THE INITIATION, RESPONSE, AND FEEDBACK (IRF) IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING: A LITERATURE REVIEW
Open accessAbstract
Initiation between teachers and students is the foundation for classroom discourse. Multiple models for classroom discourse could improve the initiation between the teacher and students in the classroom. It is presumptively true that classroom discourse "follows a fairly normal and predictable pattern, also known as IRF, or IRE: Initiation, Response, and Feedback or Evaluation, consists of three parts: a teacher Initiation, a student response, and a teacher Feedback. Some authors and practitioners prefer IRE to represent that teachers' feedback is typically an assessment of a student's participation. Teachers continually evaluate if a statement is correct and provide feedback to students. In this study, researchers use a literature review. A literature review examines academic books, papers, and other sources relevant to a topic, discipline of study, or theory. The study employs reliable sources from articles and e-books. This paper explores the Initiation, Response, and Feedback in English language teaching.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This literature review synthesizes existing scholarship on the Initiation–Response–Feedback (IRF) pattern in English language teaching, describing IRF as the most typical structure of teacher–student classroom interaction. It catalogues three realized pattern variants—complete (IRF), semi-complete (IR), and incomplete (IF)—and summarizes prior empirical studies of IRF implementation in speaking and writing classes.
Key findings
- Three IRF pattern variants were identified from the analyzed classroom data: a complete pattern (IRF), a semi-complete pattern (IR), and an incomplete pattern (IF). The incomplete pattern occurred when the teacher initiated and gave feedback without any student response.
- In the reviewed study by Rustandi and Mubarok (2017) on an EFL speaking class, student response was the dominant sequence among I, R, and F; the paper notes that whether student response predominates depends on lesson content and the teacher's strategy for involving students, with participation increasing when material is relatively simple.
- In Kartini et al.'s (2022) team-teaching study, the non-native English teacher managed overall classroom control (repairing student mistakes, allocating who spoke, managing activity progressivity), while the native English teacher focused on developing questions and evaluating responses within traditional IRF sequences.
- In Fajar et al.'s (2020) study of an EFL writing class, both teachers and students employed the IRF model, with five teaching exchanges identified following Sinclair and Coulthard's (1975) framework: teacher inform, teacher direct, teacher elicit, student inform, and check.
Methods
- Design: a literature review, described by the authors as "a more or less systematic way of collecting and synthesizing previous research" (citing Snyder, 2019).
- Data sources: "reliable sources from articles and e-books"; the reference list contains 14 items, including Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), Christie (2002), and several Indonesian EFL classroom studies.
- Analysis: synthesis of prior empirical findings and viewpoints to answer two posed questions—(1) what is the IRF analysis of teacher–student interaction in English language teaching, and (2) how is IRF implemented in English language teaching. No primary data collection or formal coding procedure is described.
Limitations
- Not stated in the paper: the article contains no explicit limitations section.
- Evident from the text: the review does not report a systematic search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or databases, despite invoking Snyder's (2019) description of systematic review methodology.
- Evident from the text: the findings rest entirely on secondary summaries of other studies rather than primary classroom data, and the illustrative IRF/IR/IF examples are presented without stated provenance or sampling details.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
1 of 18 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Findingown data
In this study, three IRF patterns were found: complete pattern (IRF), semi-complete pattern (IR), and incomplete pattern (IF).
“In this study, certain patterns were found, including complete pattern (IRF), semi-complete pattern (IR), and incomplete pattern (IF).”
- Also stated in: § b. IRF Pattern (Initiation, Response, and Feedback) · plain
“Three patterns were identified as the result of the test utilizing the classroom patterns IRF (Initiation, Response, and Feedback): an incomplete pattern (IF), a semicomplete pattern (IR), and a complete pattern (IRF).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § b. IRF Pattern (Initiation, Response, and Feedback) · plain
- Premisecitation
Teachers and students in an Indonesian EFL speaking class applied all categories of talk in the FLINT system and classroom interaction types.
