CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesLinguistics and Language Analysis

Oral Interaction in English Classroom Using IRF Pattern between Teacher-Students at SMK Imelda Medan

Open access
Siregar, Raja Gilbert Jonatan, Gultom, Johannes Jefria·2026·TRANSFORM: Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning
DOI 10.24114/tj.v15i2.75637
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate how the Initiation–Response–Feedback (IRF) pattern is realized in classroom interaction and how the use of IRF reflects the balance of interaction between teacher and students in classroom discourse. The study was conducted at SMK Swasta Kesehatan Imelda Medan, involving one English teacher and 30 tenth-grade students of Class X Farmasi 1. This research employed a descriptive qualitative design. The data were collected through classroom observations and video recordings of English learning activities across two sequential meetings. The analysis was based on Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975, 1992) IRF model. The findings revealed that the IRF pattern was realized through three types, namely simple IRF, multiple IRF, and incomplete IRF. A total of 45 IRF sequences were identified, consisting of 18 simple IRF patterns (40%), 12 multiple IRF patterns (26.6%), and 15 incomplete IRF patterns (33.4%). The results showed that simple IRF was the most dominant type, while multiple IRF occurred least frequently. Furthermore, the use of IRF reflected a partially balanced but predominantly teacher-centered interaction. Although students produced slightly more responses, the teacher maintained control over initiation and feedback moves, determining the direction and evaluation of classroom discourse. The dominance of closed questions, minimal responses, and positive feedback indicated that classroom interaction tended to be brief, controlled, and evaluative. Therefore, the study concludes that the classroom interaction was characterized by active student participation within a structure that remained largely controlled by the teacher.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This descriptive qualitative study examined Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) patterns in English lessons at SMK Swasta Kesehatan Imelda Medan, identifying 45 IRF sequences and 128 interactional moves. It concludes that classroom interaction was partially balanced but predominantly teacher-centered, with simple IRF, closed questions, minimal responses, and positive feedback dominating.

Key findings

  • Across the observed meetings, 45 IRF sequences were identified: 18 simple IRF (40.0%), 12 multiple IRF (26.6%), and 15 incomplete IRF (33.4%) in the abstract/Table 1; simple IRF was most dominant and multiple IRF least frequent.
  • Of 128 interactional moves, response moves were most frequent at 47 (36.7%), followed by initiation at 42 (32.8%) and feedback at 39 (30.5%).
  • Sub-type distributions showed closed questions at 27 of 42 initiation moves (64.3%), minimal responses at 34 of 47 response moves (72.3%), and positive feedback at 25 of 39 feedback moves (64.1%).
  • The paper reports that students produced slightly more responses, but the teacher controlled initiation and feedback, making interaction “partially balanced but predominantly teacher-centered.”

Methods

  • Descriptive qualitative design conducted at SMK Swasta Kesehatan Imelda Medan with one English teacher and 30 tenth-grade students of Class X Farmasi 1; lessons focused on procedure text.
  • Data were spoken utterances from classroom observations and video/audio recordings, plus a follow-up semi-structured interview with the English teacher; the abstract/results refer to two sequential meetings, while the Method section states three sequential instructional meetings.
  • Analysis involved verbatim transcription, coding/categorization using Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975; 1992) IRF model into initiation, response, and feedback moves, quantification into frequencies/percentages, and qualitative interpretation of interactional balance.

Limitations

  • The paper states that data collection was restricted to three instructional meetings in a single classroom (Class X Farmasi 1), which may not represent diverse vocational tracks, and that analysis focused exclusively on spoken interactions during procedure text instruction, so findings might vary for other language skills or text types.
  • Evident from the text: the number of observed meetings is inconsistent (abstract/results say two meetings; Method says three), and the IRF type percentages differ between the abstract/Table 1 (40.0%, 26.6%, 33.4%) and the Discussion/Conclusions (55.8%, 20.9%, 23.3%).
  • Evident from the text: the study relies on one teacher and one class in one school, limiting generalizability beyond this context.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.24114/tj.v15i2.75637

Cites

1 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 12 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Feedback moves occurred 39 times, accounting for 30.5% of the total moves.

