Analysing non-verbal interaction within the IRF framework in remote Chinese EFL grammar classrooms
(1) * Yinyin Peng Mail (Monash University, Australia)
*corresponding author

Abstract


This study investigates the manifestations and underlying motivations of non-verbal interaction (including silence) within the Initiation–Response–Feedback (IRF) pedagogical model in high-school EFL grammar classrooms in remote regions of China. Drawing on classroom observations and semi-structured interviews conducted at a public senior high school in Lianzhou, Guangdong Province, involving 40 students, the research first quantifies the frequency of non-verbal cues—such as silence, eye contact, facial expressions, and body posture—across the three IRF phases (Initiation, Response, Feedback), revealing that such interaction peaks during the Feedback phase. Thematic analysis of the interview data subsequently demonstrates that these behaviours do not signify disengagement; rather, they reflect processes of deep cognitive engagement, emotional regulation, or expressions of anxiety and uncertainty, often driven by factors such as limited self-confidence and reduced opportunities for verbal participation. Pedagogically, this study enriches existing theories of classroom interaction by systematically integrating non-verbal behaviour—including silence—into the IRF framework, thereby offering new insights for educators in interpreting student silence. It further advocates for the incorporation of open-ended questioning, extended wait time, and structured peer-discussion opportunities to optimise grammar instruction. Additionally, the research underscores the importance of professional development programmes focused on recognising and interpreting non-verbal cues, ultimately fostering a more inclusive and responsive EFL learning environment in under-resourced contexts.


Keywords


IRF; Non-verbal Interaction; EFL; Remote area; Grammar class

   

DOI

https://doi.org/10.31763/jsse.v4i2.118 		      

Article metrics

10.31763/jsse.v4i2.118 Abstract views : 101 | PDF views : 58

   

Cite

How to cite item
   

Full Text

Download

References


Aharony, N. (2006). The use of deep and surface learning strategies among students learning English as a foreign language in an Internet environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 851–866. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X79158

Allwright, D. (1989). Interaction in the language classroom: Social problems and pedagogical possibilities. In EGL ‘89: États Généraux des Langues (pp. 32–53). Hachette Education.

Argyle, M. (1988). Bodily communication. Routledge.

Bock, P. K., Tannen, D., & Saville-Troike, M. (1985). Perspectives on silence. Language, 62(3), 731. https://doi.org/10.2307/415529

Bonnett, M., & Doddington, C. (1990). Primary teaching: What has philosophy to offer? Cambridge Journal of Education, 20(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764900200203

Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Heinemann.

Dawood, S. M., & Sultan, A. I. (2024). The application of IRF discourse model on EFL university students in reading comprehension. Journal of Language Studies, 8(1), 338–354. https://doi.org/10.25130/lang.8.1.15

Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). Macmillan.

Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. A perspective from North American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching. Language Teaching, 35(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444801001720

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Academic. https://envs.ucsc.edu/internships/internship-readings/freire-pedagogy-of-the-oppressed.pdf

Fu, H., & Liu, H. (2024). A comparative study of learners’ conceptions of and approaches to learning English between high school students in urban and rural areas of China. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1324366

Gao, M., Liu, J., & Wu, L. (2022). The development dilemma and breakthrough of Chinese rural teachers from the perspective of rural revitalization. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Science Education and Art Appreciation (SEAA 2022) (pp. 501–514). https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-05-3_63

Gillespie, J. K. (1988). Foreign and U.S. teaching assistants: An analysis of verbal and nonverbal classroom interaction [Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota]. ProQuest. (303564928)

Guerriero, S. (Ed.). (2017). Pedagogical knowledge and the changing nature of the teaching profession. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270695-en

Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English language teaching: Language in action. Routledge.

Hall, J. K. (2010). Interaction as method and result of language learning. Language Teaching, 43(2), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444809005722

Han, J. (2020). China’s small rural schools: Challenges and responses. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000266071

Herazo, J. D. (2010). Authentic oral interaction in the EFL class: What it means, what it does not. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 12(1), 47–61.

