On task in classroom discourse

LINGUISTICS AND EDUCATION 1, 177-198 (1988)

On Task in Classroom Discourse

JAMES L. HEAP

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

A redefinition of "task" is presented in terms of a situated ethnomethodologicalperspective. The "situation," which is the focal point of this article, is a series ofreading lessons in a third-grade classroom. My aim is to suggest that the ways inwhich the basic Initiation-Response-Feedback sequence is expanded may be taskspecific. I describe, analyze, and provide empirical examples of expanded Initiation-Response-Feedback formats in which I note that expansions of the formatmight be related to task needs.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Analyses of classroom discourse usually focus on formulating the structures oftalk between teachers and students. Moving beyond this focus on structure, thispaper will illustrate how discourse structures can be analyzed to explicate theways in which they facilitate the accomplishment of pedagogic tasks. I examine avariation of the familiar question-answer-comment discourse format which involves expansions of the basic structure. These expansions have positive interactional and pedagogic functions and are directly related to the task at hand.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Classroom as DataMy concern, from an ethnomethodological version of the sociolinguistic tradition, is to illuminate how structures of classroom events can function in relativelygeneral, but task-specific, interactions.

B. Classroom Discourse

1. Initiation-Response-FeedbackThe basic structure of teacher-student interaction (classroom discourse) oftenoccurs in a sequence consisting of question-answer-comment, or more gener-

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to James Heap, Ontario Institute for Studies inEducation, 252 Bloor St. W., Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The research reported here was supported bySocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada ProgramGrant #431-770006. The authorextends thanks to Katherine Cook and Skye Hughes for their literature review efforts and to E. Judy Homand David Bloome for their comments and suggestions, and to Christine Bennett for revisions to thismanuscript. A longer version of this article is available from the author.

177

178 J.L. Heap

ically, Initiation-Response-Feedback. When the structure occurs as a regularityor pattern in classroom settings, it is accomplished on a tum by tum basis.

Q. Turn Distribution

(1) Local. In conversation analysis (cf. Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson , 1974),the administration and management of tum distribution is described as beingdone on a basis that is "local" to each and every tum .

(2) Regional. Tum distribution in the instructional version of the InitiationResponse-Feedback discourse structure appears to be " regionally" managed(cf. Heap, 1979) in terms of a "set" of discourse components which togethercomplete a specific instructional task. There is a degree of predistribution ofturns in that hearers know, or the speaker knows, that an answer should follow anopening comment, and the involved parties know that an acknowledgementusually follows. The parties to the talk know who is obligated, or what populations are obligated, to make each of the moves. Responders (students) normallyrespond, and initiators (teachers) initiate and give feedback. It is in this sense thatan expanse (or " region" ) of talk is preorganized as to tum order and movesequence, and I can say that instructional sequences are "regionally" managed .

b. Turn Distribution Techniques

(1) In Conversation Analysis. Discussions of tum distribution in the conversation analysis literature (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson , 1974) have conceivedonly two techniques: •'current-speaker-selects-next" and •'self-selection-to-benext." On a gross level, the two categories can be used to code any transcript,but the more situation-sensitive alternatives related to these categories are worthconsidering.

(2) In Ethnomethodology. When one employs a highly situationally sensitiveperspective, one discovers that in addition to actually nominating or calling uponthe next speaker ("current-speaker-selects-next"), the current speaker couldgive the tum to some next speaker , or could allow some speaker to be the nextspeaker, or provide for who might be the next speaker out of some particularpopulation of potential speakers. I admit that the differences are subtle, but theyare more than merely semantic.

For the hearer, the issue is how the speaker's talk can be interpreted. Tumdistribution by nomination is usually unproblematic , but in some settings therecan be a question as to whether or not the speaker's tum is organized to make thenext tum available to some particular current hearer, and whether or not the onewho hears this takes herself or himself to be that particular hearer. If this is so,can we say that the hearer self-selected ("self-selection-to-be-next") , or wasallowed to be the next speaker, or was enabled to be the next speaker? Again,

On Task in Classroom Discourse 179

these differences are subtle, but they can be crucial. Think of the embarrassmentof mistakenly responding, in a social setting, to a question which was intendedfor someone else.

c. The Known-Information Elicitation. Looking at how a normative structure is empirically realized, I see that in some cases the feedback move isrequired. These three-step cases (Initiation-Response-Feedback) most often occur when the initiation is a certain type of elicitation. The type can be called the(apparent) "known-information" elicitation. Since the initiator appears to knowthe information, he or she is felt to be obligated to furnish feedback about theadequacy of a response. This type of elicitation can be used with the aim ofassessment or with the aim of instruction (cf. Heap, 1982).

In order for the sequence to close, there must be a response which the initiatorcan accept as adequate (McQuade, 1980). A requirement for the production ofInitiation-Response-Feedback sequences in instructional settings is that responders be able to give acceptable responses.

These features of the Initiation-Response-Feedback's organization make instructional sequences different from what have been treated by some analysts asthe nuclear model for the Initiation-Response-Feedback structure: adjacencypairs (Schegloff & Sacks, 1974).

2. Adjacency PairsConsider the following adjacency pair discourse structures: greeting/greeting,complaint/reaction, compliment/response, and, especially, question/answer.

The second part of any' 'pair" must be recognizable as an appropriate move,given how the first part could be heard. That move appears to require a certainsemantic content. The structure of adjacency pairs, as an empirical pattern,depends solely on the intelligibility to speakers and hearers of utterances as beingspecific discourse moves.