    “and Feedback moves with 39 instances (30.5%).”
    • Also stated in: § DISCUSSIONS · plain
      “feedback (30.5%)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    A total of 128 individual interactional moves were performed by the teacher and students across the instructional sessions.

    “The data analysis further quantified a total of 128 individual interactional moves performed by the teacher and students across the instructional sessions.”
    • Also stated in: § DISCUSSIONS · plain
      “the overall distribution of the 128 interactional moves”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Simple IRF sequences were the most dominant interactional pattern, occurring 18 times and accounting for 40.0% of the total recorded sequences.

    “simple IRF sequences constitute the most dominant interactional pattern, occurring 18 times and accounting for 40.0% of the total recorded sequences.”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “consisting of 18 simple IRF patterns (40%)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Closed questions accounted for 27 of the 42 initiation moves, or 64.3%.

    “| Initiation | 42 (32.8%) | Closed Questions Open-ended Questions | 27 15 | 64.3% 35.7% | 100% |”
    • Also stated in: § DISCUSSIONS · plain
      “The dominance of closed questions (64.3%)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Response moves occurred most frequently with 47 instances, accounting for 36.7% of the total moves.

    “out of the total 128 moves, response moves occur most frequently with 47 instances (36.7%)”
    • Also stated in: § DISCUSSIONS · plain
      “students produce slightly more responses (36.7%)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 17
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 14

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Initiation moves occurred 42 times, accounting for 32.8% of the total moves.

    “followed closely by Initiation moves with 42 instances (32.8%)”
    • Also stated in: § DISCUSSIONS · plain
      “initiation (32.8%)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Multiple IRF sequences recorded the lowest frequency, appearing 12 times and accounting for 26.6% of the total sequences.

    “Multiple IRF sequences recorded the lowest frequency, appearing 12 times across the two instructional sessions (26.6%).”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “12 multiple IRF patterns (26.6%)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Students tended to participate only when prompted by the teacher and often produced brief responses during classroom discussions.

    “Students tended to participate only when prompted by the teacher and often produced brief responses during classroom discussions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Corrective feedback appears in a relatively small proportion (15.4%), indicating that while errors are addressed, this is not the dominant feature of interaction.

    “Additionally, corrective feedback (15.4%) appears in a relatively small proportion, indicating that while errors are addressed, this is not the dominant feature of interaction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Pratiwi et al. (2021) found that teacher feedback made up half of the moves, while student responses were the lowest at 20%.

    “Pratiwi et al. (2021), for example, examined IRF in a reading comprehension lesson at a vocational school (SMK 1 Yapim Medan) and found that teacher feedback made up half of the moves, while student responses were the lowest at 20%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pratiwi et al. (2021)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Structured interaction through the IRF pattern can help maintain students' attention and encourage participation in classroom communication.

    “Walsh (2011) argues that structured interaction through the IRF pattern can help maintain students' attention and encourage participation in classroom communication.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Walsh (2011) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The classroom interaction was characterized by active student participation within a structure that remained largely controlled by the teacher.

    “the study concludes that the classroom interaction was characterized by active student participation within a structure that remained largely controlled by the teacher.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The IRF pattern is clearly realized but predominantly in its traditional form, resulting in a classroom interaction that is structured, efficient, and teacher-controlled.

    “Overall, the findings demonstrate that the IRF pattern is clearly realized but predominantly in its traditional form, resulting in a classroom interaction that is structured, efficient, and teacher-controlled.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This gap highlights the need for context-specific research that explores how classroom interaction is organized and how interactional roles are distributed between teachers and students.

    “This gap highlights the need for context-specific research that explores how classroom interaction is organized and how interactional roles are distributed between teachers and students.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Interaction patterns may influence students' participation and opportunities to practice English in the classroom.

    “Understanding these aspects is important because interaction patterns may influence students' participation and opportunities to practice English in the classroom.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The same study linked limited participation to students' restricted vocabulary and fear of making mistakes.

    “The same study linked limited participation to students' restricted vocabulary and fear of making mistakes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pratiwi et al. (2021)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The teacher determines when interaction begins and how it is concluded.

    “This reflects the inherent structure of IRF, where the teacher determines when interaction begins and how it is concluded (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The IRF model consists of three sequential moves: initiation, response, and feedback.

