Classroom Discourse Analysis

International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications

ISSN: 2456-9992

Volume 5 Issue 3, March 2022

www.ijarp.org

Mitiku Teshome Abeti

Department of English Language and Literature, Samara University, Samara, Ethiopia

PhD Candidate at Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

[email protected]

Abstract : This paper was aimed to investigate a classroom discourse and find out its uses for the teaching of English as a FL/SL. To

achieve the purpose, the researcher made a classroom observation as a tool of data collection. The class was randomly selected from Kokebe

Tsibah Secondary and Preparatory School, Grade 11. After having simply the record, transcription was made. Based on the transcription,

among the models of classroom discourse, the Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) model was selected as a sign post of this classroom based

discourse analysis. Comparing the model with the actual classroom transcription, the discourse analysis was made and the interpretation and

recommendation were finally put in the study. Based on the analysis it was confirmed that the classroom from which the data in the paper

was taken didn‟t promote equal roles for teacher and students. Teacher was dominating the class and students were not fully participating in

that classroom. Additionally, there were unequal amount of moves and exchanges between teacher and students. All the moves, acts and

exchanges between them were unequal. The class was teacher dominated. The initiation was from the teacher. There was no room for

students to begin or initiate the conversation. When we see the lines from the transcription, teachers talk is about 10 lines more than that of

students talk. Finally, it was recommended that teachers should give sufficient time for their students to make them practice the language

and students are also needed to fully participate in the classroom in English lessons.

Key words: classroom-discourse, models of classroom discourse, teaching and learning English

1. Introduction

Originally, the word “discourse” comes from the Latin

“discursus” which means “to run to and fro” that is

discourse which moves back and forth between reflecting

and constructing the social world (Wodak & Meyer,

2009). Within a CDA tradition, discourse has been defined

as language in social practice. Discourse means “verbal

communication, talk, formal speech or writing on a

subject and unit of text used by the linguist for the

analysis of linguistic phenomena that range over more

than one sentence”. There are various discourses in

everyday. Among the discourses we are surrounded by,

the classroom discourse is the one the researcher focus on.

Classroom discourse is a discourse that based on the

conversation between teacher and students. Regarding

classroom discourse, there are different models to help the

discourse taking place in classroom between teacher and

students. One of these models is Sinclair and Coulthard

(1975) model. This model was developed to describe

teacher-pupil talk in such based on a hierarchy of

discourse units. It assumes that classroom discourse;

‘Follows a fairly typical and predictable

structure, comprising three parts: a teacher

Initiation, a student Response, and a teacher

Feedback, commonly known as IRF, or IRE:

Initiation, Response, and Feedback /

Evaluation. IRE is preferred by some writers

and practitioners to reflect the fact that,

most of the time; teachers’ feedback is an

evaluation of a student’s contribution.

Teachers are constantly assessing the

correctness of an utterance and giving

feedback to learners.

Basically, the model is based on the fact that each

exchange between teacher and pupil in classroom is made-

up of three moves: a question, a response, and then

follow-up. However, it is difficult to make a sound

interpretation to assess the effectiveness of the talk in

enhancing learning. It is teacher centered and guided. It

looks also mechanical.

1.1. Research Questions

This study tried to answer the following basic

research questions:

1. What is the classroom discourse in English at

Kokebe Tsibah Secondary School looks like?

2. How the classroom discourse uses for the

teaching and learning of English as a FL/SL?

1.2. Objectives of the study

The study was generally aimed to investigate a classroom

discourse in English classes at Kokebe Tsibah Secondary

School and find out its uses in teaching and learning

English as a FL/SL. More specifically, the study tried to:

o Investigate a classroom discourse in English

classes at Kokebe Tsibah Secondary School and

o Find out the uses of classroom discourse for the

teaching and learning English as a FL/SL.

2. Literature Review

Under this sub-topic, the following points were reviewed:

critical discourse analysis, classroom discourse analysis

and models of classroom discourse analysis.

