the teacher and learners” (Chaudron, 1988, p.10). As
Chaudron (1988) mentioned, it shows that interaction can facilitate learners‟
language learning. Through classroom interaction, learners have more chances to speak and practice the language (Hall, 1993; Hsieh, 2008). Therefore, through constantly practicing, learners can speak more fluently, be aware of their own
utterance, and moreover, make the modifications of their own output (Swain, 1985) Lin (2006) concluded that ”interaction between teachers and learners provides learners with opportunities to incorporate target language structure into their own speech and makes classroom events more communicative” (p.15). Through
classroom interaction, learners are forced to make themselves understood by others.
It means learners have to learn how to negotiate meaning with teachers and
classmates. When negotiating with others, learners can notice their own insufficient language ability.
In addition, learners can develop social ability through classroom interaction (Mehan, 1979; Verplaetse, 2000). Learners can learn how to communicate with teachers and other classmates during the classroom time. Verplaetse (2000) indicated that “the limited interaction opportunities could lead to a student‟s
marginalized social role within the classroom community” (p.222).
The above reviews show that the importance of classroom interaction is not only on improving learners‟ language ability, but also on developing learners‟ social ability. To dissect the classroom interaction further, the exchange of classroom interaction helps us discover the nature of classroom interaction.
The Exchanges of Classroom Interaction
A typical classroom exchange structure was identified by Sinclair and Coulthard in 1975. Sinclair and Coulthard (1975, 1992) decoded classroom interaction as IRF (Initiation— Response— Feedback or Follow-up) exchange. The IRF pattern contains three moves in an exchange. The initiating move is an elicitation, a directive, or an informative act, mostly made by teachers. The initiating move is followed by the response move which is usually made by students‟ responses. If teachers are giving elicitation as an act, students prefer to give a linguistic response.
If teachers make a directive act, it requests students for a non-linguistic response, such as opening books, or looking at the blackboard. If teachers use an informative act in the initiating move, the appropriate response for students is to acknowledge that they are listening to teachers. The response move is followed by teachers‟
feedback which can be acceptance or rejection, evaluation, or comment on students‟
responses. The third move could be called „feedback‟ or „follow-up‟. Sinclair and
Brazil (1982) mentioned that „follow-up‟ is the preferred term than „feedback‟, because „feedback‟ stands for a function of the move instead of the move itself.
Therefore, the researcher prefers to use the term „follow-up‟.
Researchers have different terms to call the exchange of classroom interaction.
Mehan (1979) called the classroom interaction exchange as IRE
(Initiation—Response—Evaluation). Lemke (1990) called the classroom interaction as recitation script or triadic dialogue. The IRE pattern is similar to Sinclair and Coulthard‟s IRF structure, except for the third move which is evaluation rather than feedback. Researchers proposed that the IRF exchange is a preferred term than the IRE exchange.
The IRF exchange receives both applause and criticism. Nunan (1987) and Thornbury (1996) argued that, traditionally, the IRF pattern in which teachers hold more initiative moves limits the chances for students to negotiate for meanings, to ask questions automatically, and to choose the topics that interest them. Similarly, Ellis (2008) and Yu (2009) mentioned that the IRF exchanges were regarded as limiting opportunities for learning. The IRF pattern seems to help teachers maintain the classroom interaction rather than on students‟ learning (Allwright & Bailey, 1991;
Cazden, 1988; Dinsmore, 1985).
However, Edwards and Mercer (1994) stated “the basic IRF exchange structure
is impossible to ignore in any classroom talk” (p.202). van Lier (1996) mentioned that the IRF exchange pattern can help teachers make their teaching in an ordered sequence. Besides, Newman, Griffin, and Cole (1989) indicated that the IRF structure helps teachers guide students to achieve the education goal. The IRF structure seems obligatory and essential to be applied in the classroom discourse.
In Wells‟s (1993) study, the findings reveal that, following the IRE structure, classroom interaction may hinder students‟ learning opportunities if the teachers evaluate the students‟ responses in the third move; nevertheless, if the teacher uses the follow-up move to expand students‟ responses, to clarify their thinking, or to connect to their own experiences, this kind of interaction will facilitate students‟
learning. Other research (Boxer & Cortes-Conde, 2000; Boyd & Maloof, 2000;
Nassaji & Wells, 2000) also had proved the benefits of IRF pattern in promoting interaction .
Nevertheless, whether the IRF structure hinders or facilitates students‟ language learning needs more research and the importance of IRF exchanges should not be ignored (Hsieh, 2008). Although there are different voices on IRF exchange, ever since then, researchers have used IRF exchange to describe and examine classroom interaction.
Teacher Follow-ups in Language Classrooms
Follow-up is the third move of the IRF exchange. Teacher follow-up is defined as teachers‟ feedback to the students‟ responses in the second move. To make a further understanding on teacher follow-ups, the definition, the importance, and the effective characteristics of teacher follow-ups guide us to realize the nature of teacher follow-ups in language classrooms. Furthermore, the related studies on teacher follow-ups help us realize the authentic use of teacher follow-ups in language classrooms
Teacher Follow-ups
According to Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), follow-up is the third move in the IRF exchange. Teacher follow-ups follow students‟ responses in the second move.
That is, it is considered as teachers‟ feedback to students‟ responses which can be
“positive, negative, neutral and supportive feedback” (Chang, 2004, pp.32-33). The
follow-up move is composed of three types of acts which are accept, evaluate, and comment (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1992). The function of follow-up is to help
students understand whether their responses are acceptable or not by their teachers.
Follow-up is a factor to distinguish the classroom discourse and daily
conversation (Chaudron, 1988; Cullen, 2002; Hsieh, 2008; Yeh, 2007). “Learners need to know whether or not the sample they produce are good ones” (Allwright,
1984, p.165). However, the F move does not necessarily appear in daily
conversation (Francis & Hunston, 1992). People are seldom giving feedback or evaluating other‟s response in natural conversation. Coulthard (1985) pinpointed two reasons to show that the appearance of F move is necessary and natural in classroom discourse. First, the students‟ voices are not loud enough to let other students hear the answers, so the teachers have to repeat the students‟ answers to the whole class in order to make sure that every student in the classroom could hear other students‟ answers. Second, the teachers have to give feedback to students to let the students know whether their answers are what the teachers want or not. In addition, the follow-up move from teachers is expected to appear in classroom discourse because “teachers are expected to execute their vested instructional authority to evaluate any and all student behavior, nonverbal or verbal” (Chaudron, 1988, pp.132-133). To achieve pedagogic goals, the follow-up move has the essential and significant reason to exist in classroom discourse.
Many researchers tried to prove that feedback can facilitate students‟ learning (Burnett, 2002). Chaudron (1988) mentioned that teacher follow-ups can supply students with a dependable model to improve their target language. Brown (2001) also addressed that feedback from others is viewed as an important part in language learning. In addition, teacher follow-ups can also help students provide more
utterances if teachers extend the topic in the follow-up move (Hsieh, 2008). Duff (2000) indicated that teacher follow-ups work as a way to elicit students‟ utterances and get their attention on the content or language forms. Besides, Cullen (2002) illustrated that teachers should have a balance to use different types of teacher follow-ups. Giving more negative follow-ups will hinder the class to be communicative; however, offering more positive follow-ups will reduce the
opportunities for students to get their responses noticed and corrected (Chang, 2004).
Many researchers (Cullen, 2002; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; Nassaji & Wells, 2000; Jarvis & Robinson, 1997; Sullivan, 2000; Verplaetse, 2000) explored the characteristics of the effective teacher follow-ups which can help students in language learning. Among them, the similar characteristics of effective teacher follow-ups are reformulating, elaborating, commenting, and responding.
Reformulating means teachers correct students‟ responses by restating students‟
utterances. Elaborating is that teachers reformulate and then extend students‟
responses. Commenting means that teachers provide their comments on students‟
responses. Responding is that teachers show an interest in talking with students.
The above mentioned research on examining effective characteristics of teacher follow-ups shows that teachers can use follow-ups to facilitate students‟ participation and learning.
What‟s more, teacher follow-ups can also help teachers manage the teaching sequence. Brown and Wragg (1993) indicated teacher follow-ups can help teachers sequence and structure the class. Lee (2007) also proposed that the teacher‟s third turn can show his/ her authority to ask students to give answers and maintain the order to avoid breakdown the flow of classroom talk.
Teacher follow-ups not only promote students‟ learning but also help teachers manage the teaching sequence. Based on the reviews, teacher follow-ups seem to be an inevitable feature of classroom interaction in teacher-initiated classroom;
therefore, researchers tried to explore the possible effect of teacher follow-ups applied in the real language classrooms.
Studies on Teacher Follow-ups in Language Classrooms
Although there is no study to prove that which types of teacher follow-ups have a better benefit on students‟ language learning, the nature and the effect of teacher follow-ups in classroom interaction have been studied.
In Sullivan‟s (2000) study, the data were taken from two English classrooms with the same teacher of a university in Vietnam. The results show that the teacher encouraged students through using affirmation, elaboration and other types of teacher follow-ups. In addition, Sullivan (2000) pinpointed that a non-threatening
environment for learning can be built by using classroom talk with a humorous and
joyful way.
