Document Type : Research Paper


Department of English, Tonekabon Branch ,Islamic Azad University,Tonekabon,Iran


This study aims at appraising the discourse exchanges of English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers and learners from a critical standpoint to explore whether the turn-taking structures are dialogical in essence. To this end, the discourse exchanges of 12 classrooms were observed and digitally audiotaped during class interactions. At the same time, notes were taken and checklists were filled out to capture contextual features. The functions of each interaction were transcribed verbatim and then coded to uncover the initiation-response-feedback (IRF) patterns. The functions were identified by counting the number of occurrence of initiation move functions, type of elicitations, and follow-up move functions. The Chi-square tests, followed by a complementary interpretive approach, were run to determine the distribution of the IRF patterns and to analyze the class interactions. The findings indicated that the least frequent initiation move function was nominating and most frequent move function was in the form of display questions by the students. Additionally, teachers exposed a tendency toward closed and managerial questions in the classrooms. The teachers employed their follow-up moves to repeat, accept, and correct among the students in classrooms. This makes no room for the students to voice their ideas, to foster critical reflection, and to encourage transformative mode in a classroom. The findings suggest that dialogic teaching can involve learners in collaborative dialogue and empower them to be reflective learners.


Article Title [فارسی]

تحلیل گفتمان کلاسهای آموزش زبان انگلیسی از منظر باختین

Authors [فارسی]

  • فاطمه نیک نژاد
  • محمدرضا خدارضا
  • داوود مشهدی حیدر

Abstract [فارسی]

تحلیل گفتمان کلاسهای آموزش زبان انگلیسی از منظر باختین
هدف تحقیق حاضر بررسی و تحلیل نقادانه ازگفتمان میان معلیمن و دانشجویان آموزش زبان انگلیسی با استفاده از الگوی مناظره گفتمان از منظر باختین می باشد. بدین منظور، گفتمان 12 کلاس درس آموزش زبان انگلیسی که به صورت طبیعی رخ داده، ضبط و سپس با بهره گیری از مدل آموزشی باختین مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفته است. جهت نیل به اهداف این تحقیق و افزایش کیفت داده ها در ارایه یک مدل واقعی محقق از ابتدا تا پایان جمع آوری داده ها در کلاس حضور داشته و از ابزارهای مختلف من جمله مشاهده، یادداشت برداری و چک لیست استفاده نموده است. سپس هر یک از جملات روی کاغذ پیاده شده و IRF Mode هر جمله با استفاده از یک الگوی برگفته از پیشنه تحقیق استخراج گردید تا مشخص شود چه اندازه تبادل گفتمان در کلاس درسی برگرفته از الگوی باختین بوده است. نتاج نشان داده است که سوالات Nominationو Display هر کدام به ترتیب کمترین و بیشترین تکرار را توسط دانشجویان داشته و معلمین هم تمایل به طرح سوالات closed و Managerial داشته اند. به عبارت دیگر، دانشجویان فضایی جهت ابراز عقاید خود در کلاس نداشته و جایی جهت تفکر انتقادی در مذاکرات وجود ندارد. نتایج تحقیق حاضر میتواند از جنبه آموزشی برای اساتید دانشجویان و سیاستگذاران آموزش زبان انگلیسی مفید باشد با این نکته که فرایند دیالکتیک وگفتمان در کلاس می تواند نقش دانشجو را از یک زبان آموز غیر فعال به یک زبان آموز فعال و نقاد تغییر دهد

Keywords [فارسی]

  • آموزش بر مبنای دیالکتیکی
  • گفتمان دیالکتیکی
  • گفتمان کلاسی
  • شروع ادامه و خاتمه مذاکره
  • گفتمان یک طرفه

Ahmadi, M. H. (2017). Investigating characteristics of a dialogic discourse pattern in Japanese academic English classrooms. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(1) 25-44. doi:10.5539/ijel.v7n1p25

Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). New York, NY: Dialogos.

Anderson, K. T. (2017). Leveraging researcher reflexivity to consider a classroom event over time: Reflexive discourse analysis of what counts. Classroom Discourse, 8(1), 36-54. 4630 14.2016.1271742

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. k., & Walker, D. A. (2013). Introduction to research in education (9th ed.). Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth Publishing Co. Inc.

Baker, P., & Ellece, S. (2011). Key terms in discourse analysis. London and New York: Continuum.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.).Austin, Tx: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Trans.).Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres (V. McGee, Trans.). In C. Emerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60-102). Austin, Tx: Univ. of Texas Press

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of learning and teaching. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Cazden, C. B., & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 165–197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Creswell, J. W. & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Chappell, P. J. (2014).  Engaging Learners: conversation or dialogic driven pedagogy?  ELT Journal, 68(1), 1-11.

Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: The importance of the F‐move. ELT Journal, 56(2), 117-127.

