I should say by way of preface that, as a result of many hours spent
observing children in their classrooms during the Bristol Study,
"Language at Home and at School" (Wells, 1986), I had for many years
been a vigorous opponent of routine use of IRE-based whole class
teaching (what Tharp and Gallimore call the "recitation script").
However, by the time I came to write this article, I had begun
to have second thoughts, as a result of having spent many more
hours as a participant-observer in a number of classrooms with teachers
I admired and with whom I was engaged in collaborative action research in
which we were exploring ways of creating what we have come to call
"communities of inquiry".
Most - but not all - of my observations involved work on science topics
and, in some cases, complete curricular units were video-recorded (though
when goup work was going on, I was only able to record one group at a
time). In these classrooms, it was clear to me that the students were
constructively and enthusiastically involved in designing and carrying
out experiments and engaging in group and whole class discussions in
which, led by the teacher, they made sense of, and reflected on, the
practical work they had been doing. However, as I transcribed and
analysed episodes from these observations, I found that, when the teacher
was interacting with the whole class, the discourse contained a
substantial proportion of IRE sequences. Since I had formed such a
positive impression of the activity (in the Activity Theory sense) in which
the participants were involved, I felt obliged to reconsider my
wholesale objection to this "mini-genre" of discourse.
This is not the place in which to attempt to restate the arguments of the
paper but, basically, what I concluded from the particular unit I
analysed was that the third move (the F (Follow-up) move) in this
mini-genre was being used to perform a variety of functions, depending on
the particular task involved and its place in the larger action. The
following passage summarized my conclusions:
"As I hope to have shown, when viewed within an
integrated theory of discourse and activity, episodes of this
discourse genre, which are similar in the sequential structure of
moves making up their constituent exchanges, are seen to
Operationalize quite different Actions. Recruited in the
realization of different task goals, they thus have quite
different contributions to make to the enactment of the
teaching-learning relationship.
[Here I interpolate a table showing the make-up of a 40 minute class
discussion, in which the teacher led a review of the unit. Of the 110
exchanges, 84 were of the IRF variety; of the remaining 26, most occured
in episodes 7 and 8.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic Initiator No. of
Exchanges
Episode 1 Introduction: personal experiences Teacher (3)
Episode 2 Accuracy: need for standard measurement Auritro (10)
- comparing various methods used by groups
Episode 3 `Processes of science': fair test, variables Bianca (20)
- reviewing experiments on pendulums
Episode 4 Checking knowledge of units of time Tema (16)
Episode 5 Previous work with pendulums Tema (4)
- personal recollection
Episode 6 Sources of power for clocks and timers Bianca (4)
- students' personal experiences
Episode 7 Basis for units of time in earth's movement Teacher (13)
- demonstration using various artifacts
Episode 8 Time differences between time zones Bianca (40)
- exploring personal anecdotes, using globe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Three particular instances are worth recalling. Most stereotypical is
episode 4 in the review activity, in which the teacher checks on and
consolidates the students' knowledge of the constitutive relationship
between standard units of time. Contrasted with this is task 3 in the
experimental activity [which occurred at the beginning of the unit], in
which the teacher employs the triadic dialogue genre to help
Emily and her friends envisage the problems to be solved in their
experiment and the conditions that will have to be met in order
to make their experiment "a fair test". Finally, we might consider
episode 3 of the review activity, in which the same basic
discourse genre is used to help the students to reenvision the
activities in which they have engaged as particular instances of
the application of this scientific principle and, thereby, to
construct it as part of the group's `common knowledge'.
"If the triadic dialogue genre - and the succession of IRF
exchanges, of which it consists - were always used to achieve
goals similar to those of the first of these examples, there
would be good reason to join with Wood (1992) in calling for its
demise. However, as the second and third examples clearly show,
this genre can also be used to achieve other, and more
productive, goals, including the co-construction of knowledge on
the basis of ideas and experiences contributed by the students as
well as the teacher."(pp.34-35)
As I hope this quotation shows, I am generally in agreement with Eugene's
conjecture:
> Here I want to entertain another possibility: what if the researchers are
> talking about different phenomena? What if the IRE discourse pattern
> can be used for different types of guidance?
Eugene goes on to suggest:
> My point is that even within the same practice (e.g., schooling), the IRE
> can serve different philosophies of this practice (although, honestly, I am
> not sure that I can make an example of two different philosophies of
> practice for which the IRE sequence is the dominant discursive pattern).
> These questions seem to lead a researcher beyond
> discourse analysis at the level of verbal sequences. I suggest that what I
> call "philosophy of practice" is an appropriate unit of analysis for the
> purpose of characterizing of a specific practice with a specific
> participants.