“The findings revealed that teachers and students applied all the categories of talk mentioned in the FLINT system and classroom interaction types.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Made & Sari, 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
The default interactional structure IRF is frequently used by academics to examine classroom interaction.
“The default interactional structure, Initiation Response (IRF), is utilized frequently by academics to examine classroom interaction (Mathieu et al., 2021;Christie, 2002;Kartini et al., 2022).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Mathieu et al., 2021 source
- cites Christie, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Kartini et al., 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
Teacher initiation, in which the teacher asks questions, elicits responses, and chooses who will speak next, reflects the nature of teacher-student interaction in speaking classes.
“This study's results showed that teacher initiation-in which the teacher asks questions, elicits responses, and chooses who will speak next-reflects the nature of teacher-student interaction in speaking classes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rustandi & Mubarok, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
Both teachers and students employed the IRF model in the teaching and learning process, notably in writing classes.
“The study's findings demonstrated that both teachers and students employed the IRF model in the teaching and learning process, notably in writing classes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Fajar et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- May combine two claims. 5
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 16
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe 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.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Purnawati, 2021 source
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
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone givenAn incomplete pattern (IF) occurs when there are only initiation and feedback, with the teacher commenting after receiving no student response.
“There was an incomplete pattern (IF) when there were just I and F. The teacher commented after giving the initiative and receiving no reaction from the students.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe lessons in the learning video were conducted well: the teacher asked questions, students responded, and the teacher offered feedback.
“The data above indicates that the lessons in the learning video were conducted well: the teacher asked questions, students responded, and the teacher offered feedback.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone givenA semi-complete pattern (IR) occurs when there are only initiation and response interactions, with the teacher initiating and students answering.
“When there were just I and R interactions-when the teacher initiated the conversation, and the students answered-there was a semi-complete pattern (IR).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationIn team-teaching EFL classrooms, the native English teacher concentrated on developing questions and evaluating responses in traditional IRF sequences.
“The native English teacher concentrated on developing questions and evaluating responses in the traditional IRF sequences.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kartini et al., 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationIRF consists of three main components: initiation, response, and feedback.
“Initiation, response, and feedback are the three main components of an IRF process.”
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.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationStudent response is the dominant sequence of IRF in speaking class.
“The result showed that student response becomes the dominant sequence of IRF in speaking class.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rustandi & Mubarok, 2017
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.
PremisecitationEFL classroom discourse includes various discourse structures, including patterns of IRF structures, and classroom interactional abilities.
“The discourse in English Foreign Language classrooms, includes various discourse structures (pattern of IRF structures) and classroom interactional abilities.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Made & Sari, 2022
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.
PremisecitationIn IRF, the first turn, called the initiation, introduces a new subject or issue and may elicit, direct, or inform.
“This first turn, called the initiation, introduces a new subject or issue to the turn and may go on to “elicit” responses to the prior topic or even “directive” or “informative” ones (Girgin & Brandt, 2020).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Girgin & Brandt, 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationIRF structure or pattern is the most distinctive aspect of classroom interaction.
“They claim that IRF structure or pattern is the most distinctive aspect of classroom interaction.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Sinclair and Coulthard
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [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.
PremisecitationIn IRF, the third step, feedback, is an assessment of the answer and may be acceptance, rejection, evaluation, or commentary.
“The third step is feedback, which is an assessment of the answer.On the participant's second turn, there may be “acceptance,” “rejection,” “evaluation,” or “commentary” (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975, p.48).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sinclair & 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).
PremisecitationIn team-teaching EFL classrooms, the non-native English teacher was in charge of overall classroom management and oriented to her role as the teacher in power, as evidenced by repairing student mistakes, allocating who spoke, and managing the progressivity of activities.
“The Non-Native English teacher performed as the one who was in charge of the overall management of the classroom and oriented to her role as the teacher in power in the classroom, as evidenced by her repairing student mistakes, allocating who spoke, and managing the progressivity of the activities in the lesson, according to an analysis of the data.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kartini et al., 2022
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), S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningIn a foreign language classroom, the roles of teachers and students are to direct and help students complete linguistic tasks and language production through interaction.
“Especially in a foreign language classroom, the roles of the teachers and students are to direct and help students complete linguistic tasks and language production through interaction.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenClassroom interaction, where there is collaboration between teachers and students, will enhance learning by promoting communication.
“classroom interaction, where there is a collaboration between teachers and students, will enhance learning by promoting communication.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Classroom discourse follows a fairly normal and predictable pattern, known as IRF or IRE, consisting of teacher initiation, student response, and teacher feedback or evaluation.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenAccording to several IRF pattern types, students' responses predominately occurred during classroom activities.
“According to the several IRF pattern types, students' responses predominately occurred during classroom activities.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The classroom lesson's content and the teacher's strategy for getting students involved determine whether student response predominates.
- Rests on an assumption: Student participation will increase if the course material is relatively simple.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenThe most frequent form of classroom interaction during the learning process is IRF, including teacher and student talk.
“On the other hand, the most frequent form of classroom interaction during the learning process is IRF, including teacher and student talk.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The most frequent form of classroom interaction is question and answer, with teachers often presenting most of the queries.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe five teaching exchanges in the EFL writing study were teacher inform, teacher direct, teacher elicit, student inform, and check, in accordance with Sinclair and Coulthard's (1975) paradigm.
“The five teaching exchanges in this study were teacher inform, teacher direct, teacher elicit, student inform, and check, in accordance with Sinclair and Coulthard's (1975) paradigm.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Fajar et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Sinclair and Coulthard's (1975)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Classroom discourse follows a fairly normal and predictable pattern, known as IRF or IRE, consisting of teacher initiation, student response, and teacher feedback or evaluation.
“It is presumptively true that classroom discourse “follows a fairly normal and predictable pattern, also known as IRF, or IRE: Initiation, Response, and Feedback or Evaluation, consists of three parts: a teacher Initiation, a student response, and a teacher Feedback.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The most frequent form of classroom interaction is question and answer, with teachers often presenting most of the queries.
“The most frequent form of classroom interaction is question and answer, with teachers often presenting most of the queries.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most literature on IRF sequences in classroom settings focuses on interactions between a teacher and a single student or between a teacher and a group of students.
“However, most of the literature on IRF sequences in classroom settings focuses on how they are carried out between an only one student and a teacher or between a teacher and a group of students.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The classroom lesson's content and the teacher's strategy for getting students involved determine whether student response predominates.
“The classroom lesson's content and the teacher's strategy for getting the students involved will determine whether or not the student response predominates.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Student participation will increase if the course material is relatively simple.
“Student participation will increase if the course material is relatively simple.”
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.
Conflicting attribution of the IRF pattern's origin
MinorOne passage says the IRF sequence was initially characterized by Made and Sari in 2022; another says Sinclair and Coulthard discovered the pattern in 1975.
“IRF or triadic sequence, the most typical aspect of teacher-student interaction observed in the classroom, was initially characterized by (Made & Sari, 2022)”
“IRF is a class interaction pattern discovered by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975)”
Conflicting accounts of who initiates the IRF exchange
MinorThe paper defines initiation as an act by the teacher, but later says the student takes the initiative and the teacher replies.
“The teacher replies that the student takes the initiative, and the teacher gives advice (Made & Sari, 2022).”
“According to (Prastiningrum & Hati, 2022), the first is initiation (I), which is the act of a teacher initiating a dialogue.”
Cites
Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines
Snyder, H. (2019) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 · Cited by 11,524 · cited 2× · see citing works
“An efficient and well-conducted review as a research technique creates a strong framework for knowledge advancement and the facilitation of theory creation (Snyder, 2019).”