    “The IRF model consists of three sequential moves: initiation, response, and feedback.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sinclair and Coulthard (1975)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Saswati (2018) concluded that IRF can facilitate learner-initiated communication and give learners opportunities to engage.

    “Saswati (2018) applied the IRF framework to an EFL conversation class and concluded that IRF can facilitate learner-initiated communication and give learners opportunities to engage.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Saswati (2018)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Closed questions are designed to elicit predetermined responses, limiting opportunities for students to express their ideas.

    “Closed questions are designed to elicit predetermined responses, limiting opportunities for students to express their ideas.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Alexander (2008)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Students should become the center of the learning process, while teachers function as facilitators who guide and support learning activities.

    “According to Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2021), students should become the center of the learning process, while teachers function as facilitators who guide and support learning activities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2021)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In the Merdeka Curriculum, learning is expected to be student-centered, allowing students to actively construct knowledge and participate in classroom discussions.

    “In the implementation of the Merdeka Curriculum, learning is expected to be student-centered, allowing students to actively construct knowledge and participate in classroom discussions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2021)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Effective oral interaction enables students to use language in meaningful contexts and improve their speaking ability.

    “Brown (2007) states that effective oral interaction enables students to use language in meaningful contexts and improve their speaking ability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brown (2007)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Students rarely initiate interaction, indicating that their role is largely reactive rather than interactive.

    “In this study, students rarely initiate interaction, which further indicates that their role is largely reactive rather than interactive.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Although students produced slightly more responses, the teacher maintained control over initiation and feedback moves, determining the direction and evaluation of classroom discourse.

    “Although students produced slightly more responses, the teacher maintained control over initiation and feedback moves, determining the direction and evaluation of classroom discourse.”
    • Also stated in: § DISCUSSIONS · plain
      “the teacher maintains control through initiation and evaluation”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The data collection was restricted to three instructional meetings in a single classroom environment (class X Farmasi 1), which may not fully represent the diverse interactional dynamics across different vocational tracks.

    “The data collection was restricted to three instructional meetings in a single classroom environment (class X Farmasi 1), which may not fully represent the diverse interactional dynamics across different vocational tracks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The discourse analysis focused exclusively on spoken interactions during the instruction of procedure text, meaning the findings might vary when applied to other language skills or text types.

    “Additionally, the discourse analysis focused exclusively on spoken interactions during the instruction of a specific genre, namely procedure text, meaning the findings might vary when applied to other language skills or text types.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The use of IRF in this classroom reflects a learning context where interaction is only partially balanced and remains largely teacher-centered, with limited opportunities for collaborative knowledge construction.

    “Therefore, the use of IRF in this classroom reflects a learning context where interaction is only partially balanced and remains largely teacher-centered, with limited opportunities for collaborative knowledge construction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
23 of 23

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The researcher's coding of utterances into IRF moves and sub-types is reliable and valid.

    “the transcription data were coded and categorized using Sinclair and Coulthard's (1975;1992) classroom discourse model.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The IRF model's three moves adequately capture all relevant classroom interaction.

    “The utterances were systematically classified at the level of interactional moves, specifically opening (initiation), responding (response), and follow-up (feedback) moves, and quantified into frequency percentages.”
2 of 2

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • The study reports both two and three observed meetings

    Major

    The abstract and results say the observations covered two meetings, while the method says data were collected across three meetings. This changes the stated scope of the data underlying the findings.

1 of 1

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). Dialogos.
  2. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
  3. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Heinemann.
  4. Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Heinemann.
  5. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
  6. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 1-34). Routledge.
  7. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.
  8. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press.

Authors
Siregar, R. G. J., & Gultom, J. J.
Affiliations
State University of Medan (ID)
ORCID
Gultom, Johannes Jefria
Venue
TRANSFORM: Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning
Publisher
State University of Medan
Published
2026-06-30
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
56-69
ISSN
  • 2301-5225 (ISSN-L)
  • 2985-9441
DOI
10.24114/tj.v15i2.75637
OpenAlex
W7214320200
Semantic Scholar
4e39368e9393e13b71b343cf4187c73558f08756
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Open access
Licence
Locations
TRANSFORM Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
classroom interaction, teacher-student relationship, English as a foreign language, classroom discourse, pharmacy students, vocational high school

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review