2.1. Critical Discourse Analysis

Many scholars defined critical discourse analysis in

various different ways. For my purpose, I only used here

the definitions given by Van Dijk (1997) and Norman

Fairclough (1999). According to Van D. (1997), critical

discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical

research that primarily studies the way social power

abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced,

and resisted by text and talk in the social and political

context. With such dissident research, critical discourse

analysts take explicit position, and thus want to

understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality.

Similarly, Norman Fairclough (1999) defines CDA as

description and interpretation of discourses in social

context as well as explanation of why and how discourses

International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications

ISSN: 2456-9992

Volume 5 Issue 3, March 2022

www.ijarp.org

work. It is critical because it argues against a realist,

neutral and rationalist view of the world. Instead the role

is to uncloak the hidden power relations, largely

constructed through language, and to demonstrate and

challenge social inequities reinforced and reproduced. It

is exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory of social

practice and change. Power and ideology play central roles

in the production and consumption of discourses. It is

both multi and trans-disciplinary in methodology to

explaining social practice. It is, thus, an approach,

methodology and tool as well.

2.2. Classroom Discourse

Discourse, language in use, varies depending on the field

of study. A teacher‟s discourse is the way in which they

use language to get things done (Sinclair and Brazil,

1982). Classroom discourse is unique in its setting due to

the unequal power relationship between teacher and

student. Teachers tend to control the lesson, dominate in

interactions, and initiate exchanges. Typical discourse

includes the teacher asking a question, one or more pupils

responding, and the teacher evaluating that response

(Nunan, 1999). Aspects of natural discourse, such as turn-

taking, intonation, and exchanges are altered in a

classroom setting (McCarthy, 1991). Turn-taking is

predetermined and primarily teacher-controlled within the

classroom (Brazil, 1995). Teachers, in their dominating

role, also tend to use more tonal units with prominent

syllables more frequently to highlight important

information. This is unnatural when compared to real

communication intonation.

2.3. Models of classroom discourse

For classroom discourse analysis there are different

models that describe the discourse of classroom in

teaching and learning and see the power relationship that

take place within that class. To see the power relationship

and the observed classroom discourse analysis, the student

researcher chose the model of Sinclair and Coulthard

(1975) as the instruction of doing this project insisted to

choose one model and analyze discourse of classroom in

views of that model.

2.4. Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) Model

They developed a model for the description of teacher-

pupil talk, based on a hierarchy of discourse units. This

model assumes that classroom discourse „follows a fairly

typical and predictable structure, comprising three parts: a

teacher Initiation, a student Response, and a teacher

Feedback, commonly known as IRF or IRE: Initiation,

Response, and Feedback/Evaluation. IRE is preferred by

some writers and practitioners to reflect the fact that, most

of the time; teachers‟ feedback is an evaluation of a

student‟s contribution. Teachers are constantly assessing

the correctness of an utterance and giving feedback to

learners. „RF is also known as a recitation scripter triadic

structure. (Triadic simply refers to the fact that each

exchange is made up of three moves: typically a question,

a response, and then follow-up.) However, it is difficult to

make a sound interpretation to assess effectiveness of the

talk in enhancing learning. It is teacher centered and

guided. It looks also mechanical. That means there is no

learning but teaching in the classroom (Hailom B., 2016,

Lecture Note). As a pitfalls this model assumes the

teaching of English in English context which could be

difficult for learners of English as a FL/SL. Context is

defined as the mentally represented structure of those

properties of the social situation that are relevant for the

production or comprehension of discourse (Duranti and

Goodwin 1992; van Dijk 1998b). If context is defined in

terms of mentally represented structure, foreign or second

language learners of English like Ethiopia cannot fully

understand the context as they have no mental

representation of the structure in English of properties. On

the other hand, the model sees teaching as a teacher

centered and guided. Such kind of teaching cannot

promote learning because learners wait the guidance from

the teachers. They cannot act and realize their learning by

themselves. Similarly, there have been several criticisms

of language classrooms whose discourse fits too neatly

into the S&C three-stage model. De Boer (2009) cites

Chaudron (1988), Long & Sato (1983), Ohta (2001), and

Wells (1999) to argue that such discourse is heavy on

teacher display questions, where the teacher knows the

answer, but merely wants to know whether the student can

correctly answer. This is counterproductive as their

overuse deprives students of the opportunity for

meaningful communication (Thornbury, 2000, cited in de

Boer, 2009). The reason I choose this model for the

analysis of this classroom observation is that the class I

was observed was more or less related to this model of

classroom discourse analysis. The following are some

elements from the definition and practices of Sinclair and

Coulthard model.