The structure of the type of Initiation-Response-Feedback sequence which isused in instructional settings, and is focal in this paper, requires more specifiablecomponents if it is to be empirically realized as a pattern of discourse behaviors.The response portion has to be more than simply talk which is intelligible as aresponse. The response has to be acceptable to the initiator.

C. The Ethnomethodological PerspectiveI shall present a redefinition of "task" in terms of a situated ethnomethodological perspective. The "situation" which is the focal point of this paper is that of areading lesson in a third-grade classroom.

1. Expansions May Be Task-SensitiveIn other situations, the Initiation-Response-Feedback structure is treated as anextended version of the adjacency pair structure (cf. Mehan, 1979). One can say

180 J.L. Heap

"I don't know" in response to a question, and still have filled the answer slotwith talk which carries the answer function, thereby completing the questionanswer adjacency pair. With the instructional version of the Initiation-Response-Feedback structure, a remark such as "I don't know" can fill the response slot, but it will not allow the sequence to move to closure. Additionalknowledge is needed on the part of the respondents in producing the instructionalInitiation-Response-Feedback structure. The kind of knowledge that is neededdepends on what task the Initiation-Response-Feedback structure is intended toaccomplish. Therefore, it might be the case that the ways Initiation-ResponseFeedback structures are expanded are sensitive to task.

As it stands, the literature which deals with the Initiation-Response-Feedbackdiscourse structure strongly implies that the structure is task-general, and iswidely used across the school curriculum. My aim is to suggest that the ways inwhich the basic Initiation-Response-Feedback sequence is expanded may betask-specific. If my conjecture is correct, then it has important implications forhow work on classroom discourse ought to proceed, and who ought to be doing it.

II. FOUNDATION

A. Task and DiscourseIt is difficult to formulate a conception of task in a way which is consistent withordinary usage and which, in addition, sufficiently demarcates a level of organization analytically separate from other levels or aspects. These difficulties haveto do with the issue of concept formation and the technical use of terms. In thesociological tradition, Schutz (1962) has written about concept formation, andabout language use (see Heap, 1976a). My view (Heap, 1976b) varies from thatof Schutz mainly in that I believe that social scientific concepts denoted byordinary terms like "task" can be invoked if the technical use of the terms isconsistent with ordinary language usage. This gives some guarantee that thesocial scientist will talk about something that is understandable and of interest, aswell as useful, to persons in daily life.

1. Individually Oriented Versions of TaskPsychology, especially that branch concerned with learning, would seem to be anatural source for a well defined, workable conception of task. In cognitivepsychology, tasks are conceived as mental activities or skills like the skillsinvolved in learning and memory. Using an experimentalist methodology, theattempt has been made to discover the constituent tasks of learning. This concernwith task analysis (cf. Calfee & Drum, 1978; Crowder, 1976; Cagne, 1970;Gagne & Briggs, 1974) has had a significant impact on educational psychology(cf. Carroll, 1976; Estes, 1974; Hughes, 1982; Hunt, Frost, & Tunneborg, 1973;Pellegrino & Glaser, 1980; Snow, 1980).


In contriving to control all the conditions pertaining to the performance of atask, experimentalists produce results which may hold in experimental settings,but are plagued by problems of ecological validity. This has led to the argumentthat "cognitive skills have to be specified in terms of the activities (environments) in which they occur." (Cole, Hood, & McDermott, 1978, p. 108).

2. Socially Oriented Versions of TaskIt becomes necessary to have a conception of task as "something-for-thegroup." What is needed is a conception of task as something done throughdiscourse (talk), involving teacher and students. This conception of task may beone that cognitive psychologists could address in terms of what each participantmust or can do, as the "task-for-the-individual," in order to cooperate in thegroup task. To do so they must adopt a notion of the group task as being a socialtask. Social is intended here in the sense which is central and foundational tosociology: as an orientation on the part of one interactant to the behavior oraction of other interactants (Heap, 1976a; Weber, 1968). Cognitive psychologymay have to travel the road of cognitive sociology (Cicourel, 1973), which is, intum, a version of ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967).

a. The Situated Perspective. There are many different things which teachersand students do together using the Initiation-Response-Feedback format. Myresearch has been on reading activities in the primary grades. Included in my dataare examples of the Initiation-Response-Feedback discourse format which consist of "discussions" of word pronunciation, word meaning or use, word parts,oral reading errors, and the structure, content, and details of just-read stories.

b. The Definition of Task. I conceive tasks to be pieces of work. Tasks arethings which are done, rather than adopted or held, like aims. When they aredone in an instructional setting, such as the reading group settings which makeup my data source, they are done collectively and interactionally, that is,socially.

c. The Definition ofFormat. I find it useful to conceive formats as resourceswhich members of a linguistic culture can use in order to interact, and to interactfor a variety of purposes, so that, while I think of formats as relatively contextindependent in their normative structure, I expect to find that they are usedempirically in ways sensitive to the contexts of their employment. An importantpart of any such context is the aim or aims of the participants. The things whichmembers have to do in order to achieve their aims are the tasks which the formatsare used to accomplish.

