Engagement in initiation, response, and feedback in L2 classroom interactions

Vol.16,No.1(2023)
Discourse and Interaction

Abstract

Engagement in the L2 classroom is consequential for enhancing the quality of L2 learning experiences; however, the exploration of engagement in the Initiation, Response, and Feedback (IRF) cycles has received scant attention in L2 pedagogy. This study reports on research, examining engagement in Initiation, Response, and Feedback moves in the IRF cycles. Video recordings and questionnaires were used to collect data from ten EFL classes, being directed by eight teachers, with 73 learners. Using a post-interaction questionnaire and conversation analysis of classroom interactions, the analysis of the data revealed 784 triadic cycles out of which 493 moves embodied engagement. The data showed that not only do the Response and Feedback stages afford L2 learners the opportunity to deliberate on Form-focused language-related episodes (F-LREs), Lexis-focused LREs (L-LREs), and Mechanical LREs (M-LREs), but they also promote social and affective engagement. The comments on the questionnaire also revealed a deeper understanding of the participants’ affective engagement. The findings revealed that certain features of the IRF cycles and peers’ contributions encourage engagement during the IRF cycles. The results also demonstrated that scaffolding, mutuality, reciprocity, back-channeling, and commenting on preceding contributions made L2 learners socially engaged. The analysis suggests that the IRF cycles can create ad-hoc chances for engagement in L2 classroom interactions.


Keywords:
affective engagement; classroom interaction; cognitive engagement; IRF cycle; social engagement
Author biographies

Masoomeh Estaji

Allameh Tabataba'i University

Masoomeh Estaji is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Allameh Tabataba’i University (ATU), Tehran, Iran. She earned the Top Researcher Award at ATU in 2018, 2020 and 2022. She has presented and published numerous papers on methodology, testing, and second language acquisition (SLA). Her research interests include teacher education, language testing and assessment, and ESP.

Address: Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran. [e-mail: mestaji74@gmail.com]

Meisam Mirzaei Shojakhanlou

Allameh Tabataba'i University

Meisam Mirzaei Shojakhanlou is a Ph.D. candidate of TEFL at Allameh Tabataba’i University (ATU), Tehran, Iran. His areas of interest are L2 pragmatics, interlanguage pragmatics, discourse analysis, and teacher education.

Address: Department of English Language and Literature, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran. [e-mail: meisammirzaei2@gmail.com]

References

Aubrey, S., King, J. and Almukhaild, H. (2020) ‘Language learner engagement during speaking tasks: A longitudinal study.’ RELC Journal 53(3), 519-533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220945418

Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L. and Kim, Y. (2016) ‘Engagement with language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form.’ In: Sato, M. and Ballinger, S. (eds) Peer Interaction
and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 209-240.

Boudreau, C., MacIntyre, P. and Dewaele, J. M. (2018) ‘Enjoyment and anxiety in second language communication: An idiodynamic approach.’ Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 8(1), 149-170.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology.’ Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77-101.

Dao, P. (2019) ‘Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task performance.’ International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 58(3), 315-334.

Dao, P. (2020) ‘Effect of interaction strategy instruction on learner engagement in peer interaction.’ System 91, 102-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102244

Dao, P. and McDonough, K. (2018) ‘Effect of proficiency on Vietnamese EFL learners’ engagement in peer interaction.’ International Journal of Educational Research 88, 60-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.008

Dao, P. and Sato, M. (2021) ‘Exploring fluctuations in the relationship between learners’ positive emotional engagement and their interactional behaviours.’ Language Teaching Research 25(6), 972-994. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13621688211044238

Dincer, A., Yeşilyurt, S., Noels, K. A. and Vargas Lascano, D. I. (2019) ‘Self-determination and classroom engagement of EFL Learners: A mixed-methods study of the self-system model of motivational development.’ Sage Open 9(2), 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244019853913

Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J. and Paris, A. (2005) ‘School engagement.’ In: Moore, K. A. and Lippman, L. H. (eds) What Do Children Need to Flourish? Conceptualizing and Measuring Indicators of Positive. New York, NY: Springer. 305-321.

Gibbons, P. (2006) Bridging Discourses in the ESL Classroom: Students, Teachers and Researchers. London: Continuum.

Hall, J. K. (2010) ‘Interaction as method and result of language learning.’ Language Teaching 43(2), 202-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444809005722

Hammond, J. and Gibbons, P. (2006) ‘Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education.’ Prospect 20(1), 6-30.

Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A. H., Vitta, J. P. and Wu, J. (2021) ‘Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions.’ Language Teaching Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13621688211001289

Jang, H., Kim, E. J. and Reeve, J. (2016) ‘Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model.’ Learning and Instruction 43, 27-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002

Lambert, C. (2017) ‘Tasks, affect and second language performance.’ Language Teaching Research 21(6), 657-664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168817736644

Lambert, C., Gurzynski-Weiss, L. and Kim, Y. (2016) ‘Engagement with the language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form.’ In: Sato, S. B. M. (ed.) Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 209-239.

Lambert, C., Philp, J. and Nakamura, S. (2017) ‘Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance.’ Language Teaching Research 21, 665-680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683559

Lamborn, S., Newmann, F. and Wehlage, G. (1992) ‘The significance and sources of student engagement.’ In: Newmann, F. M. (ed.) Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools. New York: Teachers’ College Press. 11-39.

Leeming, P. (2021) ‘The influence of small groups on leader stability and task engagement in the language classroom.’ Language Teaching Research, 1-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168821989866

Li, J. (2019) ‘Looking beyond IRF moves in EFL classroom interaction in China.’ In: Nguyen, H. T. and Malabarba, T. (eds) Conversation Analytic Perspectives on English Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing in Global Contexts. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters. 87-109.

Markee, N. (2000) Conversation Analysis (Second Language Acquisition Research. Monographs on Research Methodology). Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.

Mercer, S. (2019) ‘Language learner engagement: Setting the scene.’ In: Gao, X. (ed.) Second Handbook of English Language Teaching. New York: Springer. 1-19.

Mercer, S. and Dörnyei, Z. (2020) Engaging Language Learners in Contemporary Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Montenegro, A. (2017) ‘Understanding the concept of student agentic engagement for learning.’ Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal 19(1), 117-128.

Nakamura, S., Phung, L. and Reinders, H. (2021) ‘The effect of learner choice on L2 task engagement.’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43(2), 428-441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S027226312000042X

Nassaji, H. and Wells, G. (2000) ‘What’s the use of triadic dialogue? An investigation of teacher-student interaction.’ Applied Linguistics 21(3), 376-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.376

Noels, K. A., Lascano, D. I. V. and Saumure, K. (2019) ‘The development of self-determination across the language course: Trajectories of motivational change and the dynamic interplay of psychological needs, orientations, and engagement.’
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41(4), 821-851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000189

Nunan, D. and Bailey, K. M. (2009) Exploring Second Language Classroom Research: A Comprehensive Guide. Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.

Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018) ‘Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar-for-interaction.’ Classroom Discourse 9(1), 3-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759

Philp, J. and Duchesne, S. (2016) ‘Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom.’ Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 50-72.

Philp, J., Walter, S. and Basturkmen, H. (2010) ‘Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form?’ Language Awareness 19, 261-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.516831

Phung, L. (2016) ‘Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context.’ Language Teaching Research 21(6), 751-766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683561

Reeve, J. (2012) ‘A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement.’ In: Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L. and Wylie, C. (eds) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. New York, NY: Springer. 149-172.

Reschly, A. L. and Christenson, S. L. (2012) ‘Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct.’ In: Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L and Wylie, C. (eds) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement.
New York, NY: Springer. 3-20.

Schlenker, B. R., Schlenker, P. A. and Schlenker, K. A. (2013) ‘Antecedents of academic engagement and the implications for college grades.’ Learning and Individual Differences 27, 75-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.06.014

Sert, O. (2015) Social Interaction and L2 Classroom Discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Sert, O. (2017) ‘Creating opportunities for L2 learning in a prediction activity.’ System 70, 14-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.08.008

Sharpe, T. (2006) ‘Unpacking scaffolding: Identifying discourse and multimodal strategies that support learning.’ Language and Education 20(3), 211-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500780608668724

Storch, N. (2007) ‘Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes.’ Language Teaching Research 11, 143-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168807074600

Storch, N. (2008) ‘Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development.’ Language Awareness 17, 95-114.

Storch, N., and Aldosari, A. (2013) ‘Pairing learners in pair work activity.’ Language Teaching Research 17, 31-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457530

Sulis, G. and Philp, J. (2021) ‘Exploring connections between classroom environment and engagement in the foreign language classroom.’ In: Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A. H. and Mercer, S. (eds) Student Engagement in the Language Classroom. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters. 101-129.

Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2009) ‘Engagement with language: Interrogating a construct.’ Language Awareness 18, 242-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658410903197264

Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2012) ‘Language awareness in language learning and teaching: A research agenda.’ Language Teaching 45(3), 376-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000079

Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2018) ‘Researching language engagement; current trends and future directions.’ Language Awareness 27(1), 21-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2017.1406490

Tajeddin, Z. and Kamali, J. (2020) ‘Typology of scaffolding in teacher discourse: Large data-based evidence from second language classrooms.’ International Journal of Applied Linguistics 30(2), 329-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12286

Ten Have, P. (2007) Doing Conversation Analysis. London: Sage.

Vacca, J. S. (2008) ‘Using scaffolding techniques to teach a social studies lesson about Buddha to sixth graders.’ Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 51(8), 652-658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.51.8.4

Walsh, S. (2002) ‘Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom.’ Language Teaching Research 6(1), 3-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1362168802lr095oa

Walsh, S. (2011)n Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London: Routledge.

Waring, H. Z. (2008) ‘Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities.’ The Modern Language Journal 92(4), 577-594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00788.x

Waring, H. Z. (2009) ‘Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A single case analysis.’ Language Learning 59(4), 796-824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00526.x

Williams, J. (2001) ‘Learner-generated attention to form.’ Language Learning 51(1), 303-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00020.x

Xu, J. and Qiu, X. (2021) ‘Engaging L2 learners in information-gap tasks: How task type and topic familiarity affect learner engagement.’ RELC Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00336882211061628

Young, A. and Tedick, D. (2016) ‘Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom: Does heterogeneous grouping promote peer linguistics scaffolding.’ In: Sato, M. and Ballinger, S. (eds) Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 135-160.

Young, R. (2009) Discursive Practice in Language Learning and Teaching. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Zhang, B. (2021) ‘Engaging in dialogue during collaborative writing: The role of affective, cognitive, and social engagement.’ Language Teaching Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13621688211054047

Metrics

0

Crossref logo

0


271

Views

162

PDF views