L1 in the IRF cycle: a case study of Chinese EFL classrooms

Abstract

The Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) cycle (teachers' initiation, students' response and teachers' feedback) has been a key focus in studies of second language classroom interaction and participation. This paper aims to examine the influence of the first language (L1) in the Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) cycle commonly appearing in teacher-fronted classroom interaction. Previous studies have come to different conclusions about the role and value of L1 in the IRF cycle. The direct method underpinning the avoidance of L1 has been adopted since 1880s. The use of L1 is not discussed in language pedagogy in the last decade or two and some researchers consider the occurrence of the L1 as a problem. On the other hand, recent studies show that L1 can be used as a mediating language to create effective learning context for second language acquisition. However, these arguments are discussed either from a theoretical position or in a general classroom context and pay less attention to what is happening in micro interactions. This paper addresses the effect of using L1 in English as a foreign language classroom through an examination of the micro IRF cycle in English language classrooms in China. The data was collected through video recordings in a senior high school in China and analysed through conversation analysis. The analysis suggests that L1 used in the IRF cycle can function as a key to open up dialogue and bring more target language into the conversation. I argue that L1 in the IRF cycle can be used as a mediating tool and promote acquisition of the target language. This study will provide new insights into the role of L1 in teaching and learning interactions.

The effect of using the native language as a pedagogic intervention on Iranian EFL learners' complexity of English oral productions

“…The use of the first language in foreign language teaching situations may seem undesirable because of the recommendations of two once popular methods of language teaching (i.e., the Direct and Audiolingual methods). However, the results of this study, along with the findings of other recently done studies (e.g., Lee & Levin, 2018;Li, 2018;McManus & Marsden, 2019), suggest that this teaching technique merits more consideration and attention before being judged negatively. Hence, it can convincingly be argued that we should not quickly "dismiss a principle or technique, because at first glance, it appears to be at odds with" our own beliefs or to be impossible to apply in our own situation (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p. 8).…”

“…These findings are in line with Cohen and Brooks-Carson (2001), who found that thinking in the learners' L1 results in the production of more elaborate content, and in situations where the mother tongue was judiciously employed by the teacher, learners always had more ideas and a greater amount of clear thinking in their L1. In a similar vein, more recently, Li (2018) also pointed to the mediating role of the L1 in opening up dialogue and bringing more target language into the conversation in the IRF cycle in classroom discourse. Also, the reason why Ostovar- Namaghi and Norouzi (2015) in their study suggested warmly favoring the use of the L1 by teachers in their class and allowing the learners to use both intra-and cross-lingual strategies to express themselves in the target language becomes clear.…”

“…In the Chinese EFL context, Li (2018) strived to study the effect of first language on Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) cycle, which is mainly characteristic of teacher-fronted classrooms. Using video recordings in a senior high school, the researcher gathered the necessary data and analyzed them through conversation analysis.…”

The Effects of Translanguaging on Participation in EFL Classrooms

“…Initiation Response Feedback sequences (IRF) (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975), considered the unmarked norm of classroom discourse in EFL classrooms (Hicks, 1995;Wells, 1994), allow teachers to demonstrate authority by restricting students to routinized, teacher-led interactions, creating passive learning environments (Arthur & Martin, 2006). The use of the first language within IRF sequences is said to improve participation as well as promote more complex student contributions (Li, 2018;Littlewood & Yu, 2011) To understand how authority affects participation in translanguaging practices, this study examines teachers" translanguaging practices using the theory of pedagogic discourse. This theory is defined as "a principle for appropriating other discourses and bringing them into a special relation with each other for the purposes of their selective transmission and acquisition" (Bernstein, 1990, p. 183).…”

The Irf Exchange as a Pedagogical Tool: A Study of Esl Classrooms in Pokuase Township, Ghana

“…Studies (e.g. Li, 2018;Sert, 2019) have shown that interaction between the teacher and the student as a teaching pedagogical tool plays a very significant role as far as the language acquisition process is concerned. However, the extent to which classroom interaction plays a role in the language acquisition process in the ESL classroom in Ghana has not been clearly established.…”