Davari, H. (2011). Linguistic imperialism or global understanding: ELT in globalization from an Iranian perspective. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

Degener, S. C. (2001). Making sense of critical pedagogy in adult literacy education. Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, 2(1), 26-62.

Ellis, R. (1992). Second language acquisition and language pedagogy.  Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and assessability. Informal Logic, 18(2) 165-182. 781137378057_2

Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402-430.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Giroux, H. A. (1998). Education in unsettling times: Public intellectuals and the promise of cultural studies. In  D. Carlson, & M. Apple (Eds.), Power, knowledge, pedagogy, the meaning of democratic education in unsettling times (305-333). Boulder, CO: West view Press.

Giroux, H. A. & Mclaren, P. (1996). Teacher education and the politics of engagement: The case for democratic schooling. In P. Leistyna, A. Woodrum, & S. A. Sherblom (Eds.), Breaking free: The transformative power of critical pedagogy (pp. 301-331). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review

Hall, J. K. (1997). Differential teacher attention to student utterances: The construction of different opportunities for learning in the IRF. Linguistics and Education, 9(3), 287-311.

Hall, J. K. (2018). From L2 interactional competence to L2 interactional repertoires: Reconceptualising the objects of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 25-39.

Hemati, F., & Valadi, A. (2107). EFL classroom discourse in Iranian context: Investigating teacher talk adaptation to students’ proficiency Level. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 8(2) 99-122.

Kharaghani, N. (2013). Patterns of interaction in EFL class­rooms. Proceeding of The Global Summit on Education (pp. 859–864). Kuala Lumpur:

Jarvis, J., & Robinson, M. (1997). Analyzing educational discourse: An exploratory study of teacher response and support to pupils' learning. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 212-228.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical constructivism primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Kiramba, L. K. (2018). Language ideologies and epistemic exclusion. Language and Education, 32, 291–312. doi 10.1080/095007 82. 2018.1438469

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to post method. New York, NY: Routledge.

McGrew, S. (2005). Student questions in an intermediate modern Hebrew classroom. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 21(1),61-78.

McLaren, P. (2003). Critical Pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 69–96). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis, Inc. 

Morgan, B. D. (1998). The ESL classroom: Teaching, critical practice, and community development. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press

Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What's the use of triadic dialogue?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376-406.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D., & Carter, R. (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. London, UK: Ernst Klett Sprachen.

Nystrand, M. (1997). Dialogic instruction: When recitation becomes conversation. In  M. Nystrand, A. Gamoran, R. Kachur, & C. Prendergast (Eds.), Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom (pp. 1-29). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Nystrand, M., Lawrence L. W., Gamoran, A.,  Zeiser, S.,  & Long, D. A. (2010). Questions in Time: Investigating the Structure and Dynamics of Unfolding Classroom Discourse.  Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135-198.

Pishghadam, R., & Mirzaee, A. (2008). English language teaching in the postmodern era. TELL, 2, 89-109

Pishghadam, R., & Naji, E. (2011). Applied ELT as a panacea for linguistic imperialism. Iranian EFL Journal, 8(1), 35-58.

Ranjbar, M., Rahimi Domakani, M., & Mirzae, A. (2012). The status of critical pedagogy in EFL classrooms: A case of Iran’s EFL Classrooms. Saarbrücken, Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.

Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114e133.

Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning-making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605-631.

Sedova, K. (2017). A case study of a transition to dialogic teaching as a process of gradual change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 278-290.

Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38(4), 165-187. doi:10.1017/S0261444805003010

Shin, H., & Crookes, G. (2005). Exploring the possibilities for EFL critical pedagogy in Korea: A two-part case study. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 2(2), 113-136. doi: 10.1207/s15427595cils0202_3

Shor, I. (2012). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change: Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.

Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse. London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Singh, P, Nicolson, H., & Exley, B. (2001). Teacher Talk and Classroom Practice: An analysis of the Constitution of Pedagogic Identities. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Fremantle.

Thoms, J. J. (2012).  Classroom discourse in foreign language classrooms: A review of the literature. Foreign Language Annual, 4(S1), 8-27.

Thornbury, S. (1996). Teachers research teacher talk. ELT journal, 50(4), 279-289.

Tsui, A. B., Marton, F., Mok, I. A., & Ng, D. F. (2004). Questions and the space of learning. In F. Marton & A. B. M.  Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning (pp. 113-137). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Van Lier, L. (1998). Constraints and resources in classroom talk: Issues of equality and symmetry. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages (pp. 157–182). New York, NY: The Modern language association of America.

Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London, UK: Routledge.

Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response- Feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59(4), 796-824.

Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 21-32. doi:10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32.

Woods, N. (2014). Describing discourse: A practical guide to discourse analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.

Xie, X. (2010). Turn allocation patterns and learning opportunities. ELT journal, 65(3), 240-250.doi:10.1093/elt/ccq064