168 SUMMER 2015

Teaching Language Learners to

Elaborate on Their Responses:
A Structured, Genre-Based
Approach
Michael Pryde
Ritsumeikan Uji Junior and Senior High School

Abstract: Due to Japanese students poor record of conversational ability in

English in homestay contexts (Pryde, 2014), classroom English language curriculum
decisions were reinvestigated in order to better prepare students to participate in
study abroad experiences. A genre-based approach was used to teach and reinforce a
conversational structure designed to extend students second move in the initiation,
response, follow-up (IRF) triadic dialogue. This study discusses how a genre-based
approach can teach language learners to make the most of their role in an IRF-based
conversational framework and specically investigated the use of an educational
tool, termed quadratic structure, to improve students conversational skills, meta-
linguistic awareness, condence, and willingness to communicate in the target
language. Pedagogical implications for both course design and study abroad are
also discussed.

Key words: conversation, homestay, IRF, Japan, quadratic structure, triadic dialogue

Introduction
It is not uncommon to hear of Japanese students challenges using spoken English
when participating in homestays. In spite of predeparture and orientation programs,
host parents often complain that their students English conversational prociency
is at a level that functions to prohibit the development of anything but minimal
conversational exchanges because students seldom initiate conversation, often
respond to questions with short replies, and do not attempt to extend conversations
when opportunities arise. The following example was taken from a homestay
conversation in New Zealand between a Japanese student and her host mother
and illustrates a typical conversational patterna pattern of initiation, response,

Michael Pryde (PhD, University of Otago) is the Head Native English teacher
currently in charge of curriculum development in an immersion program at
Ritsumeikan Uji Junior and Senior High School, Kyoto, Japan.
Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 48, Iss. 2, pp. 168183. 2015 by American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages.
DOI: 10.1111/flan.12135
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 48, NO. 2 169

and follow-up (IRF; Sinclair & Coulthard, transactional language in the above example
1975): may indicate that the student misunder-
stood the intention of the hosts initiating
1. Host: Oh, hi, Yumi questionto build solidarity and indicate
2. Student: Hi, Mum belongingness to the family through exten-
3. Host: What did you do, today? sive dialogue (Coupland, Coupland, &
4. Student: I had a maths test. Robinson, 1992; Leech, 1983; Nunan,
5. Host: Oh, I see. 1993).
This study approached this issue from a
First, the above conversation illustrates genre-based perspective, with the goal of
triadic dialogue (Lemke, 1990), a conversa- determining the extent to which learners
tional structure that is commonly used in in the English as a foreign language class-
the classroom (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975) room could more effectively embrace En-
and consists of the initiating move I, a glish-speaking norms for conversational
response R, and a follow-up move F, exchanges and participate to a much greater
which sometimes consists of a comment degree in interpersonal communication.
although in classroom settings it also often The specic tool under investigation,
includes an evaluation move E. Sinclair termed quadratic structure (QS), was de-
and Coulthard (1975) recognized that the signed to help students recognize rhetorical
initiator of the conversation (in the above organization and linguistic features within
example, the host) usually takes control of social contexts (Bhatia, 1991; Dudley-
directing the conversation, termed sequen- Evans, 1987), including, e.g., the classroom
tial dominance (Itakura, 2001). Although and homestay context, and to strengthen
students are encouraged to take control and students responses in the second move
initiate conversation in the rst move, Japa- within the IRF sequence.
nese students often wait to be spoken to
rather than speaking rst (Pryde, 2014;
van Lier, 2001). If students fall into stereo- Literature Review
typically replying to initiations, then they Learning to speak another language is cultur-
consequently have limited control to direct ally dependent (Lustig & Koester, 2013). For
the course of the conversation. Second, in example, English conversation is sometimes
this example, when offered a turn in the termed a speaker-responsible language,
conversation, the student used a short, di- where the speaker is expected to provide
rect conversational style, reminiscent of specic meaning. This conversational pattern
transactional language exchanges involving is contrasted to Japanese, which is usually
goods and services (Brown & Yule, 1983). termed a listener-responsible language,
Pryde (2014) found that triadic dia- whereby the speaker states information indi-
logue in homestay settings was often per- rectly; thus, the responsibility is placed on the
ceived negatively by members of the host listener to understand and interpret (Hinds,
family because hosts felt that the responsi- 1987). Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988)
bility for extending the conversation and categorized conversational style in four di-
thus supporting students language learning mensions: direct-indirect, elaborate-succinct,
by pursuing further questioning fell primar- personal-contextual, and instrumental-affec-
ily to them. As a consequence, in later stages tual. Japanese culture relies on the latter half
of the homestay, hosts often limited their of the aforementioned characteristics to a
third move to mere acknowledgment, such greater extent than does English as it is
as Oh, I see, or, in worst case scenarios, used across a range of English-speaking cul-
even refrained from initiating conversation tures; namely, Japanese conversational style
with the homestay student altogether. In is characterized by being indirect, succinct,
addition, the students use of short, contextual, and affectual in naturehence, a
170 SUMMER 2015

listener-responsible language. It is not dif- cultural context in which language is used