Verplaetse‟s (2000) study was done to investigate one middle school science
teacher in the United States. The results show that the teacher frequently used
„paraphrase‟ as follow-up to show his acceptance on students‟ responses. Verplaetse
(2000) indicated the paraphrasing provides nonjudgmental acceptance of students‟
responses and it is an effective way to create the classroom interaction.
Many researchers further analyze teachers‟ use of follow-ups and categorize the teacher follow-ups into different types. Jarvis and Robinson (1997) divided teacher follow-ups into six groups based on the pedagogical functions. The first group of teacher follow-ups is to show acceptance to students‟ utterances by the ways of acceptance or completion. The second group of teacher follow-ups is to model language, for example, by rephrasing. The third group of teacher follow-ups is giving clues. The fourth group of teacher follow-ups is to develop, elaborate, and build-up discourse. The fifth group of teacher follow-ups is to clarify
understanding, tasks, purposes and principles. The last group of teacher follow-ups is to disconfirm, reject and rebuke, for example, ignoring students‟ responses.
Different categorizations of teacher follow-ups are found by other researchers.
Lee (2007), based on the 46 hours recordings of ESL classroom interaction, discovered four functions of teacher follow-ups. The four functions are parsing,
steering the sequences, intimating answer, and classroom management. “Parsing”
means teachers may parse students‟ responses and modify it to seek for more answers.
“Steering the sequence” is teachers‟ use of follow-ups to guide the students to focus
on the specific part. “Intimating answer” means teachers may guide the students to
give the correct answers which the teachers have already known. The last function
“classroom management” can help teachers manage the classroom.
Chaudron (1998) classified the teacher follow-ups into two types, positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. The positive reinforcement is that teachers use positive praise or repetition of the students‟ correct utterances. The negative reinforcement refers to the teachers‟ explanations on grammar and models of correct responses. The two types of teacher follow-ups, positive and negative reinforcement, both focused on the correctness of students‟ responses on language forms. This categorization cannot help us examine the overall goals of teacher follow-ups which are not only to evaluate students‟ responses, but also to extend the classroom discourse.
The gap in Chaudron‟s (1998) study was then filled by Cullen‟s (2002) study.
Cullen (2002) analyzed video recordings of English classes in a secondary school in Tanzania. After analyzing the collected data, the researcher presented teacher follow-ups in two roles, evaluative and discoursal. The evaluative role of
follow-ups is that teachers provide their feedback to show the acceptance or rejection to students‟ responses. Mainly, the teachers may ask display questions in the “I”
move. If the teachers apply the evaluative follow-ups, they often focus on the correctness of form (e.g. vocabulary or grammar) responded by the students. The other role of teacher follow-ups is discoursal. If the teachers ask referential
questions in the “I” move, the students have to elaborate their own opinions which do not have correct answers. Then, the teachers usually apply discoursal follow-ups to extend the topic with the students. The purpose of discoursal role is to “sustain and develop a dialogue between the teacher and the class” (Cullen, 2002, p.120).
Therefore, the teachers may focus on the content rather than the forms of target language answered by the students. Cullen (2002) concluded that teachers should make a balance to use the evaluative and discoursal follow-ups in order to create a not only correct but also communicative classroom. However, this classification may overlook to discover the variety of functions of teacher follow-ups.
Since aforementioned research was conducted in other countries, the results could not be inferred in the learning contexts in Taiwan. Thus, three researchers, Chang (2004), Hsieh (2008) and Yang (2009), had explored the use of teacher follow-ups by English teachers in Taiwanese English classrooms.
Chang (2004) conducted a study to investigate two eighth-grade junior high
school English teachers‟ follow-ups in Chia Yi City. She observed and analyzed the two teachers‟ use of follow-ups in the classrooms in twenty periods of classes.
Since previous researchers did not distinguish functions and forms of follow-ups in their categorization, Chang believed that there was a need to create a clear category to help classify teacher follow-ups. Chang (2004) combined Cullen‟s (2002), Jarvis and Robinson‟s (1997), and Nassaji and Well‟s (2002) coding schemes of the
functions and forms of teacher follow-ups and creates a more practical classification to classify the functions and forms of teacher follow-ups. For the pedagogical functions, it contains six categories of teacher follow-ups which are acceptance,
functions and forms of teacher follow-ups and creates a more practical classification to classify the functions and forms of teacher follow-ups. For the pedagogical functions, it contains six categories of teacher follow-ups which are acceptance,