Hu, G. (2003). English language teaching in China: Regional differences and contributing factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(4), 290–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630308666503

Jassim, N. O., & Khalaf, R. Z. (2022). Turn sequence and classroom discourse: IRF and its role in language learning. Journal of Educational and Psychological Sciences, 6(21), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.26389/ajsrp.g211021

Jung, H. (2017). Contingencies in EFL writing tutors’ third turns: A conversation analytic perspective. English Teaching, 72(4), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.72.4.201712.157

Kuzmenko, A. O., & Kashyrina, I. O. (2020). Applying CLIL method while remote teaching. In Modern Approaches to Foreign Language Remote Teaching (pp. 107–122). https://doi.org/10.36059/978-966-397-226-8-6

Lefstein, A., Snell, J., & Israeli, M. (2015). From moves to sequences: Expanding the unit of analysis in the study of classroom discourse. British Educational Research Journal, 41(5), 866–885. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3164

Lei, X. (2009). Communicative teacher talk in the English classroom. English Language Teaching, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n1p75

Lemke, J. L. (1985). Using language in the classroom. UNSW Press.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. Praeger.

Li, J. (2019). Looking beyond IRF moves in EFL classroom interaction in China. In Channel View Publications eBooks (pp. 87–109). https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.22730559.8

Li, J., Shi, Z., & Xue, E. (2020). The problems, needs and strategies of rural teacher development at deep poverty areas in China: Rural schooling stakeholder perspectives. International Journal of Educational Research, 99, 101496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101496

Lynch, T. (1996). Communication in the language classroom. Oxford University Press.

Ma, C. H. K., & Cheung, F. S. L. (2018). An exploratory study of the impact of the summer English teaching service-learning program in a remote area of Yunnan Province, China. SHS Web of Conferences, 59, 01005. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185901005

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press.

Molinari, L., Mameli, C., & Gnisci, A. (2012). A sequential analysis of classroom discourse in Italian primary schools: The many faces of the IRF pattern. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02071.x

Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of “triadic dialogue�: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376–406. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.376

Park, W. (2014). Examining Korean English teachers’ question-in-interaction with young learners. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 197. https://doi.org/10.17154/kjal.2014.09.30.3.197

Pinzón-Jácome, L. M., Lozano-Jaimes, C. A., & Dueñas-Angulo, L. C. (2016). De la retroalimentación al seguimiento en el tercer turno de las secuencias IRF: Un desafío para promover la interacción genuina en las clases EFL. Rastros Rostros, 18(33). https://doi.org/10.16925/ra.v18i33.1846

Robinson, H. (2005). The ethnography of empowerment: The transformative power of classroom interaction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203973691

Ross, R. S., & Ross, J. R. (1989). Small groups in organizational settings. Prentice-Hall.

Rivers, W. (1987). Interaction as the key to teaching language for communication. In W. Rivers (Ed.), Interactive language teaching (pp. 3–16). Cambridge University Press.

Rustandi, A. (2013). Meaning negotiation between teachers and students in a fledgling international standardized school. International Journal of English and Education, 2, 539.

Rustandi, A. (2017). An analysis of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) on classroom interaction in EFL speaking class. EduLite: Journal of English Education, Literature and Culture, 2(1), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.30659/e.2.1.239-250

Rustandi, R. R. (2013). Hydrophobic interaction chromatography to analyze glycoproteins. Methods in Molecular Biology, 988, 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-327-5_13

Saswati, R. (2019). Analysis of classroom interaction using IRF pattern: A case study of EFL conversation class. Scope: Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.30998/scope.v3i1.2782

Shulman, L. S. (1998). Theory, practice, and the education of professionals. The Elementary School Journal, 98(5), 511–526. https://doi.org/10.2307/1002328

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.

Song, Z., Wang, C., & Bergmann, L. (2020). China’s prefectural digital divide: Spatial analysis and multivariate determinants of ICT diffusion. International Journal of Information Management, 52, 102072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102072

Tsai, C. (2004). Conceptions of learning science among high school students in Taiwan: A phenomenographic analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1733–1750. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000230776

Uswatun Hasanah, N., Sari, N. A., & Husein, R. (2024). Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) pattern of Sinclair and Coulthard model in English classroom interaction. Sintaksis: Publikasi Para Ahli Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris, 2(5), 340–348. https://doi.org/10.61132/sintaksis.v2i5.1102

Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168802lr095oa

Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203015711

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

Wang, D. (2011). The dilemma of time: Student-centered teaching in the rural classroom in China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.012

Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59(4), 796–824. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00526.x

Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5(1), 1–37.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2025 Yinyin Peng



Journal of Silence Studies in Education

Published by Association for Scientific Computing Electronics and Engineering (ASCEE)
Website: https://jsse.ascee.org/index.php/jsse/index
email: jsse@ascee.org
P-ISSN: 2808-1005
Address: 19 Ancora Imparo Way, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

View JSSE Stats