cult to imagine the conversational anomalies and specically examines the format (rhe-
that will inherently arise when Japanese stu- torical organization) and lexico-grammati-
dents are faced with having to converse using cal functions of specic types of texts
a conversational style that is signicantly dif- (Bradford-Watts, 2003; Paltridge, 2001).
ferent from their own while in an English- Genre-based models emphasize meaning-
speaking homestay. ful and purposeful interaction between
teachers and students with the aim of pro-
viding learning experiences that allow
English as a Second Language in learners to use, analyze, and reect on
Japan the use of language (Abbaszadeh, 2013;
Japanese curriculum and course designers Augustien, 2006; Henry & Roseberry,
have stressed that curriculum must be de- 1998). These models often describe a se-
signed around the language that they envis- ries of pedagogical stages that serve to
age students will need (Bosher & Smalkoski, scaffold students learning through their
2002; Cowling, 2007; Dudley-Evans & St. interactions with more knowledgeable
John, 1998) while still meeting the expect- peers or teachers (Bruner, 1978; Vygotsky,
ations, guidelines, and requirements of the 1978). These stages usually include build-
Japanese Ministry of Education (Ministry of ing knowledge of the eld, joint construc-
Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and tion of knowledge, and independent
Technology, 2012). However, in many in- student construction of knowledge (J.
structional settings, due to factors such as Martin, 1999). In the rst stage (building
minimal student contact time and large clas- knowledge), teachers scaffold relevant vo-
ses, curriculum and instruction often rely on cabulary and assist students in their inves-
traditional grammar/translation approaches tigations of particular topics, such as cross-
and techniques (Aspinall, 2013; Gorsuch, cultural issues, power relations, or gender
1998). Furthermore, although some schools (Derewianka, 2003; Tannen, 1994). In the
and programs employ other approaches, second stage, joint construction, teachers
such as the presentation, practice, and pro- work with students to identify the features
duction model (Ritchie, 2003) or task-based of a particular textual structure or reect
language teaching under the umbrella of on whom or for what purposes the text
communicative language teaching (Little- may have been written. Finally, in the
wood, 2007), these approaches tend to em- third stage, independent construction, stu-
phasize the language that is required for dents create their own text based on the
transactional exchanges instead of empha- models and experiences gained in the rst
sizing conversational approaches that focus two stages. It is in the independent stage
on building interpersonal relations (Carless, that students take control of their language
2004; Furmanovsky, 2007; A. Martin, 2004; learning as well as play and experiment
Nadasdy, 2010; Nishino & Watanabe, with language (Painter, 2001; Paltridge,
2008). Given students lack of communica- 2001). In sum, J. Martin (1999) identied
tive ability when immersed in a homestay ve important characteristics of genre-
context, it appears that currently none of the based approaches: they present a visible
approaches seems to adequately prepare stu- pedagogy that indicates what topics are
dents for the types of conversation they will to be studied; they illustrate and outline
face in the homestay while overseas. how language use changes according to the
context; they view teaching as assistance,
or interdependence; they emphasize the
A Genre-Based Approach goal of teaching as empowering students;
In contrast, a genre-based approach to lan- and nally, they support analyses of how
guage teaching focuses on the social and texts are structured.
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 48, NO. 2 171

A Genre-Based Approach to IRF steps: a general answer (G); details (D); a

Conversational Structure personal experience that includes ones feel-
From a genre-based perspective, the IRF ings or an anecdote (F); and nally, a con-
conversational pattern is ideal: It exists as clusion (C) that can take the form of a
a specic type of authentic communicative comment or a question back to the listener.
text; by its nature is easily deconstructed The following example, taken from a pair
into component parts, or moves; and pro- activity that was used in an English lan-
vides a point of departure for analyzing, guage classroom in which Student 1 acted
practicing, and adopting the culturally spe- as the homestay student and Student 2 acted
cic style that is typically used by native as the host illustrates these four stages:
speakers of English. Student 1: What did you do, today?
Although triadic dialogue can some-
times be a tightly controlled formulaic se-
quence that in classroom settings generally Student 2: I had a maths test. It was um,
results in a maximum amount of teacher one-hour test, yes, um quite long. I think I
talk coupled with minimum student re- did well, but there were some questions
sponses (Thoms, 2012), it does have points that I didnt answer. Some of my friends in
of permeability (Gourlay, 2005, p. 415). the class also said that it was difcult. I
Since current research has suggested that might get my score tomorrow. Yes, um,
students will seldom make the rst move what did you do, today?
in a triadic exchangei.e., initiate a conver-
sationit is in the second move of an IRF- Student 1: Oh, I had a busy day. I went to
based conversation where students take the the bank, did some shopping and then
oor and could be taught to implicitly ne- came home and cooked dinner. Hey, tell
gotiate speaking space interdependently, me more about your math test, was it an
and thus extend communicative exchanges, important test?
with their hosts. Furthermore, by carefully
structuring the specic steps in the second Student 2s rst sentence, I had a
move, a teacher using a genre-based ap- maths test, provides a general, or direct,
proach provides the student with one of response to the initial question. The general
several choices: e.g., asking a question of step functions to introduce the students
the listener, implicitly requesting acknowl- response, and it is at this stage that most
edgment or follow-up by the listener, or Japanese learners of English would natural-
simply drawing the students communica- ly end the conversation. The second sen-
tive turn to a close. As Lee (2007) con- tence layers the general response by
tended, typical triadic dialogue offers an providing detailsin this case, how long
unforeseen range of possibilities by which the test was. The third sentence provides
conversations can be managed. the students feelings, specically develops
the students experience, and encapsulates
what is commonly termed low contextual
Teaching QS in the Second Move of nuances expressing ones individuality, or
an IRF Sequence identity (Gudykunst et al., 1996; Neulip,
In order to help students make the most of 2003). This use of a personal experience
their turn in the IRF conversational struc- or anecdote is generally representative of a
ture, teachers must explicitly instruct stu- native English-speaking conversational
dents in ways to structure and extend their style. The nal sentence, What did you
turn. This can be accomplished in a number do, today? functions to conclude the stu-
of ways, including teaching students to use dents turn and pass the speakers role to the
QS. Framing a students response in the listener. This rst example of a genre-based
second move using QS consists of four approach structures the second move of the
172 SUMMER 2015

three-part IRF structure as a continual and Method

uninterrupted ow of information and Context and Participants
frames the exchange with the implicit in- Eighty-four Japanese rst-year high school
tention of creating solidarity with Student 1. learners of English participated in this study.
Once students have analyzed and prac- All students were from a private school in
ticed this four-part approach to conversa- Kyoto, Japan. The rst 42 students were to
tion within the IRF second move, learners travel overseas to Canada and the United
may also be led to understand that the sec- States in August, approximately 4 months
ond move may be structured as a shorter into their school year, and a second class
series of single sentences and that, through- of 42 students were to travel to New Zealand
out the students response, there are a num- and Australia in December, approximately
ber of hooks or places that can be used as 8 months into their school year. Both groups
points of permeability (Gourlay, 2005) by of students would stay in their host country
the interlocutor; it is at these points that for an 11-month study abroad experience,
Student 1 can be taught to enter into and attend school overseas during this time, and
extend the conversation if so desired, such be housed in a homestay. The students were
that Student 1 can interact throughout Stu- all 15 years old when the school year began
dent 2s response rather than only at the in April; approximately 70% were females
conclusion of the four-step (quadratic) re- and 30% were males.
sponse turn. For example, responses from The 84 students were divided into two
Student 1 could range from comments such conversation classes of 42, determined by
as Oh my! One hour is a long time for a whether they would travel to the Northern
test, or Oh dear! I dont like math tests, or Southern Hemisphere; classes met three
but maybe youre better than me at math, times a week for 50 minutes over a total of
or questions such as Oh. Math. What is 8 weeks. Both classes were taught by the
your favorite subject at school? Both com- researcher (the current author) with assis-
ments and questions can then be used to tance from another teacher, who was also a
pass turns from Student 2 back to Student 1 native speaker of English. The researcher
on a more frequent basis by students mak- created the curriculum, provided the mate-
ing a series of implicit requests to continue rials, and scripted the teaching strategies,
and further develop the conversation. and often observed and discussed the les-
The study reported here investigated sons and the progress of the students with
the way in which direct instruction in the assistant to ensure that the same genre-
genre-based analysis affected students based, IRF, quadratic instructional format
conversations in the classroom prior to was consistently followed in both classes.
their embarking on the homestay. Speci- All of the 84 students continued to
cally, the approach taught students to an- practice QS using the same teaching process
alyze and practice QS (general described below in the Instruction section
statement details personal experience for a further 8 weeks prior to the departure
or anecdote concluding comment or of the Northern Hemisphere group of 42
question) in order to extend the second students for their study abroad experience,
move in IRF-based (triadic) conversations resulting in a total of 16 weeks of instruc-
that they would typically encounter when tion for both groups.
communicating with native speakers of
English. The study sought to determine
the impact of QS in the context of IRF- Interviews
based conversations on students ability to On the rst day of class, the researcher
extend their speech and thus participate in interviewed all of the 42 students in each
more culturally relevant ways during in- class one-on-one. Students understood that
terpersonal communication. the interview would not be graded; then
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 48, NO. 2 173

