The Implication of Teachers' Question and Feedback to the Students Vocabulary Production: an Analysis of Spoken Discourse of EFL Classrooms using IRF Model
Open accessAbstract
This research was conducted to investigate teacher-students interaction in two different English classrooms. A descriptive analysis method was employed by analyzing the interaction using the Initiation, Response, and Feedback (IRF) model. Within the interaction, the teachers' questions, feedback, and students' vocabulary production are the main focus in this research. The result showed that the two classrooms have different IRF interaction patterns as well as the teachers' choice of questions and feedback types. In response to the teachers' talk, the students provide different frequencies and a variety of vocabulary. In short, classroom B with a more open-ended question and active feedback prompt more students' vocabulary production. The implication of this research is that this research highlights that teachers' strategies of questioning and giving feedback in the class strongly impact the students' vocabulary production.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The pattern of teachers' elicitation exchange in speaking classes includes original structure (IRF) and conjunction with bound exchange using Ib slots.
“The findings of this study indicate that the pattern of teachers' elicitation exchange in speaking classes includes original structure (IRF) and conjunction with bound exchange using Ib slots.”
From THE INITIATION, RESPONSE, AND FEEDBACK (IRF) IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING: A LITERATURE REVIEW (2024) · cites this paper as Purnawati, 2021
The Classroom Interaction Pattern section and Table 2 in the Conclusion report IRF exchanges in two classrooms, supporting that part of the claim. They do not describe a conjunction with bound exchanges or Ib slots; the Conclusion says the study used a simple IRF method. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Ahmad, M., Shakir, A., & Arshad, A. (2020). A conversation analysis of teacher talk and learners' involvement in a Pakistani ESL classroom. Pakistan Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 8(1), 20-42. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342412279
- Ayouni, N. (2019). The application of Sinclair & Coulthard's IRF pattern on teachers' elicitation in speaking class. EEEJ: Nglish Education Journal, 10(4), 406-424. Retrieved from http://www.e-repository.unsyiah.ac.id/EEJ/article/view/14234
- Jiang, X. (2012). A Study of College English Classroom Discourse. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(10), 2146-2152. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.10.2146-2152 · DOI
- Kang, Y, et all. (2010). Comparison of Teachers' talk of Korean and Native English- Speaking Teacher: on the Efficiency of Delivering Content Knowledge in EFL Classroom, The Journal of Asian TEFL Vol.7, No.2, pp. 1-28.
- In H. Nguyen & T. Malabarba (Ed.), Conversation Analytic Perspectives on English Language Learning, Teaching and Testing in Global Contexts (pp. 87- 109). Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788922890-006 · DOI
- Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2012). Introduction. Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition, 1-4. doi:10.1002/9781444347340.ch1 · DOI
- Rustandi, A., & Mubarok, A. H. (2017). Analysis of IRF (Initiation-Respon- Feedback) on Classroom Interaction in EFL Speaking Class. Edulite: Journal of English Education, Literature, and Culture, 2(1 Desember), 239-250.
- Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1992) "Towards an analysis of discourse." In Coulthard, M. Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 1-34.
- Tuan, L. T., & Nhu, N. T. (2010). Theoretical review on oral interaction in efl classrooms. studied in literature and language, 1(4), 29-48.
- Yu, W. (2010). An Analysis of College English Classroom Questioning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(2), 152-159. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.2.136-144 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
THE INITIATION, RESPONSE, AND FEEDBACK (IRF) IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING: A LITERATURE REVIEW
Dalia, A. C., & Putra, F. R. (2024) · Jurnal Ilmiah Spectral · doi:10.47255/ya5nfp19 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Purnawati, P.
- Affiliations
- Universitas Islam Syekh Yusuf (ID)
- Corresponding author
- Purnawati, Purnawati
- ORCID
- Purnawati, Purnawati
- Venue
- Foremost Journal
- Published
- 2021-08-31
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 8-15
- ISSN
- 2721-642X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7131798849
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Foremost Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- teacher questioning, teacher feedback, vocabulary production, teacher-student relationship, IRF models, EFL classroom, open-ended questions, active feedback, oral discourse, classroom interaction patterns
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.
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
