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
and follow-up (IRF; Sinclair & Coulthard,
1975):
1. Host: Oh, hi, Yumi
2. Student: Hi, Mum
3. Host: What did you do, today?
4. Student: I had a maths test.
5. Host: Oh, I see.
First, the above conversation illustrates
triadic dialogue (Lemke, 1990), a conversa-
tional structure that is commonly used in
the classroom (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975)
and consists of the initiating move I, a
response R, and a follow-up move F, exchanges and participate to a much greater
which sometimes consists of a comment
although in classroom settings it also often
includes an evaluation move E. Sinclair
and Coulthard (1975) recognized that the
initiator of the conversation (in the above
example, the host) usually takes control of
directing the conversation, termed sequen-
tial dominance (Itakura, 2001). Although
students are encouraged to take control and
initiate conversation in the rst move, Japa-
nese students often wait to be spoken to
rather than speaking rst (Pryde, 2014;
van Lier, 2001). If students fall into stereo-
typically replying to initiations, then they
consequently have limited control to direct
the course of the conversation. Second, in
this example, when offered a turn in the
conversation, the student used a short, di-
rect conversational style, reminiscent of
transactional language exchanges involving
goods and services (Brown & Yule, 1983).
Pryde (2014) found that triadic dia-
logue in homestay settings was often per-
ceived negatively by members of the host
family because hosts felt that the responsi-
bility for extending the conversation and
thus supporting students language learning
by pursuing further questioning fell primar-
ily to them. As a consequence, in later stages
of the homestay, hosts often limited their
third move to mere acknowledgment, such
as Oh, I see, or, in worst case scenarios,
even refrained from initiating conversation
with the homestay student altogether. In
addition, the students use of short,
169
transactional language in the above example
may indicate that the student misunder-
stood the intention of the hosts initiating
questionto build solidarity and indicate
belongingness to the family through exten-
sive dialogue (Coupland, Coupland, &
Robinson, 1992; Leech, 1983; Nunan,
1993).
This study approached this issue from a
genre-based perspective, with the goal of
determining the extent to which learners
in the English as a foreign language class-
room could more effectively embrace En-
glish-speaking norms for conversational
degree in interpersonal communication.
The specic tool under investigation,
termed quadratic structure (QS), was de-
signed to help students recognize rhetorical
organization and linguistic features within
social contexts (Bhatia, 1991; Dudley-
Evans, 1987), including, e.g., the classroom
and homestay context, and to strengthen
students responses in the second move
within the IRF sequence.
Literature Review
Learning to speak another language is cultur-
ally dependent (Lustig & Koester, 2013). For
example, English conversation is sometimes
termed a speaker-responsible language,
where the speaker is expected to provide
specic meaning. This conversational pattern
is contrasted to Japanese, which is usually
termed a listener-responsible language,
whereby the speaker states information indi-
rectly; thus, the responsibility is placed on the
listener to understand and interpret (Hinds,
1987). Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988)
categorized conversational style in four di-
mensions: direct-indirect, elaborate-succinct,
personal-contextual, and instrumental-affec-
tual. Japanese culture relies on the latter half
of the aforementioned characteristics to a
greater extent than does English as it is
used across a range of English-speaking cul-
tures; namely, Japanese conversational style
is characterized by being indirect, succinct,
contextual, and affectual in naturehence, a
170
listener-responsible language. It is not dif-
cult to imagine the conversational anomalies
that will inherently arise when Japanese stu-
dents are faced with having to converse using
a conversational style that is signicantly dif-
ferent from their own while in an English-
speaking homestay.
English as a Second Language in
Japan
Japanese curriculum and course designers
have stressed that curriculum must be de-
signed around the language that they envis-
age students will need (Bosher & Smalkoski,
2002; Cowling, 2007; Dudley-Evans & St.