they were asked to respond to simple ques- For further structural practice, students
tions such as What did you do, today? were assigned analysis and reconstruction
What did you do, last night? What did tasks for homework based on conversations
you do in your club activity, yesterday? created by the teacher as well as the notes
These simple conversational starters were they took on other students model conver-
selected because they represented the kinds sations. In these homework assignments,
of questions that students would probably students followed the same procedures in
be asked by their host parents or friends class; that is, they reconstructed the con-
when overseas. When the conversation be- versations, labeled each feature (e.g., I
came strained, the researcher indirectly Initiation, R Response, G General Re-
closed the conversation by thanking the sponse, C Concluding Comment or
student and asking him or her to bring Question), and analyzed which speaker in
out the next student. This interview process the model conversation had the most turns
was repeated after 8 weeks of instruction. and talked the most. This instructional pat-
tern was used continually during each of the
three class sessions over a period of
Instruction 16 weeks for the rst group and 24 weeks
In the rst class sessions, instruction ad-
for the second group.
dressed common features related to home-
stay and conversational language, including
turn taking, control, and purpose. Differ- Data Collection and Analysis
ences between transactional and interper- The interviews were videorecorded. For anal-
sonal conversations were highlighted, and ysis purposes, every fourth students pre-as-
triadic dialogue was introduced. In short, sessment interview was selected, using
students were taught introductory skills alphabetical order in the gradebook, and tran-
usually associated with discourse and con- scribed, resulting in a total of 21 pre-assess-
versational analysis. In subsequent class ment transcriptions. Hesitations, laughing,
sessions, students analyzed and practiced and pauses for more than 3 seconds were
basic triadic dialogues, then worked with noted. Lines were then numbered for ease
the researcher to analyze model conversa- of reference, and students names were
tions in which QS was used as a possible tool changed to preserve their anonymity. Both
to expand the speakers conversational turn the researcher and assistant teacher then cod-
in the second move. Finally, pairs of stu- ed each of the transcripts using Gourlays IRF
dents role-played their own original conver- discourse coding scheme (2005, Appendix
sations using QS. During each class session, A), as adapted in Pryde (2014) to highlight
students practiced with a number of part- examples of the IRF conversational pattern.
ners and responded to a variety of open- Next, students second move within the iden-
ended prompts, such as What did you do tied IRF sequence was further coded to iso-
last night? as well as closed-question for- late features of QS: general statement (G),
mats such as Did you have a good day? details (D), feelings (F), and conclusion (C)
During follow-up analyses, students who or question (Q). Finally, the number of
had produced particularly rich conversa- words, phrases, and sentences within each
tions were asked to model them again for step of each students response within the
the whole class, after which the teacher and second move were categorized and counted.
class took notes and reconstructed the con- Similarly, teacher words, phrases, and senten-
versations in pairs, and then students ces for the four stages of the conversation
checked the same conversations in groups. were also counted. The same single word
Finally, pairs deconstructed the moves and repeated one after the other was counted as
commented on the conversational struc- a single word, and contractions were counted
tures or patterns used by the interlocutors. as if the words were uttered separately.
174 SUMMER 2015

Every third transcriptionmaking a postassessment conversations was 100%.

total of sevenout of the rst class of 21 Thus, an overall total of 28 pre- and post-
conversations was checked by the assistant assessment transcriptions out of the total of
teacher to make sure that the number of 84 conversations were double-coded for
words, phrases, and sentences, as well as reliability.
the IRF pattern and QS, were correctly cod- The following transcriptions illus-
ed. From the pre-assessment conversations, trate the way in which the data were cod-
there were no overall differences in the data ed. The role of each move within the
between the two coders, except for how two conversation is noted (I, R, F), and the
phrases were coded. These differences were numbers that follow indicate the total
discussed and amended. Therefore, the number of words, then phrases, and nal-
overall interrater reliability for the seven ly sentences used by the student and
pre-assessment conversations that were se- teacher. The total teacher words in the
lected from the total set of 21 conversations last follow-up move in the rst two con-
was 99.57%. Every third conversation was versations in April are bracketed because
also selected from the second class, which the study focused on how the student
also included 21 students, and the same responded in the second move and not
interrater reliability check was performed. on how the teacher followed up. The
There were no differences in scoring for bracketed totals have not been included
these seven conversations, yielding an in- in the nal total of teacher words.
terrater reliability of 100%. Taken together,
a total of 14 out of 42 possible pre-assess-
ment conversations were rated by both re-
Week 1 Pre-Assessment
viewers, and the overall interrater reliability Conversations (April 2014)

Example 1: S T
1. T: What did you do, today, Natsuki? (I) 6, 2, 1

2. S: I, I, um, I studied um, Japanese [3-second pause] um, yes. (R) 4, 2, 1

3. T: Oh, right. Did you like the class? (F) 6, 2, 1

4. S: Ah, I like the class. [5-second pause] (R2) 4, 2, 1

5. T: What did you like about it? (F2) 6, 2, 1

6. S: Ah, um, Japanese, um, kokugo [Japanese language] (R3) 2, 2, 1

7. T: Oh, I see, well, its good that you like it. OK, well, thank you.

(F3) [14, 4, 2]

Total number of words, phrases, sentences: 10, 6, 3 18, 6, 3

for words, phrases, and sentences was 95%. Example 2:

The same interview process was carried out Because the student was wearing his
after eight weeks of instruction with the baseball uniform, the conversation focused
same students. The data were coded in the on baseball practice and club activities.
same way and categorized as postassess- Note that ReqCl means a request for clar-
ment. The interrater reliability for the ication, and Ref means a reformulation.
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 48, NO. 2 175

Week 8 Postassessment
Conversations (July 2014)

S T
1. T: Oh, hi, Hiroshi, how are you today? (I) 6, 2, 1

2. S: Ah, fine thank you, and you? (R) 5, 2, 1

3. T: Im fine, thank you. Um, what did you do in your club this

morning? (I)

14, 5, 2

4. S: My club? (ReqCl) 2, 1, 1

5. T: Yes, your baseball club. What did you do? (I) (Ref) 8, 3, 2

6. S: Oh, um, I played baseball. (R) 3, 1, 1

7. T: Oh, good. Did you hit a home run? (F2) 6, 2, 2

8. S: Home run? (ReqCl) 1, 1, 1

9. T: Yes, did you hit a big home run? (F2) (Ref) 7, 3, 1

10. S: Oh, no, no (laughs). Um I did exercise. Yes, exercise only. (R2) 7, 4, 3

11. T: Oh, I see. (F2) [2, 1, 1]

Total number of words, phrases, sentences: 18, 9, 7 41, 15, 8

The following two examples were taken per week using both the IRF conversational
after eight weeks of instruction during framework and genre-based analysis.
which students practiced QS three times

Example 3: S T
1. T: Hi, Hiroko, what did you do, today? (I) 7, 3, 1

2. S: Oh, I had a P.E. class. It was in my first period, um, we went to the um, do you know

ground one? (R) 21, 6, 2

3. T: Yes, I know. (F) 3, 2, 1

4. S: Yes, we went to play running and doing jumping. Um, it was interesting

5. for me, but Im tired now. Ha ha, um, I want to sleep now. What did you do

today? (R) 29, 6, 4

Total number of words, phrases, sentences: 50, 12, 6 10, 5, 2

176 SUMMER 2015

Example 4: S T
1. T: Oh, hi Toshi, did you have a good day, today? (I) 9, 3, 2

2. S: Oh, hi Mr. Pryde, yes, I did, um, I practiced a song for my, um, kofusai,
um, oh, festival, yes, um it was good because I am the main person, so I have to

practice hard, but I like it because I like to sing. Um, a festival is in Japan, um,

3. here in [name of school] every year. Many people come, so its good for us. Yeah,

it was a good day. (R) 76, 14, 6

Total number of words, phrases, sentences: 76, 14, 6 9, 3, 2

Results
Use of Words, Phrases, and Sentences conversation ranged from 10 to 28 and av-
on the Pre- and Postassessments eraged 19 while the number of teacher
Data for all 42 conversations are presented words ranged from 23 to 37 and averaged
comparatively for students and teachers on 30 per conversation. In contrast, on the
the 21 pre-assessments (April) and 21 post- postassessment, student words ranged
assessments (July). from 54 to 94 and averaged 74. The number
In each of the 21 conversations, the of teacher words for the postassessment
teacher spoke more than the student in ranged from 23 to 37 and averaged 30. As
each category: words, phrases, and senten- shown in Figure 2, the average number of
ces (Figures, 1, 2, 3). As shown in Figure 1, student phrases increased from an average
on the pre-assessment, the total number of of 10 on the pre-assessment to 35 on the
student words uttered in a single postassessment, while the average number

FIGURE 1
Average Total Number of Words in April and July
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 48, NO. 2 177

FIGURE 2
Average Total Phrases in April and July

of teacher phrases on the pre-assessment Distribution of Students Speech

decreased from 14 to 4 on the postassess- Across the Four Parts of the
ment. Finally, as shown in Figure 3, the Conversation
average number of sentences that were spo- The total average of words, phrases, and
ken by students increased from 6 on the sentences can be further analyzed according
pre-assessment to 24 on the postassess- to their role in the four-part quadratic con-
ment, while the average number of teacher versational sequence (general statement,
sentences decreased from 8 on the pre- development of details, statement of feel-
assessment to three on the postassessment. ings, conclusion) for both the pre- and

FIGURE 3
Average Total Sentences in April and July
178 SUMMER 2015

postassessment conversations. Data are the teacher. Questions asked by the teacher
shown in Table 1. were short, such as, Did you play well? or
Anything more? The questions were
General Opening Response aimed to encourage the students to respond
On the pre-assessment, students short if they seemed to be nervous or were not
opening responses to the interviewers responding at all. On the pre-assessment,
open-ended question averaged four words. the average number of phrases used to pro-
Although one student responded with only vide additional details was 2.87 and the
the word club to the question What did average number of sentences was 1.34.
you do yesterday after school? students The students averaged 3.1 words for feel-
more frequently responded with a direct ings. In contrast, on the postassessment, the
response, such as I did club, or I went average number of words used to convey
to my club. The average number of phrases details and to elaborate on the opening
in the general opening response category statement was 36.86; phrases averaged
was 1.61, and the average number of sen- 11.87 and sentences averaged 9.2.
tences was 0.76. In contrast, on the post-
assessment, students geneneral opening Feelings or Personal Examples
responses to the interviewers rst open- Three students out of 21 did not provide any
ended question averaged 17.7 words. These information about their feelings on the pre-
17.7 words consisted of an average of 2.21 assessment; however, all of the students
phrases and 1.83 sentences. Students would stated their feelings in the postassessment.
often initiate the conversation by greeting One student used one phrase instead of a
the interviewer and then saying that they sentence, and 20 students expressed their
were nervous to do the interview but that feelings in a single sentence, such as Im
they would try to do their best. tired. On the postassessment, students in-
creased the average number of words used
Details and Elaboration to express their feelings and share personal
Most of the phrases occurred in the details examples to 14.57 words, 5.82 phrases, and
category in response to a second question by 4.52 sentences.

