چکیده:
This article examines various features of classroom discourse in a communicativeEFL classroom. The class was observed and audio-taped during five class sessionswith the total recordings of 4 hours of classroom interactions. An analyticframework was developed to examine these features in four major areas ofteaching exchanges, characteristics of input, error treatment, and question types.The analysis revealed that the database comprised 52 teaching exchanges, of whicha Email address: p_maftoon@srbiau.ac.irb Email address: rezaie434@gmail.comCorresponding address: Department of English, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic AzadUniversity, Garmsar Branch, Daneshjoo St., Garmsar, Iran108 Investigating Classroom Discourse: A Case Study of an Iranian …73% contained the F-move with evaluative function, that the teacher modified hisspeech in accordance with the learners’ language proficiency level, and that therewas a clear preference for recasting (51%) and explicit correction (22%), leavinglittle opportunity for other effective corrective feedback strategies to encouragelearner uptake and self-repair. The database was also examined for question types.Although referential questions are believed to be valuable in promotingcommunicative interactions, it was found that the teacher asked proportionatelymore display questions (57%) than referential questions (21%).
خلاصه ماشینی:
"Based on previous studies on classroom interaction, Lyster and Mori (2006) have classified corrective feedback strategies into six categories: (1) explicit correction, [in which] the teacher supplies the correct form and clearly indicates what the student said was incorrect; (2) recasts, [in which] the teacher implicitly reformulates all or part of the student’s utterance; (3) elicitation, in which the teacher directly elicits a reformulation from the student by asking questions such as ‘How do we say that in French?’ or by pausing to allow the student to complete the teacher’s utterance, or by asking the student to reformulate his or her utterance; (4) metalinguistic clues, in which the teacher provides comments or questions related to the well-formedness of the student’s utterance such as ‘We don’t say it like that in Japanese’; 112 Investigating Classroom Discourse: A Case Study of an Iranian … (5) clarification requests, in which the teacher uses phrases such as ‘Pardon?’, ‘I don’t understand’, after learner errors’ to indicate to students that their utterance is ill-formed in some way and that a reformulation is required; and (6) repetition, in which the teacher repeats the student’s ill-formed utterance, adjusting intonation to highlight the error (p.
IJAL, Vol. 16, No. 1, March 2013 127 Appendix The Framework for Analyzing Features of Classroom Discourse Teaching exchanges Type of F-move Frequency evaluative discoursal Teaching exchanges n % n % (IRF structures) Input characteristics Speech rate Vocabulary Syntax Discourse Input yes no yes no yes no yes no modification Distribution of corrective feedback strategies Uptake Feedback type Repair Needs-repair n % n % n % Explicit correction Recast Elicitation Clarification request Metalinguistic feedback Repetition 128 Investigating Classroom Discourse: A Case Study of an Iranian … Distribution of teacher’s questions Question type n % Comprehension checks Echoic Clarification requests Confirmation checks Referential Epistemic Display Expressive Rhetorical"