Teacher Wait-Time and Learner Initiation: A Single Case Analysis

Document Type: Research Paper


1 دانشیار دانشگاه تهران

2 دانشیار، دانشگاه مازندران

3 دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه تهران


The prevailing pattern of classroom interaction is a tripartite exchange structure known as IRF (teacher initiation, student response, teacher follow-up/feedback; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). Although it has its own contributions to classroom discourse, it has been criticized on several grounds, particularly for affording minimum learner participation opportunities (Kasper, 2001). An alternative practice has been promoting learner initiation and agency through moving out-of-IRF. However, when the form of interaction is teacher-fronted, IRF becomes the centerpiece and moving out of it tends to be difficult. This paper aims at exploring first what learners need to take initiatives and exercise agency in teacher-fronted interaction, and second how teachers can play a facilitative role in this process. Conversation analytic study of an EFL teacher’s naturally-occurring interaction with learners during a homework review activity demonstrates how the teacher’s extended wait-time practice affords a learner the interactional space needed to initiate a question and voice her locus of trouble. Moreover, the teacher's consistent extended wait-time practice after the learner’s initiation functions as an invitation bid for other learners to orient to the trouble and successfully negotiate it in their learner-learner interaction. Extracts of this study portray learners’ management to drive their own learning.


Article Title [Persian]

زمان انتظار معلم و مبادرت شاگرد: تحلیل موردی واحد

Authors [Persian]

  • محمد علوی 1
  • باقر یعقوبی 2
  • مصطفی پورحاجی 3
Abstract [Persian]

الگوی غالب در تعاملات کلاسی یک توالی سه بخشی تحت عنوان آی آر اف (IRF) (مبادرت معلم، پاسخ شاگرد و بازخورد معلم) می­باشد (سینکلر و کلتهارد، 1975). گرچه این الگو دارای مزایای تعاملی خاصی است، ولی به دلایلی، به ویژه به واسطه­ی ایجاد فرصت مشارکت محدود برای شاگردان (کاسپر، 2001)، مورد انتقاد قرار گرفته است. به همین سبب، کنش جایگزین معطوف به اعتلای مبادرت و عاملیت شاگرد در تعاملات کلاسی از طریق برون رفت از آی آر اف می­باشد. اما وقتی ساختار تعامل معلم محور باشد، آی آر اف کانون تعامل گشته و برون رفت از آن دشوار خواهد بود. مطالعه­ی حاضر به دنبال پاسخی برای دو پرسش تحقیقی می­باشد: اول اینکه شاگردان برای مبادرت و یافتن عاملیت در تعاملات معلم محور به چه چیزی نیاز دارند؟ و دوم، معلمین چگونه می­توانند به شاگردان در رسیدن به این هدف کمک کنند؟ گفتمان­کاوی تعاملات کلاسی یک معلم در خلال مرور تکالیف نشان داد که چگونه به کارگیری زمان انتظار مبسوط به یکی از شاگردان فضای تعاملی لازم را برای مبادرت و طرح پرسش ایجاد کرد. علاوه بر این، استفاده مداوم معلم از زمان انتظار مبسوط پس از مبادرت شاگرد، فرصت را برای سایر شاگردان به منظور مشارکت و مذاکره در تعاملی شاگرد محور‍ پدید آورد. گزیده­هایی از تحلیل داده­های این مطالعه، مدیریت و جهت­دهی یادگیری توسط شاگردان را به تصویر می­کشد.

Keywords [Persian]

  • آی آر اف
  • گفتمان‌کاوی
  • مبادرت شاگرد
  • تحلیل موردی واحد
  • فضا
  • زمان انتظار
Allwright, R.L. (1984) The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5, 156–171.
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–50). New York: Oxford University Press.
Edwards, A. & Westgate, D. (1994). Investigating classroom talk. London: Falmer.
Ellis, R. (1998). Discourse control and the acquisition- rich classroom. In W. A. Renandya & G. M. Jacobs (Eds.), Learners and Language Learning. Anthology Series 39, Singapore: SEAMO Regional Language Centre.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum.
Garton, S. (2002). Learner initiative and classroom interaction. ELT Journal,56(1), 47–56.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Greenleaf, C., & Freedman, S.W. (1993). Linking classroom discourse and classroom content: Following the trail of intellectual work in a writing lesson. Discourse Processes, 16, 465–505.
Hicks, D. (1995). Discourse, learning, and teaching. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 4995). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Honea, M. J. (1982). Wait time as an instructional variable: An influence on teacher and student. Clearinghouse, 56(4), 167–170.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press
Jacknick, C. M. (2011). But this is writing: Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. Novitas-Royal (Research on Youth and Language),5(1), 39-54.
Jefferson, G. (1983). Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature No. 28.
Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. AppliedLinguistics,22, 502–30.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). Maximizing learning potential in the communicative classroom. ELT Journal, 47(1), 12–21.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Legutke, M., & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experience in the languageclassroom. Harlow:Longman.
Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese language classroom. Modern Language Journal,88(4), 536–550.
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher–learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17, 286–325.
Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41(2), 136–145.
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 737–758.
Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35, 677–705.
Rowe, M.B. (1974a). Wait time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence in language, logic, and fate control: Part 1. Wait time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(2), 81–94.
Rowe, M. B. (1974b). Wait time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence in language, logic, and fate control: Part 2. Rewards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(4), 291–308.
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 101–114.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sinclair, J. M. and Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Slimani, A. (1989). The role of topicalization in classroom language learning. System,17, 223234.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Thornbury, S. (1996). Teachers research teacher talk. ELT Journal,50(4), 279–88.
Van Lier, L. (1984). Analyzing interaction in second language classrooms. ELTJournal, 38(3), 160–169.
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum. London: Longman Group Limited.
Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance. Socio-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory andsecond language learning (pp. 245–260). New York: Oxford University Press.
Van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. P. Lantolf and M. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching ofsecond languages (pp. 163–86). London: Equinox.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6, 3–23.
Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. New York: Routledge.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Oxon: Routledge.
Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. 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.
Waring, H. Z. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities in the language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 2(2), 201–218.
Waring, H. Z. (2016). Theorizing pedagogical interaction: Insights from conversation analysis. New York: Routledge.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yaqubi, B., & Pourhaji, R. M. (2012). Teachers’ limited wait-time practice and learners’ participation opportunities in EFL classroom interaction. Journal of Language Teaching andLearning, 10, 127–161.