BackgroundClassroom discourse analysis: a functional perspective
Arsiolli, M. A. V. D. L. (2006) · DELTA Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada · doi:10.1590/s0102-44502006000100012 · Cited by 315 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The default interactional structure, Initiation Response (IRF), is utilized frequently by academics to examine classroom interaction (Mathieu et al., 2021; Christie, 2002; Kartini et al., 2022).”
BackgroundSundari, H. (2017) · Advances in Language and Literary Studies · doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.6p.147 · Cited by 81 · cited 4× · see citing works
“According to Sundari (2017), language use during interactions helps learners access new information, collect and develop new skills, recognize issues, and identify and maintain relationships.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGirgin, U., & Brandt, A. (2019) · Classroom Discourse · doi:10.1080/19463014.2019.1603115 · Cited by 39 · cited 2× · see citing works
“This first turn, called the initiation, introduces a new subject or issue to the turn and may go on to "elicit" responses to the prior topic or even "directive" or "informative" ones (Girgin & Brandt, 2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialAN ANALYSIS OF IRF (INITIATION-RESPONSE-FEEDBACK) ON CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN EFL SPEAKING CLASS
Rustandi, A. (2017) · EduLite Journal of English Education Literature and Culture · doi:10.30659/e.2.1.239-250 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Introduction: classroom discourse at the intersection of language education and materiality
Mathieu, C. S., Marcos Miguel, N., & Jakonen, T. (2021) · Classroom Discourse · doi:10.1080/19463014.2020.1870151 · Cited by 18 · cited 3× · see citing works
“"Classroom interaction" refers to what occurs in a classroom when language is present (Mathieu et al., 2021).”
BackgroundEFL Classroom Discourse; From the Perspective of Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis
Putri, D. M. (2018) · TELL-US JOURNAL · doi:10.22202/tus.2018.v4i1.2387 · Cited by 3 · cited 1× · see citing works
“There are two main techniques to the study of classroom interaction, according to (Mega Putri, 2018a, 2018b; Levinson, 1983) as cited by (Rustandi & Mubarok, 2017).”
MethodPrastiningrum, H., Azwandi, A., & Hati, G. M. (2022) · Journal of English Education and Teaching · doi:10.33369/jeet.6.1.103-114 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
The The Implementation of Initiation–Response–Feedback (IRF) in EFL Writing Class
Atmojo, F. N. D., Saleh, M., & Widhiyanto, W. (2020) · English Education Journal · doi:10.15294/eej.v10i1.34465 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Kartini, K., Syakira, S., & Aisyah, S. (2022). Initiation-response-feedback pattern used by lecturer-students in EFL classroom interaction. TLEMC (Teaching and Learning English in Multicultural Contexts), 6(1), 43-56.
- Made, N., & Sari, N. (2022). An Analysis of Classroom Interaction in SMP Negeri 2 Tejakula. Inspiring: English Education Journal, 5(2), 73-81
- Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Adaptation of indigenous approaches to music pedagogy
Dordzro, J.-D. (2025) · African Music Journal of the International Library of African Music · doi:10.21504/amj.v12i1.2531
Ayiz, A., Nugroho, K. Y., Hz, B. I. R., et al. (2026) · Journal of Research in English Language Teaching and Linguistics · doi:10.65431/jrell.v2i1.34
“While efficient for managing large classes and checking comprehension, this pattern has been criticized for limiting student talk time and reducing opportunities for extended discourse (Dalia & Putra, 2024).”
- Authors
- Dalia, A. C., & Putra, F. R.
- Affiliations
- Yogyakarta State University (ID)
- Venue
- Jurnal Ilmiah Spectral
- Published
- 2024-01-30
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 043-053
- ISSN
- 0216-3381 (ISSN-L)
- 2655-8920
- OpenAlex
- W4392689843
- Semantic Scholar
- 8297e6c5c5c282175655e3b4780e0037441c3146
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 3.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Jurnal Ilmiah Spectral (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Communication in Education and Healthcare
- Keywords
- initiation-response-feedback, classroom discourse, teacher-student relationship, teacher feedback, English language teaching
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.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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