In fact, that was one of my main arguments. In the boring lessons I had
observed in Bristol, the IRF sequence operationalized what was often a
rather traditional transmissionary philosophy of practice. In the unit I
analyzed, by contrast, a quite different philosophy underlay its use.
Here is how I described it:
"In planning this unit, the teacher had several objectives in
mind. These included making provision for activities that
allowed the students, working in groups, to gain first-hand
experience of trying to solve practical problems of measuring
time. She was equally concerned, however, that the `hands-on'
work should be complemented by `minds-on' work (Driver, 1983)
and, to this end, she created a stimulating environment in which,
in addition to the necessary materials for the hands-on
activities, reference books and writing materials were also
freely available. She also required the students to keep a
science journal, in which they recorded their experiments and
observations and also their thoughts about them. In addition to
conferences with small groups about work in progress, she also
intended to have meetings with the whole group in order to plan
and review the work they were doing and to relate what they were
discovering to their existing knowledge and experience.
"Looked at in the light of the theoretical model, this account of
the teacher's intentions can be seen as both an indication of her
philosophy of education and a specification of the register to be
adopted, which, in turn, predicts the sorts of activities that
will be likely to occur and the manner in which they will be
Operationalized. In line with the socio-cultural theory of
learning and teaching that she espouses, she intends to present
the students with a variety of challenges in relation to the
theme of time and, in the light of their responses, to engage
with them in interaction about the tasks they will be tackling,
in order to provide guidance and support that will enable each of
them to extend their knowledge and skills in their zones of
proximal development. In terms of register, the field with which
they will be concerned involves concepts related to time and
activities that allow experimentation and group problem-solving,
using the materials made available; there will also be discussion
as well as instruction in relation to these activities. With
respect to tenor, the students will be expected to work
collaboratively in groups, with the teacher available to provide
support and guidance when necessary; they will also be expected
to participate actively in whole group sessions in which the
teacher takes a leading role. With respect to mode, personal
experience will be treated as of equal importance with the
culturally approved account of the phenomena to be investigated;
language will be involved in almost all activities, sometimes in
a constitutive role and sometimes as an ancillary to the
achievement of the goal of the extralinguistic activity; both
spoken and written texts will be generated and all students will
be expected to be actively involved in these processes." (pp.15-16)
While I certainly have not become an advocate for the superiority of this
mini-genre on all occasions (for the reasons that Jay has suggested), I
have certainly come to see that it plays important roles in developing a
community of inquiry, in which there is a collaborative effort to
construct "common knowledge". The following is the concluding paragraph
of the paper, in which I offered the IRF structure as a metaphor for the
activity of education, when this is carried out in publicly funded
institutions such as schools:
"Finally, as we have argued elsewhere (Wells and Chang-Wells,
(in press), when the third part of this structure is characterized as
follow-up, rather than more narrowly as evaluation, there are
compelling reasons for seeing the IRF sequence as the
prototypical Action structure for the achievement of the
overarching goals of education, as these were defined above. As
teachers, our task is to present our students with challenging
activities of various kinds, including thought-provoking
questions, that initiate new cycles of learning. Our hope is
that, if our challenges are well-chosen, they will engage the
students' interest and stimulate them to respond by making their
own sense of the problem and by constructing a personal solution
to it with the resources, both personal and cultural, that they
have at their disposal. This response then provides the basis
for us to follow up with teaching that is tailored to their
particular needs and informed by the wider cultural context.
And, as happens in the third move of the IRF exchange - when this
discourse genre is used effectively - it is in this third step in
the co-construction of meaning that the next cycle of the
learning-and-teaching spiral has its point of departure." (p.35)
On the basis of earlier exchanges on this network, I do not expect that
either Jay or Eugene would entirely agree with this characterization of
the activity of education. However, in the "real" world of public
schools in which my teacher colleagues are working, there are inescapable
constraints - of numbers, time and resources, as well as of prescribed
curricular outcomes and ever-increasing demands of accountability - that
necessarily temper the "ideal" that they, or we, might envisage.
I have developed some of these arguments further, particularly the
implications of choosing different functions of the F move, in a paper
which I believe is shortly to be published in Mind, Culture, and Activity.
References
Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes, UK:
Open University Press.
Wells, G. and Chang-Wells, G.L. (in press). "What have you learned?":
Co-constructing the meaning of time. In J. Flood, S.B. Heath & D. Lopp
(Eds.) A handbook for literacy educators: Research on teaching the
communicative and visual arts. New York: Macmillan.
Wood, D. (1992). Teaching talk. In K. Norman (Ed.) Thinking voices: The
work of the National Oracy Project. London: Hodder and Stoughton for the
National Curriculum Council.