182 J.L. Heap

d. The Relation ofTask and Topic. The same topic can be addressed throughdifferent tasks, and the same task can handle different topics. The InitiationResponse-Feedback format can be used to elicit the meaning of a different wordeach time the format is used in the vocabulary phase of a reading lesson. Thetopic of one sequence could be the meaning of a word, perhaps "dinosaur,"while the topic of another sequence could be the meaning of another word,perhaps "stegosaur." In both cases, the task accomplished through the use of theInitiation-Response-Feedback format would be the same: to elicit and confirmthe meaning of a word.

e. The OrganizationofTask in Classrooms. I do not expect that the above isthe best way to make sense of all lesson activities, nor of all of the purposes Imight have for speaking about lesson activities, formats, aims, topics, and tasks.I offer it as a way of illuminating one aspect of lesson activities: task organization. The organization of task in lesson activities is governed by the fact thatpeople in classrooms do not just teach and learn, they teach and learn particularthings. Beginning here, I can consider if and how task affects and accounts fordiscourse structure.

B. Task and Expanded Discourse SequencesA promising place to begin consideration of the task-discourse nexus is wherethe Initiation-Response-Feedback appears in interaction in expanded form. Thework of Mehan (1979) and of French and MacLure (1979) provides a view ofhow Initiation-Response-Feedback sequences are expandable, but not how thedevices might have designs which facilitate the accomplishment of certain tasks.

1. Content-Dependent Expansions and AsymmetryAccording to Mehan, when an elicitation receives an acceptable response,"symmetry" is achieved. "Asymmetry" occurs when an unacceptable responseis produced. I use the term symmetry to denote relations of form. I believe thatany other usage results in confusion between the appropriateness of a discourseformat, or move, and the acceptability of its content.

a. Mehan: After a Failed Response. Calling them "extended" sequences,Mehan details three types of strategies. These strategies are initiated by theteacher after the first response to her elicitation is produced and not found to beacceptable. The strategies are called "prompting replies," "repeating elicitations," and "simplifying elicitations" (Mehan, 1979, pp. 54-65). Each strategydoes the work of moving the sequence toward closure by helping students produce a response which the teacher can accept.

b. French and MacLure: Repair and Reformulate. French and MacLure(1979) present five types of "breakdown repair devices" which they have found


teachers to use after a first response turns out to be unacceptable. Each repairdevice makes the original elicitation more specific, and provides part of theinformation needed by students to produce an acceptable answer. The authorscall these devices •'reformulators ." These reformulators appear to be versions ofwhat Mehan calls simplifying elicitations.

In the quest for how discourse structure may be task-sensitive, what I noteabout all of the above devices for expanding the Initiation-Response-Feedbacksequence is that they are invoked after a first response fails. In what follows Ipresent and discuss a discourse structure which constitutes an expanded Initiation-Response-Feedback sequence. This sequence is expanded before any official response is offered, and, in addition, has a design which can facilitate theaccomplishment of a specific (instructional) task.

2. The Normative (Symmetrical) FormatThe sequence occurs in the vocabulary phase of a third-grade reading lesson. Thetask of the sequence is to establish for the group the correct pronunciation of thenew words to be encountered in that day's basal reader story.

a. Minimal Initiation-Response-Feedback. In lessons having prereadingvocabulary phases, the new words are visible on a blackboard, on a mimeographed sheet, or in the basal reader at the beginning of the story to be read.

MINIMAL SAMPLETeacher: Word after "amazing" please.Udelle: PASSAGETeacher: Right.

MINIMAL PATHInitiationResponseFeedback

The teacher initiates a word-recognition sequence. A student responds. Theresponse receives positive feedback.

b. Expanded Initiation-Response-Feedback

(1) Response Opportunity Space . After the initiation phase there is a variableperiod of time during which the teacher keeps silent. I shall call this particular"space" a proto-response opportunity space. Any student or many students canmake trial runs at pronouncing the word. Any response occurring in this particular type of space is treated as a proto-response, that is, not having the full statusof an "official" response, and incorrect pronunciations receive no negativefeedback from the teacher. The lack of feedback retroactively constitutes anyresponses (right or wrong) as "proto-responses."

(2) Nomination. After the teacher's period of silence, whether or not a protoresponse is offered, the teacher nominates some student to respond.

184 J.L. Heap

(3) Positive Feedback. In my transcripts, the correct response is almost always followed by positive feedback from the teacher, which marks that particular response as adequate and closes the sequence.

The word recognition sequence is expanded through the incorporation of thesesequentially related features. The expansion does not occur after a responsewhich has been formulated as a failed response, as it does in the case of thesequences detailed by Mehan and by French and MacLure.

III. METHODOLOGY (ETHNOMETHODOLOGY:CLASSROOM-EMPIRICAL)

My methodology (Heap, 1980a) involves the examination of transcripts in orderto recover culturally possible ways of doing activities. I have analyzed thesediscourse sequences in order to recover the possible structures which particularsections of discourse can be interpreted as exemplifying. In the case where theabove expanding features occur, I formulate the following as the structure whichis exemplified.

EXPANDED INITIATION-RESPONSE-FEEDBACK SEQUENCEInitiation(Teacher Silence which mayor may not be filled by Proto-Responses)NominationResponseFeedback (positive)

A. Turn Distribution Devices

1. NominationNomination is a tum distribution device. In the case of the expanded wordrecognition sequence, nomination can be conceived as a separate move becauseit occupies the whole of a teacher tum at talk. Formulations of the InitiationResponse-Feedback format take for granted that some tum distribution methodswill be used. Mehan (1979) formulates a number of tum distribution techniques(but see Heap, 1981). Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) do not address tum distribution directly. Instead, they list nomination as an act in their system (p. 42); theydo not propose nomination as a separate move in itself.

