Effectiveness of modified IRE models in facilitating classroom discourse.

Part A: Literature Review

Overview about Classroom Community

Due to diverse interpretations of community, the concept of classroom community is

understood in several ways. First, as suggested by Snchez (2008), classroom
community can be understood as a place where teachers and students are able to
learn cooperatively; share disagreement with each other; and probe historical and
societal issues to the group. Second, David and Capraro (2011) presented the idea of
our classroom, and suggested that a process of understanding, sharing,
compassion and empathy (p.81) should be developed within the classroom.
Comparing the two concepts of classroom community, Snchezs statement focus on
the reciprocal functional role of community within a classroom, whereas David and
Capraros idea emphasis more about the sense of connection and belonging. Despite
the different focuses, both research suggests to using inclusive word such we and
our to describe the classroom community, which indicates the idea of collective
learning groups within schools.

Building a classroom community is important in the teaching process as it has a

number of benefits to students, such as assisting knowledge acquisition, facilitating
participation, fostering interaction and collaboration, and developing critical thinking
(Tan and Hairon, 2016). Furthermore, in Australian educational context, the
development of classroom community is also prescribed by educational policies. The
Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (Australian Institute for Teaching and
School Leadership [AITSL], 2011) requires teachers to use effective classroom
communication (p. 13) and support student participation (p.14), these standards
can only be achieved when classroom community is well-developed and maintained.
Classroom Discourse as an Important Instrument for Classroom Community
In their book, Van de Walle, Karp, Lovin, and Bay-Williams (2014) defined classroom
discourse as the interaction between all participants within the classroom. According
to the concept of classroom community, both the reciprocal functional role and the
sense of belonging requires an interaction between teacher and students, thus
classroom discourse is considered as an important instrument for building classroom
community. Moreover, as claimed by Kent and Simpson (2012), discussion, analysis
and reflection within the classroom is beneficial for building a community as
students interdependence and collaboration is developed, and variety of
perspectives are respected and understood.

Snchez (2008) provided some strategies that could facilitating effective classroom
discourse, which required teachers to develop skills of listening within classrooms,
provide quality responses to students, allow students to share their experience and
history, and involve students ideas in important issues. Snchezs paper gives a
theoretical insight about this topic. Nevertheless, in order to facilitate classroom
discourse in practice, effective models or approaches that teachers can adopt to the
classroom are required.

Effective Models in Facilitating Classroom Discourse

In the recent years, scholars and researchers have investigated different approaches
to facilitate classroom discourse effectively. A traditional approach used by teachers
is known as the Initiate-Response-Evaluate (IRE) model, which is an approach that
teacher initiates a discourse, students give their responses, and then teacher leave
feedback to students response (Lawrence & Crespo, 2016; Lloyd, Kolodziej &
Brashears, 2016; Friend, 2017). However, the IRE model is criticised in several
aspects recently. First, the IRE model is less effective due to deficiency in students
participation rate (Forman, Ramirez-DelToro, Brown & Passmore, 2017); second,
students responses are poor and limited while teachers talk is less supportive in IRE
approach (Friend, 2017); third, IRE is one of the modes that lead students to report
on the teachers thinking instead of their own thinking (Alexander, 2013); fourth, IRE
approach may have negative influence on young students about their sociocultural
expectations (Lawrence & Crespo, 2016). In order to deal with the drawbacks of the
traditional IRE model, some modified IRE models are developed and examined by
recent researchers.

In the research of Forman et al. (2017), the traditional I-R-E/F model is modified as I-
R-R-R-F model, where F represents follow-ups, which is equivalent to evaluation. In
the I-R-R-R-F model, teachers participation in discourse is reduced, and students
contributes more in the responses stage or even take the role in initiation and
follow-up stage. In order to examine the effectiveness of modified model, students
are divided into three units. The result demonstrates that the units that adopting I-R-
R-R-F participation structure (Unite 2 and 3) have a significantly higher student
participation rates than the unit with I-R-E/F participation structure (Unit 1). Thus, as
concluded by Forman et al., the I-R-R-R-F participation structure, which is a model
that students take more control of the discourse, fosters an epistemic community
within the classroom.

Another modification of the traditional IRE model is developed by Friend (2017),

which is unknown as teacher-in-the-middle IRE approach. In Friends research, the
traditional IRE approach is identified as teacher-out-the-front IRE approach, which
means teachers initiate and lead the discourses. In contrast, in teacher-in-the-middle
IRE approach, teachers try to pass the roles of initiation and evaluation to students,
and take some of the role of response in the discourses. The result of the research
shows that a shift between teachers and students role in discourse procedure
provides students with more opportunities to exchange their idea with teacher and
peers. In the traditional teacher-out-the-front IRE model, students are not effectively
engaged in discourse due to poor and limited responses. Whereas the teacher-in-
the-middle IRE model facilitate participation as well as collaboration for students.

