Discourse Pattern in the Major Subjects of English Language Learners during Synchronous Meetings
Discourse Pattern in the Major Subjects of English Language Learners during Synchronous Meetings
Dexter A. Adriatico
Mariano Marcos State University, City of Batac, Ilocos Norte, Philippines
ISSN: 2961-3035 I Volume 3 I Special Issue I June 2023
Abstract
Students’ participation is one of the forefront responsibilities of every teacher. Through a well-designed discursive move, students take responsibility in their learning and take ownership of the development of the lesson. Since classroom talk is highly recognized, this study was conducted to examine the discourse patterns in the major subjects of English Language Learners during synchronous meetings. This qualitative study considered Literature and Language Major Subjects during the second semester of school year 2019-2020. The recorded synchronous meetings were analyzed to determine the prevailing discourse patterns. The result revealed that three discourse patterns were identified namely: Initiation – Response – Feedback (IRF), Initiation – Response – Evaluation (IRE), and student – initiated: Initiation – Response (IR) /Initiation – Response – Follow-up (IRF) exchange. In the IRF pattern, teachers intentionally used non-evaluative follow-up to encourage and elicit more talk from students and the use of non-evaluative feedback to maintained students’ engagement throughout the class time. In the IRE pattern, the teacher provided evaluative feedback when the desired answer was rightly provided by the students. However, the teacher would initiate another interaction when the right answer was not provided without explicitly stating the incorrectness of the answer to further students’ participation until the expected answer is given. In the inverted IRF, students initiate interaction in the class and it is a vivid picture that students are not apprehensive and hesitant to share their thought about the lesson being developed in their major classes.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56901/OIZV6305
References
Adriatico & Garma. (2022). English-speaking anxiety among bachelor of arts in english language students. Folia Linguistica Journal, 15 (4), 24-39.
Anneberg Learner Media Organization. (2015). Foreign Language Workshop. http://www.learner.org/workshops/tfl/glossary.html. Accessed on March 2021.
Applebee, A. N., Nystrand, J. A. & Gamoran A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685-730.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chin. (2006). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: What approaches stimulate productive thinking? Author(s). Paper presented in International Science Education, Singapore, 22-24.
Ellis, R. (1985). Learning styles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haneda & Wells. (2008). Learning an Additional Language Through Dialogic Inquiry. Language and Education, 22 (2).
Hashemi, M. (2011). An investigation of the factors that cause anxiety among the English Students of Islamic Azad University of Hamadan in learning speaking skills and its influence on communication ability in the target language: Solutions and recommendations, Unpublished Research Project Islamic Azad University, Toyserkan Branch, Iran.
Juzwick, M., Nystrand, M., Kelly, S., & Sherry, M.B. (2008). Oral narrative genres as dialogic resources for classroom literature study: A contextualized case study of conversational narrative discussion. American Educational Resource Journal, 45, 1111-1115.
Mckinnon. (2007). The prevalence of stuttering, voice and speech-sound disorders in primary school students in Australia. American Speech-Language-Hearig Association. Rockville, MD.
Mehan, H. (1985). The Structure of Discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed0, Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Volume III: Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 119-131). London: Academic Press.
Mercer, N. (2012). What has the study of classroom talk told us that can improve quality of education. Retrieved from http://slideshare.net/margarubiosoto/exploratory-talk-in-professor-neil.mercer.
Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., & Zeiser, S. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35, 135-198.
Pessoa, S., Hendry, H., Donato, R., Tucker, G. R. & Lee. H. (2007). Content-based instruction in the Foreign Language Classroom: A Discourse Perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 1, ProQuest Central, pp 102-121.
Roch & Levorato. (2011). Listening text comprehension of ecplicit and implicit information in prescholers: The role of verbal and inferential skills. Discourse Processes 48 (2) 119-138.
Sert & Seedhouse. (2011). Introduction: Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Novitas- ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 5 (1), pp 1-14.
Simich-Dudgeon. (1998). Classroom Startegies for Encouraging Collaborative Discussion. Directions in Language and Education. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. No. 12.
Sinclair, J. M. & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 371-391.
Thoms, K. (2012). Classroom discourse in foreign language classrooms: A review of the literature. Foreign Language Annals, 45 (1), 8-27.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse. London: Routledge.
Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the identification of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom, 5 (1).