2. Invitation to BidThe only structurally similar adaptation of the Initiation-Response-Feedbackformat which I have found is the one in which the teacher pauses after theelicitation and the students bid for a tum to respond. In this case, the elicitationhas been used as an "invitation-to-bid" tum distribution technique (cf. Mehan,1979, pp. 90-92). If this technique is used, then the nomination technique mustfollow. If a proto-response was taken as a form of bid, the difference between a


" bid-to-reply" and a "reply" would disappear, and the concept would be nolonger useful for analytic purposes.

B. PausesWhen no proto-responses occur, the sequence looks like a typical InitiationResponse-Feedback sequence, with a pause in the midst of the teacher's tum,between elicitation and nomination.

C. Proto-Responses and Official ResponsesIn these transcripts, it does not make sense to conceive the proto-response as abid, because it appears that students who produce proto-responses are not theones nominated by the teacher to give an "official" response. I believe thisregularity to be task-relevant, as I shall explain, and of a pedagogically importantnature.

IV. OBSERVED PRODUCTION PATHS

Given the above normative structure, there are a number of ways in which thestructure can be realized empirically . In my transcripts four ways appear . Iconceive the four paths to be observed production paths: paths taken by teacherand students each time they perform the pronunciation task using the expandedInitiation-Response-Feedback discourse structure.

The paths by which these discourse structures are undertaken differ in patternbecause they represent different outcomes in light of what occurs in the responseopportunity space.

A. Path One

910II1213141516

T:

?:?:

T:D:T:

Okay. The first word?(3.5 sec. teacher silence)MAGICIAN.MAGICIAN. «whispered»(2 sec. teacher silence)Dave?MAGICIAN?Right.

The teacher's initiation (line 9) is undirected in that she chooses the nextaction to be performed (pronouncing the new word), but does not choose the nextspeaker. The teacher silence at line 10 constitutes the onset of the (proto) response opportunity space, which continues (line 13) through the two tries atpronunciation (lines 11 and 12). The teacher selects a student (line 14) to respond. The student who gives the pronunciation (line 15) is not one of the two

186 J.L. Heap

students who offered proto-responses in lines 11 and 12. The pronunciation (line15) which receives positive evaluation (line 16) is the same as the two previousproto-responses (lines 11 & 12). This sequence represents the following structurally possible form.

EXAMPLE ONEInitiation (line 9)Teacher Silence (10) &

Proto-Responses (correct)(line 11 & 12)(Continuing Teacher Silence:line 13)

Nomination (14)Response (correct) (15)Feedback (16)

PATH ONEInitiationTeacher Silence &

Proto-Responses

NominationResponseFeedback

B. Path TwoThe second path is similar to the first in that the proto-response option is exercised. The adequacy of the response is retrospectively constituted by a positivefeedback move.

That's right!

COONSKIN CAP.Some people wear it.It's like this hat: :Yeah.land-and it

120121122123124125126127128129130131132

T: This's two words.(1.8 sec. teacher silence)I?: CORSKIN: :2?: CONNSKIN CAP.C4: Oh, I likeT:A:C4:C4?:A?:C4:D:T:

[that ] O.[Angie?]

[has this thing at the back ][Davey Crockett wore one.]

The teacher's tum (line 120) does the work of an elicitation, identifying thetask and opening a (proto) response opportunity space. After 1.8 seconds (line121) one student tries a pronunciation (line 122), followed by another student(line 123). Line 124 could be called an aside, and is of some interest, for itsuggests that the speaker, Child #4, knows what the task words mean. A student"recognizes" the target words, though she does not offer a pronunciation. She isoverlapped by the teacher's nomination of Angie (line 125). Angie produces apronunciation which is correct (line 126), but does not receive feedback toretrospectively constitute it as being correct. Normally positive feedback is required to close a sequence. This particular strip of data may count as a violationof the norm.


1. A Functional Semiequivalent to a Feedback MoveAnalyzing the talk for possible structural patterns, I see the data representing acertain type of violation which I shall call an "inconsequential violation." Theinconsequentiality derives from the possibility that a functional semiequivalentwas produced in the expected feedback space. The continuing side talk by C4(lines 127, 128, and 130), the appreciation by another student (line 129), and theoverlapping contribution (line 131), all display student comprehension of themorphemic value of the graphemes "COONSKIN CAP."

In this example, the feedback function is handled by a student side sequence(cf. Jefferson, 1972) which does the work of retrospectively constituting theprior response as correct. Because it does not have the full sanctional powerwhich a teacher feedback move carries, I will call the side sequence a semiequivalent, rather than a full functional alternative to the initiator's feedbackmove.

The decoding theory for teaching word pronunciation is that the learner willexperience an association between the word as pronounced and the word in her orhis! internal lexicon (Gough, 1984). Three of the six students in the groupdisplayed comprehension of the meaning of the words after a nominated studentproduced a pronunciation which did not receive negative feedback. I can say thatthe students have grounds for believing that the pronunciation was not altogetherwrong. And I can say that the teacher has grounds for believing that a positivefeedback move on her part would have been redundant. The teacher's agreement(line 132) with Dave's assertion (line 131) can be heard to dispel doubts thatstudents may have about whether Angie's response (line 126) is a correct pronunciation. The teacher takes the floor (line 132), and can correct Angie's pronunciation or elicit pronunciations. That she does not suggests that she does not thinka feedback move is needed. I might say that the contextual relevance of afeedback move has lapsed by the teacher's tum (line 132), because a functionallysemiequivalent side sequence has occurred (lines 127-131).