Lawrence and Crespo (2016) developed the original IRE/F model to the IRE/F + WAIT
approach, which changes the Evaluation stage in the original model to a Welcome,
Analyse, Include, Thank (WAIT) process. Instead of concluding a discourse after the
Response stage, teachers analyse students response and think about strategies to
involve students into the classroom or even the disciplinary community through
discourses, which represents the A and I in the model. While the W and T suggests
teachers to motivate and positively reinforce students participation. However, the
effectiveness of this modified model need to be verified by further research.

Except for modifications, replacement of discourse approach is also suggested by

scholars. Lloyd et al. (2016) introduced the Facilitate-Listen-Engage (FLE) model in
their paper. In this model, students and teachers are parallel with each other in
communication, and teachers no longer take explicit roles in classroom discourses,
instead, they work horizontally with students to foster supportive environment for
exchange of information. This is the major difference between the FLE model and
other modified version of IRE model. In addition to the theoretical basis for FLE
model, this paper also provide teachers with three strategies to implement FLE
model in classroom. Nevertheless, the model and strategies are still to be examined
by practical research.

Despite the different theoretical basis and features, all of the recent developed
discourse models aim to be more student-centred, so that the deficiency of the
traditional IRE model can be overcome. These literatures can also inspire further
explorations and investigations about classroom discourse models, so that the
quantity as well as the quality of students participation in classroom discourse are
promoted. By facilitating effective classroom discourses, the functional roles and
sense of belonging within classrooms are fostered, so that classrooms communities
can be built.
Part B: Data Collection Protocol

This research take the form of survey. The survey questions are listed below.
At the beginning, the researcher hand out printed survey questionnaire to
participants and collect their initial response. During the project, the researcher
use several modified IRE model based on the literatures to facilitate classroom
discourse in regular class time. At the end of the project, the same survey
questionnaire is hand out again, and participants are asked to share their final
reflection by their response.
 Reflection and Feedback Questionnaire
Please recall your experience within this class, and circle the numeric scale that
represents your response to the following questions.
Survey Scales: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree.

a) I was given enough chance to speak in the classroom.

1 2 3 4 5
b) I received helpful feedback from other students.
1 2 3 4 5
c) My opinions were always respected by the whole class.
1 2 3 4 5
d) I would like to share my experience and/or perceptions with classmates.
1 2 3 4 5
e) I believe I understood other students in the classroom.
1 2 3 4 5
f) I was understood by other students in the classroom.
1 2 3 4 5
g) I was understood by the teacher of the class.
1 2 3 4 5
h) I learnt cooperatively with other students.
1 2 3 4 5
i) I took significant role in classroom activities.
1 2 3 4 5
j) I have a sense of belonging to the classroom.
1 2 3 4 5
Dear Potential Participant:

I am working on a project titled Effectiveness of Modified IRE Models in Facilitating

Classroom Discourse for the class, Researching Teaching and Learning 2, at Western
Sydney University. As part of the project, I am collecting information to help inform the
design of a teacher research proposal.

My project aims to examine the effectiveness of student-centred discourse approaches in

facilitating classroom discourse by investigating students feedback. Participants are
required to complete the same survey questionnaire at the beginning and end of the
project. The effectiveness of classroom discourse will be analysed by comparing the overall
scales of each corresponding question in participants feedback before and after the project.

By participating in this survey, I acknowledge that:

I have read the project information and have been given the opportunity to discuss
the information and my involvement in the project with the researcher/s.
The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained
to me, and any questions I have about the project have been answered to my
satisfaction.
I consent to response to the survey questions.
I understand that my involvement is confidential and that the information gained
during this data collection experience will only be reported within the confines of
the Researching Teaching and Learning 2 unit, and that all personal details will be
de-identified from the data.
I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without affecting my
relationship with the researcher/s, now or in the future.

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, or I am a full-time

university student who is 17 years old.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am the legal guardian of a person who is 16 or 17

years old, and provide my consent for the persons participation.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________
Part C: Data Collection Protocol Explanation

This research intends to examine the effectiveness of student-centred classroom

discourse approach based on students feedback. Previous research about this topic
usually stands on the educators viewpoint. For instance, both Forman et al. (2017)
and Friend (2017) measure the effectiveness of classroom discourse by analysing the
students conversation based on teachers or researchers perception. In contrast,
this research ask students to evaluate the effectiveness about classroom discourse
and the community. As students are members of the classroom community, their
evaluation and feedback about the community can be a sufficient measurement. The
self-evaluation strategy will create a different point of view for this overarching
topic.

A survey of Likert Scales questions are design for this research. As suggested by
Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011), survey will standardise the gathered
information, it can be used as an instrument to measure attitude scales. Likert Scales
questions are used for this research as it can quantify students attitudinal feedback,
so that the information can be analysed and compared statistically. The same
questionnaire is to be completed by participants before and after the project. By
comparing the mean scales of the each corresponding question, the effectiveness of
the project can be examined.

Although literatures provided different modifications to the traditional IRE model,

they all suggest teachers to adopt a student-centred discourse model. In the three-
week project, instead of examine a specific discourse model, the researcher will use
a general student-centred approach, so that the strategies of each modified model
could be used during classroom discourses.

The survey questions are designed by consulting with literatures. In general, the
concepts or definitions of classroom community are reflected in the questions, so
that students response can indicate the level of maturity of classroom community;
also the questions can assess whether the discourse approach overcome the
deficiency of the traditional IRE model that are claimed by literatures. In the
questionnaire, question a) and b) are used to measure the overall effectiveness of
classroom discourse by asking students to evaluate the participation of themselves
as well as other students. Responses in these questions will indicate whether the
modified IRE models can facilitate more participation as supposed. Question c) and
d) measure the motivation of students in participating classroom discourse. Question
e), f) and g) measure the level of understanding within the classroom from three
dimensions, they indicate not only the effectiveness of the classroom discourse, but
also the quality of classroom community according to concept of David and Capraro
(2011). Question h) and i) are designed based on the functional role of classroom
community (Snchez, 2008). And question k) asks students about their opinions
about sense of belong to the classroom directly.

Moreover, regarding the ethics of research, the project of student-centred discourse

approach will be adopted to the whole class during regular lessons, while the
feedback is only collected from students whole get the consent form signed by their
parents or caregivers. This can remove the coercion from researcher.
References
Alexander, R. J. (2013). Improving oracy and classroom talk: achievements and
challenges. Primary First, 10, 22-29. Retrieved from
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/76321/1/R_alexander_improving_oracy.pdf.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian

Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from
https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-
source/general/australian_professional_standard_for_teachers_final.pdf?sfv
rsn=399ae83c_2.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th
ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

David, H. L., & Capraro, R. M. (2001). Strategies for teaching in heterogeneous

environments while building a classroom community. Education, 122(1), 80-
86. Retrieved from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewe
r?vid=4&sid=03179056-e04c-4b50-9c98-993dfbe149ed%40sessionmgr103.

Forman, E. A., Ramirez-DelToro, V., Brown, L., & Passmore, C. (2017). Discursive
strategies that foster an epistemic community for argument in a biology
classroom. Learning & Instruction, 48, 32-39.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.005

Friend, L. (2017). IRE and content area literacies: A critical analysis of classroom
discourse. Australian Journal Of Language & Literacy, 40(2), 124-134.
Retrieved from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewe
r?vid=2&sid=c2e14e3f-a762-483d-a60a-888f38b4280f%40sessionmgr103
Kent, A. M., & Simpson, J. L. (2012). The Power of Literature: Establishing and
Enhancing the Young Adolescent Classroom Community. Reading
Improvement, 49(1), 28-32. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewe
r?vid=1&sid=23868a82-e0c9-4b45-9e6c-9b06e7bfb314%40sessionmgr4006.

Lawrence, A. M., & Crespo, S. (2016). IRE/F as a Cross-Curricular Collaborative Genre

of Implicit Argumentation. Theory Into Practice, 55(4), 320-331.
doi:10.1080/00405841.2016.1209021

Lloyd, M. H., Kolodziej, N. J., & Brashears, K. M. (2016). Classroom Discourse: An

Essential Component in Building a Classroom Community. School Community
Journal, 26(2), 291-304. Retrieved from
 http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewe
r?vid=4&sid=06a2e238-b673-4714-bd19-5f87ba4ab961%40sessionmgr103.

Snchez, R. M. (2008). Integrating community in culturally conscientious

classrooms. The Education Digest, 73(7), 53-56. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/218189527?accountid=36155

Tan, C., & Hairon, S. (2016). Education Reform in China: Toward Classroom
Communities. Action In Teacher Education, 38(4), 315-326.
doi:10.1080/01626620.2016.1226205
Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., Lovin, L. H., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2014). Teaching
studentcentered mathematics: Developmentally appropriate instruction for
grades 35 (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson