2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.linged.2008.05.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interactional patterns in Singapore's English classrooms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

2
20
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
2
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Most of the IRF patterns and display questions required student responses about vocabulary in the text and their understanding of the text. The prevalence of the IRF patterns in lower secondary classrooms is similar to findings of international researchers including Hardman et al (2003), Abd-Kadir & Hardman (2007), Vaish (2008), andWedin (2009). The dominance of teachers' display questions confirms the findings by Rohmah (2002), Tulung (2006), and Arifin (2012).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Most of the IRF patterns and display questions required student responses about vocabulary in the text and their understanding of the text. The prevalence of the IRF patterns in lower secondary classrooms is similar to findings of international researchers including Hardman et al (2003), Abd-Kadir & Hardman (2007), Vaish (2008), andWedin (2009). The dominance of teachers' display questions confirms the findings by Rohmah (2002), Tulung (2006), and Arifin (2012).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…These researchers found that the IRF (Initiation, Response, Feedback) pattern of teacher-student interaction dominated the classroom interaction and limited students' ability to contribute to classroom activities. This pattern of interaction did not achieve the communicative goals of English language instruction (Hardman et al, 2003;Abd Kadir & Hardman, 2007;and Vaish, 2008).…”
mentioning
confidence: 73%
“…In sum, they were very detailed in preserving sequential aspects but failed, from our point of view, in structuring and quantifying wide samples of data for generalizing other than their specific cases. In comparison, descriptive studies based on wide samples (e.g., Myhill, 2006; Vaish, 2008; Wells & Arauz, 2006) have offered a quantitative picture of the three‐move patterns (or of single parts of them), providing more room for generalization, but the approach was so motionless that it lost the sequential and dynamic features of interaction. Both approaches have considerable merits, but we think it is time to go beyond the limitations outlined above (Gnisci & Bakeman, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to [2], the IRF routine was successfully applied and replicated in informal peer-to-peer foreign language interactions. Vaish employed IRF exchanges in English courses at elementary and junior high schools [3], while Mondada and Doehler taught children aged 10-12 years old French as a second language with the IRF sequence in Switzerland [4]. Although effective language interaction through IRF dialogue can improve student understand-ing, and language teachers can correct language errors by providing feedback, teachers must contend with heterogeneous language ability levels of students and limited class time, which are the main challenges encountered when teaching [5]; Pauli also found that teachers often ask new questions or offer further explanations without explicitly reviewing the answer or statement of the student [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%