The political dimensions of SLT that we have discussed above do not

influence classroom materials and practices independently of each other.

The complexity of the politics of SLT work is such that a particular political

operation in the classroom intersects with many others, thus bringing

about a configuration of power relations that may be gleaned through

one instance of, say, teacher talk.

Classroom talk

The dynamics of classroom interaction offers us an excellent perspective

on manifestations of power relations in class. The most basic, typical,

and still the most dominant type of classroom interaction is, of course,

what has been referred to in an earlier module as the IRF Exchange. To

briefly repeat what we have said, the IRF Structure is a kind of classroom

exchange between the teacher and the students, where the teacher does
the INITIATION, the students make a RESPONSE, and then the teacher

gives some FEEDBACK. Here is an example of this structure (van Lier

2001: 94):

Teacher: What is this called?

Learner: Plastic.

Teacher: You called it plastic. Good! But it’s got another name too…a

transparency.

Here is how van Lier describes the moves made in this classroom exchange

(94):

1. The teacher, holding up an overhead transparency, asks a

question to which the teacher already knows the answer.

2. The teacher wishes to see if the learner has some particular

piece of knowledge and can display this knowledge.

3. The learner responds effectively and efficiently, but also

elliptically, using just one word.

4. The teacher evaluates the learner’s response, approving of it,

but then suggests that there might be another, more felicitous,

answer.

Here is how van Lier describes the moves made in this classroom exchange

(94):

1. The teacher, holding up an overhead transparency, asks a

question to which the teacher already knows the answer.

2. The teacher wishes to see if the learner has some particular

piece of knowledge and can display this knowledge.

3. The learner responds effectively and efficiently, but also

elliptically, using just one word.

4. The teacher evaluates the learner’s response, approving of it,

but then suggests that there might be another, more felicitous,

answer.

The teacher clearly knows the answer to his question, but asks it anyway

since s/he wants to know whether or not the learner knows something

and can show this knowledge through language. The learner, in turn,

displays this knowledge correctly which the teacher evaluates. It is perhaps

safe to assume that this sort of interaction is quite typical in our own SLT

classrooms since the teacher’s job is seen to be that of the initiator and the

evaluator of knowledge. The learner’s role is seen to be simply that of a

responder, relying heavily on what the teacher asks, and keeping quiet

most of the time when not being nominated to say anything. In this

characterization of the above sample text, we need to emphasize that the

Classroom context A: Hongkong

Our first stop is a form 2 (grade 8) class of 30 students (Lin 2001). The

students, aged 13 and 14, live with families in a nearby industrial estate.

Their parents occupy low-salaried positions in the labor force, have received

very little education, and speak only Cantonese at home. The students

themselves have limited access to English and do not have much use of it

outside the school. Consequently, their proficiency in English is limited as

well. There are, in fact, many words in the textbooks which they do not

understand, and whose pronunciation they do not know. Angel M.Y Lin,

the scholar who conducted in-depth interviews of the participants in this

classroom (and a few others), notes that the boys she interviewed

consistently used ‘boring’ to describe English. They find English ‘difficult’

as well. Indeed, it is not only their English class but all of school that they

find boring, although they said that they still prefer to be in school, rather

than stay home and do nothing. At least, they said, they get to play with

their friends in school.

The following exchange between the teacher and the students doing a

reading lesson is described by Lin as comprising three stages: the pre-