Pairing Bloom’s Taxonomy Higher-Cognitive Domains and Audience Design to Improve EFL Students’ Responses

Mai Idrees Zaghab, Emad A.S. Abu-Ayyash

Abstract


The study sought to explore the effect of pairing audience design and higher-cognitive domains in teachers’ initiations (I) on generating improved students’ responses (R) in the EFL classroom. To meet this aim, in-depth data were gathered via a qualitative approach utilizing observations and interviews. Ten classes of observation were conducted in an EFL class with 24 students, and semi-structured interviews were held with 7 language teachers. The findings of the study revealed that integrating audience design and higher-cognitive domains into teachers’ initiations generated students’ responses that were effective enough to maintain the flow of conversation, represented in the IRF sequence. This kind of conversational exchange flow secured effective and communicative classrooms. The study highlights the potential for a more student-centered IRF exchange through strategic initiation planning and suggests pedagogical practices aimed at fostering inclusive and interactive classroom environments. The implications of the findings emphasize that improving the communication flow in language classrooms can be achieved by designing interactive tasks that employ audience design and higher cognitive skills.


Keywords


audience design, Bloom's taxonomy, Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF), students’ interaction

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdullah, M.Y., Abu Bakar, N.R. & Mahboob, M.H. (2012). Students’ participation in classroom: What motivates them to speak up? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 51, pp. 516-522.

Abu-Ayyash, E.A.S., & Assaf, M. (2016). The impact of learning-style and task-based teaching of language on learners’ achievement. Journal of Education in Black Sea Region, 2(1), pp. 29-54. doi: 10.31578/jebs.v2i1.36

Abu-Ayyash, E.A.S., Assaf, M.A. & Zabadi, M.I. (2023). Issues in formative assessment and feedback in EMI classrooms. In C. Hill, C. Lin & H.Y. Lai (eds) Supporting and Learning from Academics (pp. 29-80). Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-9040-3_7

Akhtar, S., Hussain, M., Afzal, M., & Gilani, S. (2019). The impact of teacher-student interaction on student motivation and achievement. European Academic Research, 7(2), pp. 1201-1222.

Al-Qinneh, D. & Abu-Ayyash, E.A.S. (2022). The play-based behaviours of Emirati preschool children: Cultural Perspective into early childhood education. Child Care in Practice, 28(3), pp, 394-410. doi: 10.1080/13575279.2020.1816531

Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Addison Wesley Longman.

Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2), pp. 145-204. doi: 10.1017/S004740450001037X

Bloom’s Taxonomy. (2022). Valamis [online]. Retrieved 10 February 2022 from https://www.valamis.com/hub/blooms-taxonomy

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Longman.

Curtis, D.D, & Lawson, M.J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), pp. 21-34.

Dalia, A.C., & Putra, F.R. (2024). The initiation, response, and feedback (IRF) in English language teaching: A literature review. Jurnal Ilmiah Spectral, 10(1), pp. 43-53.

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), pp. 338-354. doi: 10.25130/lang.8.1.15

Ellis, R. (2024). Task-based and task-supported language learning. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 6(4), pp. 1-13. Doi: 10.58304/ijts.20240401

Fitriani, S.S., Yusuf, Y.Q., & Zumara, A. (2021). The use of cognitive domain in questions: The perception of students and lecturers of public universities in Aceh. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(1), pp. 128-138.

Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing Qualitative Data. Sage.

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming Qualitative Researcher: An Introduction. Pearson Education, Inc.

Goodwin, S.S., Sharp, G.W., Cloutier, E.F., & Diamond, N.A. (1983). Effective Classroom Questioning. Illinois University.

Hassanein, A.A. & Abu-Ayyash, E.A.S. (2018). An investigation of the impact of task complexity on ESL learners' spoken language performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(6), pp. 1362-1371. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0906.28

Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society, 32, pp. 79–104. doi: 10.10170S0047404503321049

Hidayatullah, E. (2024). Analyzing classroom interactions focusing on IRF patterns and turn-taking. English Learning Innovation, 5(2), pp. 186-196. doi: 10.22219/englie. v5i2.33535

Horton, W.S., & Gerrig, R.J. (2002). Speakers’ experiences and audience design: Knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language 47, pp. 589-606. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00019-0

Huq, R., & Amir, A. (2015). When the tokens talk: IRF and the position of acknowledgment tokens in student-teacher talk-in-interaction. Novitas Royal Research on Youth and Language, 9(1), pp. 60-76.

Jaeger, E.L. (2019). Initiation, response, follow-up and beyond: Analyzing dialogue around difficulty in a tutorial setting. Dialogic Pedagogy, 7, pp. 1-26. doi: 10.5195/dpj.2019.195

Jianhong, C. (2022). An analysis of college English classroom discourse from the IRF perspective. US-China Foreign Language, 20(7), pp. 269-273. doi: 10.17265/1539-8080/2022.07.005

Koca, F. (2016). Motivation to learn and teacher–student relationship. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 6(2), pp. 1-20.

Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), pp. 212–218. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.

Lee, Y. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, pp. 1204-1230. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.003

Leech, N.L., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2017). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), pp. 557-584. doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.557

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Ablex.

Li, H. (2013). Student initiatives and missed learning opportunities in an IRF sequence: A single case analysis. L2 Journal, 5, 68-92.

Lomotey, C.F., & Gyima-Aboagye, G.E. 2021. The IRF exchange as a pedagogical tool: A study of ESL classrooms in Pokuase Township, Ghana. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(5), pp. 121-148. doi: 10.46827/ejel.v6i5.3889

Marzban, A., Yaqubi, B, Qalandari, M. (2010). IRF and ISRF sequences and their anti-pedagogical value. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 3(7): pp. 119–140.

Mercer, N. (1992). “Talk for Teaching and Learning.” In K. Noramn (Ed.) Thinking Voices: The Work of the National Oracy Project (pp. 215–223). Hodder & Stoughton.

Morais, E. (1995). Codeswitching in Malaysian business and its role in the management of conflict. Journal of Modern Languages, 9(1), pp. 29-47.

Nair-Venugopal, S. (2000). Language Choice and Communication in Malaysian Business. UKM.

Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The Construction Zone: Working for Cognitive Change in School. Cambridge University Press.

Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), pp. 261-290.

Onyishi, C.N., & Sefotho, M.M. (2020). Teachers’ perspectives on the use of differentiated instruction in inclusive classrooms: Implication for teacher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(6), pp. 136-150. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v9n6p136

Orlich, D.C., Harder, R.J., Callahan, R.C., Trevisan, M.S., & Brown, A.H.. (2010). Teaching Strategies: A Guide to Effective Instruction (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Ortega, D.P., Cabrera, J.M., & Azar, J.V.B. (2018). Differentiating instruction in the language learning classroom: Theoretical considerations and practical applications. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(6), pp. 1220-1228. doi: 10.17507/jltr.0906.11

Park, Y. (2014). The role of third-turn repeats in two L2 classroom interactional contexts. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), pp. 145-167. doi: 10.1093/applin/amt006

Pring, R. (2006). Bloom’s taxonomy: A philosophical critique. Cambridge Journal of Education, 1(2), pp. 83-91. doi:10.1080/0305764710010205

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), pp. 147–169. doi: 10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f.

Riwayatiningsih, R. (2024). Teachers’ language use in EFL classroom interaction: A qualitative study analysis in Indonesia settings. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 50(6), pp. 133-141. doi: 10.9734/ajess/2024/v50i61400

Rustandi, A., & Mubarok, A.H. (2017). Analysis of IRF (initiation-response-feedback) on classroom interaction in EFL speaking class. Journal of English Education, Literature and Culture, 2(1), pp. 239–250. doi: 10.30659/e.2.1.239-250.

Sapan, M., & Mede, E. (2022). The effects of differentiated instruction (DI) on achievement, motivation, and autonomy among English learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 10(1), pp. 127-144. doi: 10.30466/ijltr.2022.121125

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford University Press.

Soozandehfar, S.M.A., & Adeli, M.R. (2016). A critical appraisal of Bloom’s taxonomy. American Research Journal of English and Literature, 2, pp. 1-9. doi: 10.21694/2378-9026.16014

Syafryadin, S., Harahap, A., Haryani, H., & Astrid, A. (2021). Boosting classroom interaction based on higher order thinking skills (HOTS) in English learning for beginners. International Journal of Language Education, 5(1), pp. 477-489. doi: 10.26858/ijole.v5i1.15211

Vold, E.T. (2022). Learner spoken output and teacher response in second versus foreign language classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 29(2), pp. 751-785. doi: 10.1177/13621688211068610

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.

Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse Language in Action. Routledge.

Walsh, S., & Sert, O. (2019). Mediating L2 learning through classroom interaction. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–19). Springer.

Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92, pp. 577–594. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00788.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), pp. 1–37. doi: 10.1016/S0898-5898(05)80001-4.

Winne, P.H. (1979). Experiments relating teachers’ use of higher cognitive questions to student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 49(1), pp. 13-50. doi: doi.org/10.2307/1169925

Xu, L. (2024). The application of interactive English teaching in students’ language acquisition. Advances in Educational Technology and Psychology, 8(1), pp. 165-171. doi: 10.23977/aetp.2024.080122

Yoon, S. O., & Brown‐Schmidt, S. (2019). Audience design in multiparty conversation. Cognitive Science, 43(8), p.e12774. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12774




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v10i2.1558

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




JELTL (Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics); Web: www.jeltl.org; Email: journal.eltl@gmail.com

Creative Commons License
JELTL by http://www.jeltl.org is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License


Indexed and Abstracted BY: