Organisation of sequences defining classroom talk

As Hutchby and Wooffit (1998:38) put it “A key notion in CA is that […] turns (at talking) are not just serially ordered (that is, coming one after another); they are sequentially ordered, which is to say that there are describable ways in which turns are linked together into definite sequences.” Conversation analysts have studied this order of turns at talk under the term sequence organisation.

The basic unit of sequence organisation is the adjacency pair. The term refers to a sequence that is constructed by paired utterances produced by two different speakers (Schegloff and Sacks 1973:295-296). The relationship between the turns is normative, since the first pair-part requires a response - the second pair-part (ten Have 2007:130), for example a question requires an answer and a greeting requires a reciprocal greeting.

The second part thereby becomes conditionally relevant, a term introduced by Emanuel Schegloff, referring to the expectedness of the second part in an adjacency pair. If the second part of the pair is not produced, the absence of a response is clearly noticeable;

unless a sequence expansion occurs, meaning for example a question followed by another question as a request of clarification (ten Have 2007:130-131). The adjacency pair is the most important basic sequence in conversation analysis (Schegloff and Sacks

1973), but when we look specifically at classroom talk, other sequences should also be considered.

The interaction between a teacher and students is often characterised by a specific sequence organisation called an IRF sequence, the letters meaning initiation-response-feedback (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975). This tripartite sequence has also been referred to as the IRE (initiation-response-evaluation) (Mehan 1979) or QAC (question-answer-comment) structure (McHoul 1978). In other words, the traditional interaction in a classroom begins when the teacher asks a question. A student then answers the question and gets feedback or some kind of other response from the teacher. Musumeci (1996 as quoted by Walsh 2006: 5-6) suggests four reasons why these IRF patterns occur during lessons:

1) Teachers and students consider question and answer routines to be natural classroom behaviour.

2) Teachers want to please the students by giving feedback.

3) Regarding power relations the teacher controls the discussion.

4) IRF sequences advance the discourse effectively and take little time.

(Walsh 2006:5-6) Overall, the pattern of teacher-led communication in a classroom has a clear structure, since teachers control turn-taking and the topics of conversation, whereas students merely take cues to answer the teachers’ questions (Walsh 2006:5). However, due to the change in educational purposes, the nature of classroom talk has changed (Cazden 2001:31) and while the use of IRF sequences still exists, the structure of classroom talk is not as simple.

Although characterising traditional teaching, IRF sequences are nevertheless a great part of classroom talk, but not the only characterising organisation. In fact, Cazden (2001:30) notes that “the three-part sequence of teacher Initiation, student Response, and teacher Evaluation (IRE) or teacher feedback (IRF), may still be the most common classroom discourse pattern at all grade levels.” However, it has been criticised in relation to pedagogical efficacy as “rigid, controlling and greatly limiting student participation in learning” (Mori and Zuengler 2008:18). Accordingly, the simplicity of the structure rarely applies to modern classroom discourse as the students of a classroom are now seen rather as a community than a group of individual learners (Cazden 2001:49). In modern classrooms interruptions and alterations in the nature of talk happen daily. In addition, the teacher talks significantly less and students are allowed to give longer, more detailed answers (Cazden 2001:51). IRF sequences are still

visible in classroom talk, but not in the oversimplified structure initially presented by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). Because of all its benefits (see the list by Musumeci in the previous paragraph), the basic idea of IRF sequences remains a valued approach in classrooms. However, classroom talk now offers more possibilities for students to contribute in conversations.

In consequence, different types of classroom talks (Markee and Kasper 2004) have been studied in addition to the IRF sequence. As we saw in relation to turn-taking, the teaching method that is used is connected to the turns of talk. This naturally also applies to the organisation of sequences. Like many other institutions, a classroom is a changing environment that appears very different if we compare the context now and a few decades ago. As a result, studies have moved on from looking at the traditional teacher-directed IRF model to describe a more “student-centered, task-based, group organised settings or even [...] a one-to-one-tutoring basis” (Wagner 2004:612). Interaction during task-based group work reveals how classroom interaction is not based solely on one speech exchange system like the IRF sequence, but on several different sequence organisations. This was also evident in the data for the present study and thus, should be considered. The “interrelated speech exchange systems” (Markee and Kasper 2004:492) that describe a more modern, non-traditional classroom talk are looked at more closely in the special issue The Modern Language Journal (2004) Classroom talks. In this issue, Markee for example, has studied classroom talks in ESL classes and I will now present his findings as an example of study on modern classroom interaction.

Markee (2000, 2004) has studied the structure of teacher-student interaction in non-traditional ESL lessons and found that the sequence organisation is still far from ordinary conversation, but also clearly different compared to traditional teacher-led lessons. Markee (2004) describes transitions between different speech exchange systems in classroom talk through zones of interactional transition (ZITs). One of these zones is the counter question sequence. According to Markee, even in task-based, small group instruction teachers want to maintain a certain control of the lesson and they often do this by presenting counter-questions. In group work, the roles of the typical IRF sequence are turned as a group member can ask the teacher a question, a teacher is expected to give an answer and the student might finally reply with a comment (Markee 2004:585). However, teachers typically add a counter question turn in the structure, before giving out the answer. For example, if a student asks the teacher “What does this

word mean?”, the teacher might reply “What do you think it means?” wanting the student to resolve the problem on their own. By using this counter question structure, teachers maintain control over the sequence of talk by selecting learners as next speakers who need to respond to the counter question. Also, through the counter question teachers regain their roles as commenters or feedback givers (Markee 2004:585). Other ZIT’s described by Markee include misunderstandings of the function of teachers’ questions, off-task talk and tactical-fronting talk. The findings of Markee clearly show how classroom interaction consists of multiple speech-exchange systems.