2.4.1. The Rank Scale

The S&C model employs a hierarchical system, modeled

on Halliday (1961).The highest rank is lesson, which is

made up of „an unordered series of transactions‟ (Sinclair

& Coulthard, 1975, p. 25). Due to the lack of restriction

on the order of transactions in a lesson, analysis of this

rank is moot. It would be impossible to arrive at a

structural statement from such pursuit as „ordering varies

from teacher to teacher‟ (ibid, p. 60).

2.4.2. Exchanges and Moves

Sinclair and Coulthard identify two types of exchange in

classroom discourse; boundary exchanges and teaching

exchanges. Boundary exchanges signal the transition from

one section of the lesson to the next and are initiated by

the teacher, whereas teaching exchanges are where

questions are asked and answered, and feedback given on

answers.

2.4.3. Moves and Acts

Moves are made up of acts, which are „the lowest rank of

discourse‟ (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975, p. 27) and are

„similar to morphemes (…) in grammar‟ (ibid, p. 23) in

that they cannot be divided into smaller elements.

2.5. The Need for Classroom Discourse Analysis

Knowledge of classroom discourse is very important for

language teachers. Language teachers are not only

expected to impart mere information to their students but

also help them learn by themselves in order not to make

them passive listeners by showing the students how to

practice the language skills. To do this, according to

Soleman Awad and Afzal Khan (2019), teachers need to

International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications

ISSN: 2456-9992

Volume 5 Issue 3, March 2022

www.ijarp.org

confront the problems such as keeping in view the social

and individual differences of the students, their

educational background, and classroom discipline and

time factor. Considering the above challenges and doing

researches on classroom discourse frequently, teachers can

easily improve their teaching approach and help their

students learn actively.

3. Research Methods

The main purpose of this study is to investigate a

classroom discourse and find out its uses for the teaching

of English as a FL/SL. To achieve the purpose, the

researcher made a classroom observation as a tool of data

collection. The class was randomly selected from Kokebe

Tsibah Secondary and Preparatory School Grade 11. After

having simply the record, transcription was made. Based

on the transcription, among the models of classroom

discourse, the Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) model was

selected as a sign post of this classroom based discourse

analysis. Comparing the model with the actual classroom

transcription, the discourse analysis was made and the

interpretation and recommendation were finally put in the

study.

4. Analysis and Discussions

4 .1. Teachers and Students Roles

Kumaravadivelu (1993) promotes a classroom dynamic

where the teacher and students take on more equal roles as

participants in the lesson. In this spirit, the classroom from

which the data in the paper was taken didn‟t promote

equal roles for teacher and students. Teacher was

dominating the class and students were not fully

participating in that classroom. To see the structure of a

talk, level of exchange, moves and acts, there should be

role- changing between teacher and students. However,

the classroom I observed was applied to Sinclair and

Coulthard (1975) model which is a teacher dominated one;

I argue it as this model and my classroom were not

promoting students learning. Therefore, in the observed

classroom, teachers were looking the all-knower and

students considered as passive listeners. They simply

taught by their teacher knowledge level. They never

realized their learning. The teaching and learning of

English language currently would allow for a system of

analysis flexible enough to describe more student-centered

EFL classrooms. Classrooms that do not require this

adaptation could be said to be more teacher-lead. It was

because, may be the lack of intimate classroom as a more

intimate classroom setting with fewer students was chosen

for the possibility of finding more two-person interactions.

The classroom I observed was approximately contained

more than 50 students which is difficult to make a direct

conversation with individual learners.