TABLE 1
Students Average Number of Words, Phrases, and Sentences Across
the Four Phases in the Conversation
General Details and Feelings or Concluding
opening elaboration personal statement or
response examples question

April Average
(words) 4.05 10.29 3.1 1.9
(phrases) 1.61 2.87 0.79 0
(sentences) 1.76 1.34 1.44 1.2

July Average
(words) 17.71 36.86 14.57 5.57
(phrases) 2.21 11.87 5.82 1.36
(sentences) 1.83 9.2 4.52 2.22
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 48, NO. 2 179

Concluding Statement or Question opening response on the pre-assessment

On the pre-assessment, the average number was 8.26, compared with 8.31 on the post-
of words that students used to bring the assessment. The average number of words
conversation to a conclusion was 1.9. Six and phrases did not vary signicantly from
of the 21 students offered just one word, the pre- to the postassessment. Because the
such as Yes, while six other students re- opening question was set at the beginning of
sponded with phrases. Three students sim- the interview, the total number of teacher
ply sat in silence until the teacher closed the words did not change signicantly from the
conversation. Two students concluded their pre-assessment to the postassessment.
speech and also asked a question back to the The total number of follow-up ques-
teacher. In contrast, on the postassessment, tions asked by the teacher in the pre-assess-
the total average of words in the conclusion ment interview was 3.65, compared with
category was 5.57. This was broken into an 0.94 on the postassessment. The composi-
averages of 1.35 phrases and 2.22 sentences. tion of these follow-up questions also varied
For the conclusion, four students rephrased signicantly from the pre- to the postassess-
the teachers opening initiation, such as ment. On the pre-assessment, the follow-up
Yes, so thats what I did after school, yes- questions comprised an average of 15.28
terday. Seven additional students conclud- words, compared with 2.43 words on the
ed with a comment and question, e.g., So, postasssessment; an average of 4.62 phrases
yeah, thats what I did. Um What did you compared with 1.37 phrases on the postas-
do, yesterday? The remaining students sessment; and 3.57 sentences compared
simplied their conclusion to Thats what with 1.23 sentences on the postassessment.
I did. In addition, all but three of the students did
The number of teacher questions used not need to be prompted by the teacher to
to prompt or expand their students re- expand their conversation. Six students re-
sponses is given, as well as the breakdown quired no direct prompting in the form of
of these questions into the total average follow-up questions following their general
number of words, phrases, and sentences, opening statement and for 12 students, the
in Table 2. The average number of words conversation transitioned smoothly from
that the teacher used to initiate the conver- the general opening statement through the
sation and launch students rst general details and elaboration phase, punctuated

TABLE 2
Average Number of Teacher Words in General and Follow-Up Questions
General opening Number of Breakdown of
response follow-up questions follow-up questions

April Average 3.65

(words) 8.26 15.28
(phrases) 3.63 4.62
(sentences) 1.38 3.57

July Average 0.94

(words) 8.31 2.43
(phrases) 5.22 1.37
(sentences) 1.41 1.23
180 SUMMER 2015

only by teacher comments such as That assessment data drew students attention
sounds good or Well done. to the IRF conversational structure and con-
rmed the importance of explicitly teaching
conversational structures that include inter-
Discussion personal hooks that call for further ques-
Pre-Assessment tioning or additional comments that expand
The pre-assessment results indicate that the conversation.
teachers were on average speaking one-and-
a-half times more than the students. Be-
cause the students limited number of words Postassessment
was divided across several attempts at con- On the postassessment, students spoke eight
versation by the interviewer and since most times more than their teacher. They initiated
of the students answers consisted of only the interview and increased the total number
one or two words, many of the conversa- of words in their general opening statements,
tions quickly became strained. In addition, as well as to express details and elaborations,
in these conversations, students did not to share feelings or anecdotes, and to con-
recognize that pauses in speech might serve clude the conversation. Postassessment data
as an indirect comment by the interviewer conrm that the focus on IRF conversational
that a longer and more expansive response structure in general, and genre-based analy-
was called for. In response to silence, the sis in particular, allowed students to better
students did not choose to continue the understand conversational roles and expect-
conversation. ations: Their analysis of, and comments on,
In addition, on the pre-assessment, stu- their peers conversations (metalinguistic
dents did not use any conversational struc- analysis) allowed them to better understand
ture to guide and extend the conversation. the extent to which conversations may be
The only exception to this was when one perceived as successful.
student replied, I went to club and played Overall, the genre-based approach to
American football, um, very tired, yeah. IRF-based conversations taught students
When prompted to say more, he replied, to learn and practice a framework that
I went with my friends, but then only would allow them to engage with their peers
when prompted a third time he added, and, during study abroad, with their host
He is good and concluded Yeah. The families, with the goal of maximizing op-
pre-assessment data conrm that students portunities for extended and meaningful
did not understand how to structure their communication. This approach provided
responses or construct their second move students with direct experience making spe-
using anything other than short, transac- cically structured changes in their use of
tional language. language based on that framework during
These pre-assessment data conrm stu- the second move of each conversational
dents lack of understanding of the cultur- exchange. Furthermore, the use of genre-
ally specic features of English based analysis taught listeners how to iden-
conversations. Specically, the data high- tify predictable and appropriate opportuni-
light the difference between transactional ties to extend the conversation by asking
and interpersonal dialogue. In addition, follow-up questions and redirecting the
the pre-assessment data expose how little conversation. In other words, because the
solidarity was created between the teacher approach prioritizes meaning and recog-
and the students. Thus, students pre-as- nizes that negotiation is an important part
sessment experiences provided a rich foun- of conversational management, students be-
dation for in-class discussions about the came adept at skillfully managing conversa-
purpose of communication in a homestay. tional moves and clarifying the speakers
What is more, analysis of the pre- speech. Overall, the genre-based approach
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 48, NO. 2 181