If this analysis is cogent, the representation of the second example allowsabstraction and the idealization of a second path.

EXAMPLE TWOInitiation (120)Teacher Silence (121)

Proto-Responses (incorrect)(122 & 123)

Aside (correct) (124)

PATH TWOInitiationTeacher Silence &

Proto-Responses:(incorrect& correct)

1 The attentive reader will have noticed my odd ordering of pronouns; first "her or him," then"he or she." I follow the rule that gender specific pronouns should be ordered solely alphabetically.In relation to this rule, the decision to replace "him" with "him or her" is to be lauded, but is stillunfortunate. Why should him preceed her? And equally, why should the reverse tactic be accepted,always placing the female pronoun first: Happily, the alphabet rule gives both genders a chance to beserially first.

188

Nomination (125)Response (correct) (126)Side Sequence ("feedback")

(127-131)

J.L. Heap


In Path Two, the proto-response option is exercised, but the tries which fillthe (proto) response opportunity space are marked as having been incorrect bythe later feedback to other (correct) responses.

c. Path ThreeThe third path represents another way in which the normative structure can berealized empirically. In this particular session there are no proto-responses offered in the (proto) response opportunity space, but a nomination nonethelessfollows.

23 T: The next one.24 (6 sec. teacher silence)25 T: Annalisa.l26 An: /BORED./27 T: /BORED.

On line 23 the teacher directs attention to the next word on the list. Any groupmember can take a turn, but in the ensuing six seconds none does. Annalisa isnominated (line 25) and quickly offers a pronunciation (line 26). The teacherimmediately repeats the word (line 27). The teacher's repetition of a pronunciation, without any upward intonation (line 27), may work as positive feedback.After such repetitions I have yet to encounter any reinitiations of the wordrecognition task.

EXAMPLE THREEInitiation (line 23)Teacher Silence (24) &

No Proto-ResponsesNomination (line 25)Response (correct) (26)Feedback (line 27)

PATH THREEInitiationTeacher Silence


In Path Three there is no proto-response offered, but there is time (6 seconds:line 24) for at least one response. Let us say that a teacher-silence space (protoresponse opportunity space) is filled if a student attempts a pronunciation, andclosed if the teacher issues a nomination.


D. Path FourIn the discussion of Path Four I will show how the space can be "filled" withtalk, yet still be "open" (to be filled by a proto-response, or to be closed by anomination).

In Example Four, the opening of the (proto) response opportunity spaceoccurs upon completion of the initiation move, but is not filled by any studentattempts at pronunciation. While that space is left empty, it is not closed by ateacher nomination move. Instead, here is something similar to the sequenceexpansions discussed by Mehan and by French and MacLure, with the majorexception that the expansion which occurs in my data does not occur after afailed response, as Mehan and French and MacLure found in their data. What ismost interesting about the expansion as it occurs in my data is that completion ofeach expansion, as the teacher continues to elicit separate syllables of a particularly long and difficult word, is not completion of the sequence (the pronunciation of the whole word).

The Path Four data is as follows. The Path Four example scheme can be foundin Appendix A.

64 T: /Next one.65 (5.5 sec. teacher silence #1)66 T: This is a long one, but if you sound [out each]67 ?: [Oh yeah]68 T: syllable.69 (1.8 sec. teacher silence #2)70 T: You should be able to figure it out.71 ?: A: : : :h-um72 R: 0 O.73 ?: 0: : : :h.74 Cl?: Oh, I know!/75 T: /There's the [first]76 Cl?: [BE: : : :]77 T: [one ]78 All: [BE: : : :]79 ?: Wild: : ((long 'i' sound: "eye"»80 All: Wild: :/ ((long 'i' sound: "eye"»81 T: /This is "ih".82 ?: Be-wild: : ((long 'i' sound: "eye"»83 All: Be-wild: : ((long 'i' sound: "eye"»84 T: "ih".85 C3: Be-wither. «short 'i' sound: "ih"»86 All: Be-wither. «assorted tries at pronunciation»87 C3: Bewithered. «short 'i' sound: "ih"»88 T: What's this so far?89 ?: Be-wilded. ((long 'i' sound: "eye"»

J.L. Heap190

90 ?:91 All:92 T:93 All:94 All:95 ?:96 ?:97 ?:98 All:99 ?:

100 ?:101 ?:102 T:103 A:104 T:

Be-wared?«assorted tries at pronunciation))BEWILD: : : : «short 'i' sound: "ih"))BEWILD: : : : «short 'i' sound: "ih"))«assorted tries at pronunciation))BEWILDERED. «short 'i' sound: "ih"))BE-WILD-ER-ED. «short 'i' sound: "ih"))I know!«assorted tries at pronunciation))BEWILDERED? «short 'i' sound: "ih"))00.BEWILDERED? «short 'i' sound: "ih"))Angie?BEWILDERED. «short 'i' sound: "ih"))BEWILDERED! Good for you. BEWILDERED. Whatwould that mean if you're BEWILDERED?

The initiation (line 64) shifts the talk to the task of determining the correctpronunciation of the next word. The 5.5 second teacher silence (line 65) isinvaded by the teacher with what Mehan (1979, pp. 55-56) might call a"prompting elicitation" (lines 66 & 68). While it does the work of an elicitation,it takes a form similar to what Sinclair and Coulthard (1975, p. 41) would call an"informative." This is followed by a second teacher silence (line 69), which theteacher herself again invades with a series of simplifying elicitation informativesand prompts. The interesting feature of the expansion work occurs in the series ofinstructional subsequences built around elicitation of the correct pronunciation ofindividual syllables in the task word.

The Initiation-Response-Feedback model, when built with (apparent) "knowninformation" elicitations, leads us to expect that even in subordinate instructionalsequences, where the task is broken down into component tasks, there will be theclosing of subsequences by positive feedback moves. Yet on lines 79 and 80 thestudents move to pronouncing a second syllable immediately after some of thempronounce a first syllable. Note that they pronounce the first syllable correctly (line78), and the absenceof a feedbackmove by the teacher means that there occurred noretrospective constitutionof the first syllable as being either correct or incorrect.

The teacher offers the short 'i' sound ("ih") as a prompt (line 81) when thestudents produce an inadequate pronunciation in lines 79 and 80. (They producethe word 'wild,' with a long 'i' sound: "eye.")

Students apparently are able only to incorporate the "ih" sound into thepronunciation of the second syllable by offering a pronunciation of a phonemiccluster with which they are presumably familiar, and which included the phoneme "ih." That cluster is probably "with," and in lines 85 and 86 they


produce "bewither," and then a student adds the last syllable (line 87), makingit "bewithered.'

In line 92 the teacher gives the correct pronunciation of the first two syllablestogether, and again the students move on to the next syllables.

The consequence of the teacher's subsequence closing prompt (line 92) is thatstudents are able to make runs through the graphemes, producing the very (proto)response needed to complete the subsequence expansion. It appears that thesubsequences might continue until a proto-response is produced that can berepeated as a response and receive positive feedback.

It is worth noting that in lines 90,99, and 101 the proto-responses are offeredwith an upward intonation. It sounds as if the students are asking forconfirmation.

Bearing in mind that the teacher begins a new subroutine to establish thecorrect pronunciation of each syllable of the target word, the general structure ofPath Four can be idealized as follows:

Initiation(Proto) Response Opportunity Space

InitiationResponseFeedback (optional)

Proto-Response (correct)Nomination (which acts as positive feedback)

ResponseFeedback

In the fourth path the response opportunity space is opened by the teacher(line 65), but not filled by student responses. It is invaded by a teacher-initiatedsubsequence with an Initiation-Response-Feedback form (lines 66 & 70). Moresubsequences follow until the eventual Nomination move (line 102) acts aspositive feedback to a previous proto-response. The Nomination is not forthcoming in this path until promising proto-responses are drawn out by the teacher'sprompting. The closing of the assorted subsequences is accomplished throughthe Nomination move.

v. THE TASK-DISCOURSE RELATION

I understand the aim of the aim of the word recognition sequence to be instruction (cf. Heap, 1983). Given this aim, I formulate the task of the sequence as"getting the right pronunciation of this word." It is the task for the teacher aswell as the task for the students, though their respective contributions to itscompletion are different. If this is adequate as an account of "what we shouldsay" (Austin, 1970, pp. 175-204) about what teacher and students are doing

192 J.L. Heap

together in the sequences on word recognition, then we can ask how the discourse structures which constitute these sequences display sensitivity to the task.

A. Expanding TechniquesTo see how the properties might be related to task needs, I ask what pedagogic ortask functions can be served by each property as it is produced in the path of astructure.

1. (Proto) Response Opportunity SpaceWhat functions can the (proto) response opportunity space serve when embeddedin any of the paths I have described? My sense of its major curriculum function isthat it provides a proper time and place for "trial runs" of the pronunciation ofnew words, or for exercise of "word attack" skills, in a setting which carrieslittle or no possibility of negative sanction. The space serves a psychologicalfunction, in that it allows shy or less confident students to practice their skillswithout being in the spotlight cast by a nomination move. This, in tum, serves apositive social interaction function in that it increases the likelihood of studentparticipation in lessons.

These functions are interrelated. In their interrelatedness they serve the taskfunction of improving the odds that the right pronunciation will be generated. Inhaving the opportunity to practice, with impunity, their developing word attackskills, students become better practitioners of language, and their abilities to getthe right pronunciation of new words are improved. The shy or less confidentstudents can offer (proto) responses, then hear later in the sequence whether theirventured pronunciation is correct, and because of this they may be willing to takethe risk of attempting a pronunciation. The more students who risk an attempt,the greater the chance that someone will produce a correct pronunciation, allowing the teacher to do a nomination and bring the sequence to a close.

2. NominationIn considering the nomination move after a (proto) response opportunity space, Ineed to attend to its possible functions given the particular path within which it isembedded. If there has been no (proto) response offered, then issuing a nomination moves the task along. If an unacceptable response is produced after anomination, then the sequence can be expanded in the ways detailed by Mehan(1979), and by French and MacLure (1979).

The absence of a (proto) response does not mean that no student is able topronounce the word. The teacher in my data did not nominate a student who hadprovided a proto-response. A student who would like to give the "official"response will not offer a proto-response, but will wait in hope of having thechance of being nominated to demonstrate the "official" response. My PathThree example may be a case like this. No one attempts a pronunciation in the


period of teacher silence, but the nominated student has no trouble producing thecorrect pronunciation.

If a (proto) response is offered, then the nomination following it serves someadditional task completion functions. While there is no guarantee that the pronunciation prior to the nomination is a correct one, in my data four out of fivesequences have correct proto-responses. If such a regularity is noted by students,then they face low risk if, when nominated, they reproduce the same pronunciation as the one which they heard just prior to being nominated. This "internalresource" possibility (cf. Heap, 1980b), gives students good reason to listen tothe attempts at pronunciation by other students during the time when the teacheris silent.

The teacher's repeated nominations of students who do not produce a protoresponse has useful interactional and pedagogical functions in maintaining student attention and encouraging student participation. The nomination closes theresponse opportunity space and normally stops further proto-responses frombeing given. It also alerts the students to the fact that they ought to listen to theresponse which follows the nomination.

a. Audibility. This issue of audibility is crucial in word recognition sequences. That a word sounds familiar is no guarantee it was heard correctly.Given the central issue of the audibility of a pronunciation, the nomination movedoes important task-relevant work. It closes off further proto-responses, reducingnoise which may interfere with the audibility of the "official" response. Thatstudents orient to the issue of audibility is suggested by the fact that responses arelouder and more distinctly spoken than proto-responses. That the teacher orientsto the issue of audibility is suggested by the fact that she repeats the acceptablepronunciation.

B. Task Functionality of Expanding TechniquesThe particular task functionality of the expansions can be appreciated in thecomparison of sequences with these expanding properties to sequences usingonly the basic Initiation-Response-Feedback format. The comparison turnsupon the options which the teacher has for using tum distribution techniques inorder to draw out the right pronunciation, or, in other words, to carry out the taskof the particular discourse sequence.

Examples of Teacher Turn Distribution TechniquesI. If the nomination is part of the initiation move, there is less likelihood that acorrect pronunciation will be offered unless the teacher chooses only those students who can be expected to produce a correct pronunciation. If the teacherfollows the habit of distributing turns evenly among all students, then some

194 J.L. Heap

nominees will have trouble pronouncing the word, and the sequence will have tobe expanded.

2. If the teacher combines the initiation with an invitation to bid (Mehan,1979), the chance of a correct pronunciation increases. Some students will rarelybid (cf. McDermott, 1976; McDermott & Aron, 1978), and the task will becompleted quickly if the teacher does not have all students participate. Pronunciation takes practice (think here of learning to pronounce words in a newlanguage), but having each student pronounce each word is time-consuming, andthe next best thing is to make sure that each student has the opportunity topronounce at least one word in the lesson. An "invitation-to-bid" tum distribution procedure will not distribute the practice at pronunciation equally in a groupunless everyone in the group bids repeatedly.

3. The third tum distribution technique which a teacher can use as part of thebasic Initiation-Response-Feedback format is the undirected initiation, or theinvitation to respond. This general invitation to respond creates a response opportunity space in which the responses provided are "official." With this type oftum distribution procedure, the first student to respond gets the tum. The obviousproblem is that one or two students can dominate. With multiple responses theremay be problems of audibility which may reduce the effectiveness of that taskformat. In invitations to bid, the teacher can repeat the correct pronunciation asfeedback, but with the invitation to respond procedure, the feedback move isproduced immediately after the responses and audibility of the teacher's pronunciation might be a problem.

C. Summing up Task Functionality of Expansive TechniquesThe advantages of the expanded discourse sequence in the instructional setting,compared to the above alternatives, are at least four:

1. Any student can offer a proto-response without risking embarrassment because proto-responses are "off-stage" behavior. This increases the possibility that students will use the sequence to practice their word attackskills.

2. Each student in a typically sized reading group can be given an opportunityto give an "official" response, with some likelihood of being able to do socorrectly, because the just prior proto-response was probably correct. Thisincreases student participation and confidence.

3. Students have more and better located opportunities to hear the correctpronunciation through the opportunity provided for trial pronunciations bythe period of teacher silence.a) Students have at least two chances to hear a correct pronunciation if a

correct proto-response has been offered and is followed by a (correct)response.

b) Students have three opportunities to hear a correct pronunciation if, in


addition to the correct proto-response and the response, the teacherrepeats the proper pronunciation in the feedback slot.

In addition, the "official" response is set off from the proto-responses bythe teacher's nomination move, and this reduces group noise in order for theresponse to be produced and heard.

4. The teacher controls who gives the "official" response by a nomination,and the teacher has better control of student contributions when conductingword recognition sequences incorporating the expanding properties. Overlydominant students will not receive teacher praise for producing a rash ofproto-responses. If their motivation is to receive teacher approval, the assertive, verbal students will wish to produce the "official" response. Lessdominant or more retiring students will have an opportunity to put themselves forward, and to practice their word-recognition skills and pronunciation with impunity.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Initiation-Response-Feedback discourse format can be called task-generalin that it can be used to accomplish a wide range of tasks. There are at least twopoints at which expansion of the basic form can be initiated: (a) after a "failed"response, as Mehan (1979), and French and MacLure (1979) note, and (b) afteran initiation, in a period of teacher silence, as I have illustrated.

The form and placement of expansions of the basic Initiation-ResponseFeedback format may be task-specific. The expanded types outlined by Mehanand by French and MacLure, may be intermediate between task-general and taskspecific, or may be task-general, but they do not appear to me to be as taskspecific as the above expansions.

Initiation-Response-Feedback sequences are well suited to the instructionalsetting, and the expanded Initiation-Response-Feedback discourse formats provide the platform from which to see more clearly the ways in which lessons areeffective and can be made more effective, and how classroom processes achievecertain ends. The concern with effectiveness is a concern with the pedagogicfunction of classroom discourse structure. This concern is recommended as adirection for the development of discourse analysis in education.

REFERENCES

Austin, J.L. (1970). Philosophical papers. New York: Oxford University Press.Calfee, R.C., & Drum, P.A. (1978). Learning to read: Theory, research and practice. Curriculum

Inquiry, 8, 183-249.Carroll, J.B. (1976). The nature of the reading process. In H. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.),

Theoretical models and processes ofreading (2nd ed.) (pp. 8-18). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

196 J.L. Heap

Cicourel, A.V. (1973). Cognitive sociology: Language and meaning in social interaction. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Education.

Cole, M., Hood, L., & McDennott, R. (1978). Ecological niche picking: Ecological invalidity as anaxion of experimental cognitive psychology (Monograph). New York: The Rockefeller University, Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition and Institute for Comparative HumanDevelopment.

Crowder, R. (1976). Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Estes, W.K. (1974). Learning theory and intelligence. American Psychologist, 29, 740-749.French, P., & MacLure, M. (1979). Getting the right answer and getting the answer right. Research

in Education, 22, 1-23.Gagne, R.M. (1970). The conditions of learning (rev. ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Gagne, R.M., & Briggs, L.J. (1974). Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart

& Winston.Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Toronto: Prentice-Hall.Gough, P.B. (1984). Word recognition. In R. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.),

Handbook of reading research (pp. 225-253). New York: Longman.Heap, J.L. (1976a). Reconceiving the social. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology,

13(3), 271-281.Heap, J.L. (1976b). What are sense making practices? Sociological Inquiry, 46(2), I07-I15.Heap, J.L. (1979). Classroom talk: A critique of McHoul. Occasional paper: Project on social

organization of reading activities. (Available from Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S IV6).

Heap, J.L. (1980a). Description in ethnomethodology. Human Studies, 3(1), 87-106.Heap, J.L. (1980b). What counts as reading: Limits to certainty in assessment. Curriculum Inquiry,

/0(3), 265-292.Heap, J.L. (1981). Free-phantasy, language and sociology. Human Studies, 4(4), 299-311.Heap, J.L. (1982). Understanding classroom events: A critique of Durkin, with an alternative.

Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(4), 391-41 I.Heap, J.L. (1983). Frames and knowledge in a science lesson: A dialogue with Professor Heyman.

Curriculum Inquiry, 15(3), 245-279.Hughes, S. (1982). Another look at task analysis. Curriculum Inquiry, 15(5), 273-275.Hunt, E., Frost, N., & Tunneborg, C. (1973). Individualdifferences in cognition: A new approach to

intelligence. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York:Academic.

Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294338). New York: Free Press.

McDennott, R.P. (1976). Kids made sense: An ethnographic account ofinteractional management ofsuccess and failure in one first-grade classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, StanfordUniversity, Stanford, CA.

McDennott, R.P., & Aron, J. (1978). Pirandello in the classroom: On the possibility of equaleducation opportunity in American culture. In M.C. Reynolds (Ed.), Futures of exceptionalchildren: Emerging structures (pp. 41-64). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

McQuade, J. (1980, June). Practices for accomplishing displays of story comprehension. Paperpresented at the joint session of the annual meeting of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association and the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Montreal,Quebec.

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

Pellegrino, J.W., & Glaser, R. (1980). Components of inductive reasoning. In R.E. Snow, P.A.Fedeuce, & W.W. Montague (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Cognitive processanalyses of aptitudes (Vol. I, pp. 177-217). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization ofTum-Taking for Conversation. Language, Vol. 50, 696-735.

Schegloff, E.A., & Sacks, H. (1974). Opening up closings. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology(pp. 233-264). Markham, Ontario: Penguin Books Canada.

Schutz, A. (1962). The collected papers I: The problem of social reality. The Hague: MartinusNijhoff.

Sinclair, J. McH., & Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards an analysis ofdiscourse: The English usedby teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

Snow, R.E. (1980). Aptitude Processes. In R.E. Snow, P.A. Fedeuce, & W.E. Montague (Eds.),Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Cognitive process analyses of aptitudes (pp. 27-63).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. New York: Bedminster.

APPENDIX

Path Four

InitiationTeacher SilenceSix Subsequences, for the most part consisting of:

InitiationResponseFeedback

Proto-Response (correct)Nomination (which acts as positive feedback)

ResponseFeedback

EXAMPLE FOUR

Initiation (line 64)Teacher Silence #1 (line 65)

Teacher begins subroutine # I

Teacher Elicitation #1 (lines 66 & 68)(interleaved by 'response', line 67)Teacher Silence #2 (line 69)

Teacher begins subroutine #2

Teacher Elicitation #2 (line 70)Proto-Responses (incomplete)(lines 71,72, & 73)Bid to Respond (line 74)Feedback (lines 75 & 77)(interleaved on line 76 by production of correct syllable)Proto-Response (correct) (line 78)Proto-Responses (inadequate) (lines 79 & 80)


198 J.L. Heap

Teacher Prompt (line 81)Proto-Responses (inadequate) (lines 82 & 83)


Teacher Prompt (line 84)Proto-Responses (inadequate) (lines 85, 86, & 87)


Teacher Prompt (line 88)Proto-Responses (inadequate) (lines 89, 90, & 91)


Teacher Prompt (line 92) (subsequence closing prompt)Proto-Responses (incomplete) (lines 93 & 94)Proto-Responses (correct) (lines 95 & 96)Bid to Respond (line 97)Proto-Responses (correct) (lines 98, 99, & 101)

Nomination (line 102)Response (line 103)Feedback (line 104)

Documents

On task in classroom discourse