4.2. Moves, Acts and Exchanges

There were unequal amount of moves and exchanges

between teacher and students. All the moves, acts and

exchanges between them were unequal. The class was

teacher dominated. The initiation was from the teacher.

There was no room for students to begin or initiate the

conversation. When we see the lines from the

transcription, teachers talk is about 10 lines more than that

of students talk.

For example,

T: In last semester you remember that we have learnt

‟but…for‟. Even if we learnt remember what is but…for.

Now be in a group and discuss what is the use of

„but…for‟, how we used but… for especially, in a

conditional type 2 and 3. I am telling you as a general

truth that but…for is used in place of „in‟. Remember you

can construct if clause and main clause using but…for.

But…for, is especially, used in conditional type 2 and 3.

Because, condition type 2 and 3 are more related to

but…for. Condition type 2 is a probable condition

whereas condition type 3 is unreal condition. Therefore,

make a group and discuss the questions I wrote on the

black board. After that you reflect your ideas for the class.

Focus on your group discussion. I give you only five

minutes.

Ss: start discussion

Therefore, when we look at the above teacher- pupil

exchange, it is 10 lines teacher talk and no students‟ direct

talk with the teacher. This exchange reflects that teacher-

dominance. Where there is teacher dominance, learning

will not be realized as learning is based on students‟

contribution not teachers.

In addition to this, it was very less direct conversation

between the teacher and students. The teacher talks over

and over without students‟ exchange.

Example; T: please, stop discussion… Sit down.

T: who can give me an example for this lesson?

This particular example shows that in the observed class,

it was difficult to relate it with the model of Sinclair and

Coulthard (1975), because the orders of exchange needed

to be: initiation, response and feedback or evaluation. But

here is not this order we can see.

The other thing we can see from the observed class was

the existence of the V-task exchange. There was a group

discussion where students were interacting together,

exchanging ideas on the issue of the uses of but…. for in

conditional type 2 and 3 as directed by the teacher.

Therefore, the class I observed from Kokebe Tsibah

secondary and preparatory school English classroom was

applied to Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) model of

classroom discourse analysis which has the

aforementioned limitations in promoting learners‟

communicative competence.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on the above analysis and the observed classroom

discourse the following conclusion and recommendations

made.

5.1. Conclusion

The classroom discourse I observed was applied to

Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) because of the following

reasons:

 The class was teacher dominated.

 The learning and teaching process in the class

was tried to follow the IRF of Sinclair and

Coulthard (1975) model.

International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications

ISSN: 2456-9992

Volume 5 Issue 3, March 2022

www.ijarp.org

 It looked like the teacher was all knower and

students expect everything from the teacher.

 In another hand, the classroom also inculcated

the v-task exchange model in that students tried

to work collaboratively.

Generally, this classroom discourse was analyzed based

on Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) model. From this

discourse analysis it can be concluded that such way

where teacher talks more and students wait everything

from that teacher couldn‟t bring an impact factor on

students learning of English as a foreign language.

5.2. Recommendations

Based on the observed classroom and results, the

following recommendation made for the concerned

bodies.

 Teachers should be prepared themselves very

well for each lesson accordingly.

 Teachers should give sufficient time for their

students to make them practice the language.

 Students are needed to fully participate in the

classroom in English lessons.

 Students are expected to participate in the

classroom to develop their oral skills.

 The school administration should create smooth

classroom environment that promotes

collaborative learning.

 There should be learner-centered approach in

English classrooms to realize learners‟

competency.

References

[1]. Brazil, D. (1995) Classroom and spoken discourse.

Birmingham: The Centre for English Language

Studies.

[2]. Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds). (1992).

Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive

Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

[3]. Fairclough, N. (1999). Critical discourse analysis:

The critical study of language. United Kingdom:

Longman.

[4]. Hailom Banteyirga (2016). Lecture Note. Addis

Ababa University, Unpublished lecture.

[5]. Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory

of grammar. Word 17, 241-292.

[6]. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). Maximizing Learning

Potential in the Communicative Classroom. ELT

Journal 47, 5, 12-21.

[7]. McCarthy, M. (1991) Discourse analysis for

language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

[8]. Nunan, D. (1999) Second language teaching and

learning. Boston:Heinle Publishers.

[9]. Sinclair, J., and Brazil, D. (1982) Teacher talk.

Oxford University Press.

[10]. Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, R.M. (1975).Toward an

Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

[11]. Soleman Awad and Afzal Khan. Classroom

Discourse of English Language Teachers at

Secondary School Level. International Journal of

English Linguistics; Vol. 9, No. 1; 2019

[12]. Van Dijk, A.T. (1997). Discourse as structure and

process of discourse studies: A multidisciplinary

introduction, Volume I, SAGE Publications, London.

[13]. VanDijk, T.A.(1998b). Towards a theory of context

and experience models in discourse processing.

Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.

[14]. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods for

critical discourse analysis. Sage.

Appendix A

Transcription of classroom observation

T: In last semester you remember that we have learnt

‟but…for‟. Even if we learnt remember what is but…for.

Now be in a group and discuss what is the use of

„but…for‟, how we used but… for especially, in a

conditional type 2 and 3. I am telling you as a general

truth that but…for is used in place of „in‟. Remember you

can construct if clause and main clause using but…for.

But…for, is especially, used in conditional type 2 and 3.

Because, condition type 2 and 3 are more related to

but…for. Condition type 2 is a probable condition

whereas condition type 3 is unreal condition. Therefore,

make a group and discuss the questions I wrote on the

black board. After that you reflect your ideas for the class.

Focus on your group discussion. I give you only five

minutes.

Ss: Students started discussion, but what is heard is

shouting after shouting in which particularly some groups

were talking private issues and some other were sitting

idle, and there were two students sitting separately were

sleeping. The teacher tried to check some groups‟

discussion while students were discussing. But, however,

students cannot stop discussing some private issues,

shouting, moving here and there, and even concentrate on

the discussion. Then, before the given time ended she

ordered students to stop the discussion.

T: okay, I think you have finished your discussion.

S: shouting ……

T: please, stop discussion… Sit down.

T: who can give me an example for this lesson?

S1: if I would study hard, I would pass the exam.

(Conditional type 2)

T: writes the response from S1 on board.

T: go to students and asked: say something?

S2: tried to answer, but the teacher jumped over her.

T: okay, this group?

S3: we can use but…for in both conditional 2 and 3.

T: okay, good.

T: anyone else?

International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications

ISSN: 2456-9992

Volume 5 Issue 3, March 2022

www.ijarp.org

S4: student 4 tried to talk the use of but…for lot (but I

couldn‟t transcribe it for it is difficult to hear)

T: thank you very much.

T: summarized it in lecture form and go back to writing

note on board.

Ss: started taking the note

T: wrote the note and left the class saying see you

tomorrow.

Appendix B

Classroom Analysis

Initiation

Response

Feedback

Opening move

(elicit)

Making students to

remember the

previous class. Ex:

what is the use of

“but…. For”?

Discussion with

groups

Follow-up: teacher was

moving here and there

to check the discussion

Ex: I think you have

finished?

Opening move

(elicit)

Ex: who can give me

an example?

Answering

(with

conditional type

2 and 3)

Teacher gave a

feedback by writing the

answers on board

Opening move

(elicit)

Okay, this group?

Answering

(with

conditional type

2 and 3)

Teacher gave positive

feedback. Ex: okay,

good.

Focusing move

Ex: anyone else?

Answering

(with

conditional type

2 and 3)

Teacher gave positive

feedback. Ex: thank you

very much.

Author Profile

Mitiku Teshome Abeti (MA, PhD

Candidate) is a lecturer at Samara

University and a PhD candidate at

Addis Ababa University of Ethiopia.

The author has graduated with BA in

English Language and Literature from

Arba Minch University and MA in

TEFL from Addis Ababa University.

Nowadays, the author is conducting

various publishable paper works on different themes such

as education, English language teaching, linguistics,

discourse analysis, teachers‟ continuous development and

etc. and so far the researcher and author has published

three articles and three more articles are under the

publication process.