forced students to consciously analyze con- spoken skills prior to spending a year in a
versational structure, reect on their role homestay context abroad. Thus, future re-
during an oral interaction, and become search could investigate the effectiveness of
more adept at extending the interaction. the four-step conversational management
In addition, the use of genre-based approach with other groups of language
analysis and specic instruction in quadrat- learners and across a range of instructional
ic conversational structure served to frame contexts. It should also be recognized that
discourse into what Tannen (1984) referred the four-step conversational structure is not
to as a superordinate message about how universally applicable; thus, future research
communication is intended (p. 23) as well could focus on helping students to under-
as engage students in conversational turn stand in which contexts and daily situations
taking and help them develop metalinguis- within and beyond the homestay setting
tic awareness of how conversations operate. short, transactional language may in fact
Furthermore, the approach empowered stu- be more appropriate. Finally, future re-
dents to elaborate using personal knowl- search might investigate the impact of the
edge and experiences, and thus to add teacher-student relationship and the free-
their personal voice (Malinowski, 1967; dom to experiment with language without
Tannen, 1994) and develop personal and fear of the overt and sometimes frequent
stylistic conversational strategies. In so do- correction that characterizes many English
ing, students were able to bid for emotional classes in Japan on students willingness to
solidarity and vocalize aspects of the social use language more creatively and
self that might otherwise remain undis- expansively.
closed (Svennevig, 1999), thus venturing
into deeper interpersonal relations that tar-
get what Maynard and Zimmerman (1984)
Conclusion
This research investigated the effectiveness
referred to as common territories of self
of a direct and teachable classroom ap-
(p. 314). The genre-based instructional ap-
proach to alleviating the concurrent prob-
proach also provided instructors with an
lems associated with students lack of
educational tool that may be used to guide
conversational ability and minimal inter-
curriculum development and instructional
personal involvement with their hosts dur-
activities.
ing a homestay. Data reported above
demonstrated the effectiveness of a genre-
Future Research based approach to conversation manage-
Although this study illustrates that QS is ment that focused on the analysis of IRF-
benecial to prepare students for homestay based conversations as well as direct in-
situations, the study is not a tightly con- struction in a four-part approach to extend-
trolled experiment that empirically mea- ing the second move. This article has
sured students gains in English demonstrated that a move away from tradi-
prociency. Future research could utilize tional approaches that primarily emphasize
standard assessment procedures, such as grammar and vocabulary in favor of the
the ACTFLs Oral Prociency Interview genre-based approach outlined here offers
(OPI), computerized OPI, or Assessment what is potentially a more advantageous
of Performance Toward Prociency in Lan- instructional approach to helping students
guages. In addition, prior to taking the to understand that conversation involves
course described here, participants in this more than using simple phrases and that
study had a basic knowledge of English conversation implicitly serves to build soli-
vocabulary and grammar, a modest level darity and interpersonal relationships. It is
of interpersonal conversational ability, and hoped that the genre-based approach will
a strong personal interest in improving their thus more successfully prepare students for
182 SUMMER 2015

meaningful and engaging communication Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998).
across a range of contexts, including the Developments in English for specic purposes: A
multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge, UK:
homestay experience. Cambridge University Press.
Furmanovsky, M. (2007). Making sense of the
ryugakusei experience: Japanese students reec-
References tions of classroom and homestay-based intercul-
Abbaszadeh, Z. (2013). Genre-based ap- tural experiences in a short term Australian
proach and second language syllabus design. university language centre program. Retrieved
Procedia, 84, 18791884. August 17, 2014, from http://repo.lib.ryu-
koku.ac.jp/jspui/bitstream/10519/2943/1/
Aspinall, R. W. (2013). International education KJ00004863412.pdf
policy in Japan in an age of globalisation and
risk. Leiden, the Netherlands: Global Oriental. Gorsuch, G. J. (1998). Yakudoku EFL instruc-
tion in two Japanese high school classrooms:
Augustien, H. I. R. (2006). Genre-based ap- An exploratory study. JALT, 20, 633.
proach and the 2004 English curriculum. Re-
trieved November, 18, 2014, from https:// Gourlay, L. (2005). OK, whos got number one?
aguswuryanto.les.wordpress.com/2008/09/ Permeable triadic dialogue, covert participation
helena-paper2.doc and the co-construction of checking episodes.
Language Teaching Research, 9, 403422.
Bhatia, V. (1991). A genre-based approach to
ESP materials. World Englishes, 10, 153166. Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Too-
mey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S.
Bosher, S., & Smalkoski, K. (2002). From (1996). The inuence of cultural individual-
needs analysis to curriculum development: ism-collectivism, self-construals, and individ-
Designing a course in health-care communi- ual values on communication styles across
cation for immigrant students in the USA. cultures. Human Communication Research,
English for Specic Purposes, 21, 5979. 22, 510543.
Bradford-Watts, K. (2003). What is genre and Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988).
why is it useful for language teachers? JALT Culture and interpersonal communication.
Journal. Retrieved January 7, 2015, from Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
http://www.publications.org/tlt/articles/2003/
05/index Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (1998). An
evaluation of a genre-based approach to the
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the teaching of EAP/ESP writing. TESOL Journal,
spoken language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 32, 147156.
University Press.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer respon-
Bruner, J. (1978). The role of dialogue in sibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B.
language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R. Jar- Kaplan, Writing across languages: Analysis of
vella, & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), The childs L2 written text (pp. 141152). Reading, MA:
conception of language (pp. 241256). New Addison-Wesley.
York: Springer-Verlag.
Itakura, H. (2001). Describing conversational domi-
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers reinter- nance. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 18591880.
pretation of a task-based innovation in prima-
ry schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 639662. Lee, Y.-A. (2007). Third turn position in
teacher talk: Contingency and the work of
Coupland, J., Coupland, N., & Robinson, J. teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 180206.
(1992). How are you? Negotiating phatic
communion. Language in Society, 21, 207230. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics.
London: Longman.
Cowling, J. D. (2007). Needs analysis: Plan-
ning a syllabus for a series of intensive work- Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language,
place courses at a leading Japanese company. learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
English for Specic Purposes, 26, 426442. Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and
Derewianka, B. (2003). Trends and issues in task-based language teaching in East Asian
genre-based approaches. RELC Journal, 34, classrooms. Language Learning, 40, 243249.
133154. Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (2013). Intercul-
Dudley-Evans, T. (1987). Genre analysis and tural competence (7th ed.). Upper Saddle Riv-
ESP. ELR Journal, 1, 19. er, NJ: Pearson.
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 48, NO. 2 183

Malinowski, B. (1967). The problem of mean- Painter, C. (2001). Understanding genre and
ing in primitive languages [Supplement]. In register: Implications for language teaching.
C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards, The meaning of In A. Burns & C. Cofn (Eds.), Analysing
meaning (pp. 146152). London: Routledge English in a global context (pp. 167180). Lon-
and Kegan Paul. don: Routledge.
Martin, A. (2004). The katakana effect and Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language
teaching English in Japan. English Today, 77, learning classroom. Ann Arbor: University of
5055. Michigan Press.
Martin, J. (1999). Mentoring semogenesis: Pryde, M. (2014). Conversational patterns of
Genre-based literacy pedagogy. In F. Chris- homestay hosts and study abroad students.
tie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of con- Foreign Language Annals, doi:10.1111/
sciousness (pp. 123155). London: an.12100
Continuum. Retrieved November 17, 2014,
Ritchie, G. (2003). Presentation-practice-
from http://www.isa.org/Systemics/Print/
production and task-based learning in the
MartinPapers/BC-1999-Mentoring%20semo-
light of second language learning theories.
genesis%20genre-based%20literacy%20ped-
English Teacher: An International Journal, 6,
agog.pdf
112124.
Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). To-
(1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social or-
wards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford
ganisation of relationships. Social Psychology
University Press.
Quarterly, 47, 301316.
Svennevig, J. (1999). Getting acquainted in
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sci-
conversation: A study of initial interactions. Am-
ence, and Technology. (2012). English educa-
sterdam: John Benjamins.
tion reform plan corresponding to globalization.
Retrieved September 1, 2014, from http:// Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Ana-
www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/__icsFiles/ lyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
aeldle/2014/01/23/1343591_1.pdf
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Ox-
Nadasdy, P. B. (2010). A classroom based re- ford: Oxford University Press.
search project incorporating English for special
Thoms, J. J. (2012). Classroom discourse in
purposes (ESP) methodology preparing Japa-
foreign language classrooms. A review of the
nese students for homestay in Australia. Bulletin
literature. Foreign Language Annals, 45, 827.
of Niigata University of International and Infor-
mation Studies. Retrieved August 16, 2014, from van Lier, L. (2001). Constraints and resources
http://ci.nii.ac.jp/els/110007594984.pdf? in classroom talk: Issues of equality and sym-
idART0009412830&typepdf&langen&- metry. In C. N. Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.),
hostcinii&order_no&ppv_type0&lang_- English language teaching in its social context
sw&no1408182282&cp (pp. 90107). London: Routledge.
Neulip, J. W. (2003). Intercultural communi- Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The de-
cation. New York: Houghton Mifin. velopment of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nishino, T., & Watanabe, M. (2008). Com-
munication-oriented policies versus class-
room realities in Japan. TESOL Quarterly,
42, 133138. Submitted September 14, 2014
Nunan, D. (1993). Introducing discourse anal- Accepted February 15, 2015
ysis. New York: Penguin.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.