John, 1998) while still meeting the expect-
ations, guidelines, and requirements of the
Japanese Ministry of Education (Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and
Technology, 2012). However, in many in-
structional settings, due to factors such as
minimal student contact time and large clas-
ses, curriculum and instruction often rely on
traditional grammar/translation approaches
and techniques (Aspinall, 2013; Gorsuch,
1998). Furthermore, although some schools
and programs employ other approaches,
such as the presentation, practice, and pro-
duction model (Ritchie, 2003) or task-based
language teaching under the umbrella of
communicative language teaching (Little-
wood, 2007), these approaches tend to em-
phasize the language that is required for
transactional exchanges instead of empha-
sizing conversational approaches that focus
on building interpersonal relations (Carless,
2004; Furmanovsky, 2007; A. Martin, 2004;
Nadasdy, 2010; Nishino & Watanabe,
2008). Given students lack of communica-
tive ability when immersed in a homestay
context, it appears that currently none of the
approaches seems to adequately prepare stu-
dents for the types of conversation they will
face in the homestay while overseas.
A Genre-Based Approach
In contrast, a genre-based approach to lan-
guage teaching focuses on the social and
SUMMER 2015
cultural context in which language is used
and specically examines the format (rhe-
torical organization) and lexico-grammati-
cal functions of specic types of texts
(Bradford-Watts, 2003; Paltridge, 2001).
Genre-based models emphasize meaning-
ful and purposeful interaction between
teachers and students with the aim of pro-
viding learning experiences that allow
learners to use, analyze, and reect on
the use of language (Abbaszadeh, 2013;
Augustien, 2006; Henry & Roseberry,
1998). These models often describe a se-
ries of pedagogical stages that serve to
scaffold students learning through their
interactions with more knowledgeable
peers or teachers (Bruner, 1978; Vygotsky,
1978). These stages usually include build-
ing knowledge of the eld, joint construc-
tion of knowledge, and independent
student construction of knowledge (J.
Martin, 1999). In the rst stage (building
knowledge), teachers scaffold relevant vo-
cabulary and assist students in their inves-
tigations of particular topics, such as cross-
cultural issues, power relations, or gender
(Derewianka, 2003; Tannen, 1994). In the
second stage, joint construction, teachers
work with students to identify the features
of a particular textual structure or reect
on whom or for what purposes the text
may have been written. Finally, in the
third stage, independent construction, stu-
dents create their own text based on the
models and experiences gained in the rst
two stages. It is in the independent stage
that students take control of their language
learning as well as play and experiment
with language (Painter, 2001; Paltridge,
2001). In sum, J. Martin (1999) identied
ve important characteristics of genre-
based approaches: they present a visible
pedagogy that indicates what topics are
to be studied; they illustrate and outline
how language use changes according to the
context; they view teaching as assistance,
or interdependence; they emphasize the
goal of teaching as empowering students;
and nally, they support analyses of how
texts are structured.
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 48, NO. 2
A Genre-Based Approach to IRF
Conversational Structure
From a genre-based perspective, the IRF
conversational pattern is ideal: It exists as
a specic type of authentic communicative
text; by its nature is easily deconstructed
into component parts, or moves; and pro-
vides a point of departure for analyzing,
practicing, and adopting the culturally spe-
cic style that is typically used by native
speakers of English.
Although triadic dialogue can some-
times be a tightly controlled formulaic se-
quence that in classroom settings generally
results in a maximum amount of teacher
talk coupled with minimum student re-
sponses (Thoms, 2012), it does have points
of permeability (Gourlay, 2005, p. 415).
Since current research has suggested that
students will seldom make the rst move
in a triadic exchangei.e., initiate a conver-
sationit is in the second move of an IRF-
based conversation where students take the
oor and could be taught to implicitly ne-
gotiate speaking space interdependently,
and thus extend communicative exchanges,
with their hosts. Furthermore, by carefully
structuring the specic steps in the second
move, a teacher using a genre-based ap-
proach provides the student with one of
several choices: e.g., asking a question of
the listener, implicitly requesting acknowl-
edgment or follow-up by the listener, or
simply drawing the students communica-
tive turn to a close. As Lee (2007) con-
tended, typical triadic dialogue offers an
unforeseen range of possibilities by which
conversations can be managed.
Teaching QS in the Second Move of
an IRF Sequence
In order to help students make the most of
their turn in the IRF conversational struc-
ture, teachers must explicitly instruct stu-
dents in ways to structure and extend their
turn. This can be accomplished in a number
of ways, including teaching students to use
QS. Framing a students response in the
second move using QS consists of four
171
steps: a general answer (G); details (D); a
personal experience that includes ones feel-
ings or an anecdote (F); and nally, a con-
clusion (C) that can take the form of a
comment or a question back to the listener.
The following example, taken from a pair
activity that was used in an English lan-
guage classroom in which Student 1 acted
as the homestay student and Student 2 acted
as the host illustrates these four stages:
Student 1: What did you do, today?
Student 2: I had a maths test. It was um,
one-hour test, yes, um quite long. I think I
did well, but there were some questions
that I didnt answer. Some of my friends in
the class also said that it was difcult. I
might get my score tomorrow. Yes, um,
what did you do, today?
Student 1: Oh, I had a busy day. I went to
the bank, did some shopping and then
came home and cooked dinner. Hey, tell
me more about your math test, was it an
important test?
Student 2s rst sentence, I had a
maths test, provides a general, or direct,
response to the initial question. The general
step functions to introduce the students
response, and it is at this stage that most
Japanese learners of English would natural-
ly end the conversation. The second sen-
tence layers the general response by
providing detailsin this case, how long
the test was. The third sentence provides
the students feelings, specically develops
the students experience, and encapsulates
what is commonly termed low contextual
nuances expressing ones individuality, or
identity (Gudykunst et al., 1996; Neulip,
2003). This use of a personal experience
or anecdote is generally representative of a
native English-speaking conversational
style. The nal sentence, What did you
do, today? functions to conclude the stu-
dents turn and pass the speakers role to the
listener. This rst example of a genre-based
approach structures the second move of the
172
three-part IRF structure as a continual and
uninterrupted ow of information and
frames the exchange with the implicit in-
tention of creating solidarity with Student 1.
Once students have analyzed and prac-
ticed this four-part approach to conversa-
tion within the IRF second move, learners
may also be led to understand that the sec-
ond move may be structured as a shorter
series of single sentences and that, through-
out the students response, there are a num-
ber of hooks or places that can be used as
points of permeability (Gourlay, 2005) by
the interlocutor; it is at these points that
Student 1 can be taught to enter into and
extend the conversation if so desired, such
that Student 1 can interact throughout Stu-
dent 2s response rather than only at the
conclusion of the four-step (quadratic) re-
sponse turn. For example, responses from
Student 1 could range from comments such
as Oh my! One hour is a long time for a
test, or Oh dear! I dont like math tests,
but maybe youre better than me at math,
or questions such as Oh. Math. What is
your favorite subject at school? Both com-
ments and questions can then be used to
pass turns from Student 2 back to Student 1
on a more frequent basis by students mak-
ing a series of implicit requests to continue
and further develop the conversation.
The study reported here investigated
the way in which direct instruction in
genre-based analysis affected students
conversations in the classroom prior to
their embarking on the homestay. Speci-
cally, the approach taught students to an-
alyze and practice QS (general
statement details personal experience
or anecdote concluding comment or
question) in order to extend the second
move in IRF-based (triadic) conversations
that they would typically encounter when
communicating with native speakers of
English. The study sought to determine
the impact of QS in the context of IRF-
based conversations on students ability to
extend their speech and thus participate in
more culturally relevant ways during in-
terpersonal communication.
SUMMER 2015
Method
Context and Participants
Eighty-four Japanese rst-year high school
learners of English participated in this study.
All students were from a private school in
Kyoto, Japan. The rst 42 students were to
travel overseas to Canada and the United
States in August, approximately 4 months
into their school year, and a second class
of 42 students were to travel to New Zealand
and Australia in December, approximately
8 months into their school year. Both groups
of students would stay in their host country
for an 11-month study abroad experience,
attend school overseas during this time, and
be housed in a homestay. The students were
all 15 years old when the school year began
in April; approximately 70% were females
and 30% were males.
The 84 students were divided into two
conversation classes of 42, determined by
whether they would travel to the Northern
or Southern Hemisphere; classes met three
times a week for 50 minutes over a total of
8 weeks. Both classes were taught by the
researcher (the current author) with assis-
tance from another teacher, who was also a
native speaker of English. The researcher
created the curriculum, provided the mate-
rials, and scripted the teaching strategies,
and often observed and discussed the les-
sons and the progress of the students with
the assistant to ensure that the same genre-
based, IRF, quadratic instructional format
was consistently followed in both classes.
All of the 84 students continued to
practice QS using the same teaching process
described below in the Instruction section
for a further 8 weeks prior to the departure
of the Northern Hemisphere group of 42
students for their study abroad experience,
resulting in a total of 16 weeks of instruc-
tion for both groups.
Interviews
On the rst day of class, the researcher
interviewed all of the 42 students in each
class one-on-one. Students understood that
the interview would not be graded; then
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 48, NO. 2
they were asked to respond to simple ques-
tions such as What did you do, today?
What did you do, last night? What did
you do in your club activity, yesterday?
These simple conversational starters were
selected because they represented the kinds
of questions that students would probably
be asked by their host parents or friends
when overseas. When the conversation be-
came strained, the researcher indirectly
closed the conversation by thanking the
student and asking him or her to bring
out the next student. This interview process
was repeated after 8 weeks of instruction.
Instruction
In the rst class sessions, instruction ad-
dressed common features related to home-
stay and conversational language, including
turn taking, control, and purpose. Differ-
ences between transactional and interper-
sonal conversations were highlighted, and
triadic dialogue was introduced. In short,
students were taught introductory skills
usually associated with discourse and con-
versational analysis. In subsequent class
sessions, students analyzed and practiced
basic triadic dialogues, then worked with
the researcher to analyze model conversa-
tions in which QS was used as a possible tool
to expand the speakers conversational turn
in the second move. Finally, pairs of stu-
dents role-played their own original conver-
sations using QS. During each class session,
students practiced with a number of part-
ners and responded to a variety of open-
ended prompts, such as What did you do
last night? as well as closed-question for-
mats such as Did you have a good day?
During follow-up analyses, students who
had produced particularly rich conversa-
tions were asked to model them again for
the whole class, after which the teacher and
class took notes and reconstructed the con-
versations in pairs, and then students
checked the same conversations in groups.
Finally, pairs deconstructed the moves and
commented on the conversational struc-
tures or patterns used by the interlocutors.
173
For further structural practice, students
were assigned analysis and reconstruction
tasks for homework based on conversations
created by the teacher as well as the notes
they took on other students model conver-
sations. In these homework assignments,
students followed the same procedures in
class; that is, they reconstructed the con-
versations, labeled each feature (e.g., I
Initiation, R Response, G General Re-
sponse, C Concluding Comment or
Question), and analyzed which speaker in
the model conversation had the most turns
and talked the most. This instructional pat-
tern was used continually during each of the
three class sessions over a period of
16 weeks for the rst group and 24 weeks
for the second group.
Data Collection and Analysis
The interviews were videorecorded. For anal-
ysis purposes, every fourth students pre-as-
sessment interview was selected, using
alphabetical order in the gradebook, and tran-
scribed, resulting in a total of 21 pre-assess-
ment transcriptions. Hesitations, laughing,
and pauses for more than 3 seconds were
noted. Lines were then numbered for ease
of reference, and students names were
changed to preserve their anonymity. Both
the researcher and assistant teacher then cod-
ed each of the transcripts using Gourlays IRF
discourse coding scheme (2005, Appendix
A), as adapted in Pryde (2014) to highlight
examples of the IRF conversational pattern.
Next, students second move within the iden-
tied IRF sequence was further coded to iso-
late features of QS: general statement (G),
details (D), feelings (F), and conclusion (C)
or question (Q). Finally, the number of
words, phrases, and sentences within each
step of each students response within the
second move were categorized and counted.
Similarly, teacher words, phrases, and senten-
ces for the four stages of the conversation
were also counted. The same single word
repeated one after the other was counted as
a single word, and contractions were counted
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
conversations was checked by the assistant
teacher to make sure that the number of
words, phrases, and sentences, as well as
the IRF pattern and QS, were correctly cod-
ed. From the pre-assessment conversations,
there were no overall differences in the data
between the two coders, except for how two
phrases were coded. These differences were
discussed and amended. Therefore, the
overall interrater reliability for the seven
pre-assessment conversations that were se-
lected from the total set of 21 conversations
was 99.57%. Every third conversation was
also selected from the second class, which
also included 21 students, and the same
interrater reliability check was performed.
There were no differences in scoring for
these seven conversations, yielding an in-
terrater reliability of 100%. Taken together,
a total of 14 out of 42 possible pre-assess-
ment conversations were rated by both re-
viewers, and the overall interrater reliability
Thus, an overall total of 28 pre- and post-
assessment transcriptions out of the total of
84 conversations were double-coded for
reliability.
The following transcriptions illus-
trate the way in which the data were cod-
ed. The role of each move within the
conversation is noted (I, R, F), and the
numbers that follow indicate the total
number of words, then phrases, and nal-
ly sentences used by the student and
teacher. The total teacher words in the
last follow-up move in the rst two con-
versations in April are bracketed because
the study focused on how the student
responded in the second move and not
on how the teacher followed up. The
bracketed totals have not been included
in the nal total of teacher words.
Week 1 Pre-Assessment
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
after eight weeks of instruction with the
same students. The data were coded in the
same way and categorized as postassess-
ment. The interrater reliability for the
Because the student was wearing his
baseball uniform, the conversation focused
on baseball practice and club activities.
Note that ReqCl means a request for clar-
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
on the Pre- and Postassessments
Data for all 42 conversations are presented
comparatively for students and teachers on
the 21 pre-assessments (April) and 21 post-
assessments (July).
In each of the 21 conversations, the
teacher spoke more than the student in
each category: words, phrases, and senten-
ces (Figures, 1, 2, 3). As shown in Figure 1,
on the pre-assessment, the total number of
student words uttered in a single
conversation ranged from 10 to 28 and av-
eraged 19 while the number of teacher
words ranged from 23 to 37 and averaged
30 per conversation. In contrast, on the
postassessment, student words ranged
from 54 to 94 and averaged 74. The number
of teacher words for the postassessment
ranged from 23 to 37 and averaged 30. As
shown in Figure 2, the average number of
student phrases increased from an average
of 10 on the pre-assessment to 35 on the
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-
ment. Finally, as shown in Figure 3, the
average number of sentences that were spo-
ken by students increased from 6 on the
pre-assessment to 24 on the postassess-
ment, while the average number of teacher
sentences decreased from 8 on the pre-
assessment to three on the postassessment.
Across the Four Parts of the
Conversation
The total average of words, phrases, and
sentences can be further analyzed according
to their role in the four-part quadratic con-
versational sequence (general statement,
development of details, statement of feel-
ings, conclusion) for both the pre- and

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

postassessment conversations. Data are
shown in Table 1.
General Opening Response
On the pre-assessment, students short
opening responses to the interviewers
open-ended question averaged four words.
Although one student responded with only
the word club to the question What did
you do yesterday after school? students
more frequently responded with a direct
response, such as I did club, or I went
to my club. The average number of phrases
in the general opening response category
was 1.61, and the average number of sen-
tences was 0.76. In contrast, on the post-
assessment, students geneneral opening
responses to the interviewers rst open-
ended question averaged 17.7 words. These
17.7 words consisted of an average of 2.21
phrases and 1.83 sentences. Students would
often initiate the conversation by greeting
the interviewer and then saying that they
were nervous to do the interview but that
they would try to do their best.
Details and Elaboration
Most of the phrases occurred in the details
category in response to a second question by
the teacher. Questions asked by the teacher
were short, such as, Did you play well? or
Anything more? The questions were
aimed to encourage the students to respond
if they seemed to be nervous or were not
responding at all. On the pre-assessment,
the average number of phrases used to pro-
vide additional details was 2.87 and the
average number of sentences was 1.34.
The students averaged 3.1 words for feel-
ings. In contrast, on the postassessment, the
average number of words used to convey
details and to elaborate on the opening
statement was 36.86; phrases averaged
11.87 and sentences averaged 9.2.
Feelings or Personal Examples
Three students out of 21 did not provide any
information about their feelings on the pre-
assessment; however, all of the students
stated their feelings in the postassessment.
One student used one phrase instead of a
sentence, and 20 students expressed their
feelings in a single sentence, such as Im
tired. On the postassessment, students in-
creased the average number of words used
to express their feelings and share personal
examples to 14.57 words, 5.82 phrases, and
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
Concluding Statement or Question
On the pre-assessment, the average number
of words that students used to bring the
conversation to a conclusion was 1.9. Six
of the 21 students offered just one word,
such as Yes, while six other students re-
sponded with phrases. Three students sim-
ply sat in silence until the teacher closed the
conversation. Two students concluded their
speech and also asked a question back to the
teacher. In contrast, on the postassessment,
the total average of words in the conclusion
category was 5.57. This was broken into an
averages of 1.35 phrases and 2.22 sentences.
For the conclusion, four students rephrased
the teachers opening initiation, such as
Yes, so thats what I did after school, yes-
terday. Seven additional students conclud-
ed with a comment and question, e.g., So,
yeah, thats what I did. Um What did you
do, yesterday? The remaining students
simplied their conclusion to Thats what
I did.
The number of teacher questions used
to prompt or expand their students re-
sponses is given, as well as the breakdown
of these questions into the total average
number of words, phrases, and sentences,
in Table 2. The average number of words
that the teacher used to initiate the conver-
sation and launch students rst general
TABLE 2
Average Number of Teacher Words in General and Follow-Up Questions
General opening
response follow-up questions follow-up questions
April Average
(words) 8.26
(phrases) 3.63
(sentences) 1.38
July Average
(words) 8.31
(phrases) 5.22
(sentences) 1.41
179
opening response on the pre-assessment
was 8.26, compared with 8.31 on the post-
assessment. The average number of words
and phrases did not vary signicantly from
the pre- to the postassessment. Because the
opening question was set at the beginning of
the interview, the total number of teacher
words did not change signicantly from the
pre-assessment to the postassessment.
The total number of follow-up ques-
tions asked by the teacher in the pre-assess-
ment interview was 3.65, compared with
0.94 on the postassessment. The composi-
tion of these follow-up questions also varied
signicantly from the pre- to the postassess-
ment. On the pre-assessment, the follow-up
questions comprised an average of 15.28
words, compared with 2.43 words on the
postasssessment; an average of 4.62 phrases
compared with 1.37 phrases on the postas-
sessment; and 3.57 sentences compared
with 1.23 sentences on the postassessment.
In addition, all but three of the students did
not need to be prompted by the teacher to
expand their conversation. Six students re-
quired no direct prompting in the form of
follow-up questions following their general
opening statement and for 12 students, the
conversation transitioned smoothly from
the general opening statement through the
details and elaboration phase, punctuated
Number of Breakdown of
3.65
15.28
4.62
3.57
0.94
2.43
1.37
1.23
180
only by teacher comments such as That
sounds good or Well done.
Discussion
Pre-Assessment
The pre-assessment results indicate that the
teachers were on average speaking one-and-
a-half times more than the students. Be-
cause the students limited number of words
was divided across several attempts at con-
versation by the interviewer and since most
of the students answers consisted of only
one or two words, many of the conversa-
tions quickly became strained. In addition,
in these conversations, students did not
recognize that pauses in speech might serve
as an indirect comment by the interviewer
that a longer and more expansive response
was called for. In response to silence, the
students did not choose to continue the
conversation.
In addition, on the pre-assessment, stu-
dents did not use any conversational struc-
ture to guide and extend the conversation.
The only exception to this was when one
student replied, I went to club and played
American football, um, very tired, yeah.
When prompted to say more, he replied,
I went with my friends, but then only
when prompted a third time he added,
He is good and concluded Yeah. The
pre-assessment data conrm that students
did not understand how to structure their
responses or construct their second move
using anything other than short, transac-
tional language.
These pre-assessment data conrm stu-
dents lack of understanding of the cultur-
ally specic features of English
conversations. Specically, the data high-
light the difference between transactional
and interpersonal dialogue. In addition,
the pre-assessment data expose how little
solidarity was created between the teacher
and the students. Thus, students pre-as-
sessment experiences provided a rich foun-
dation for in-class discussions about the
purpose of communication in a homestay.
What is more, analysis of the pre-
SUMMER 2015
assessment data drew students attention
to the IRF conversational structure and con-
rmed the importance of explicitly teaching
conversational structures that include inter-
personal hooks that call for further ques-
tioning or additional comments that expand
conversation.
Postassessment
On the postassessment, students spoke eight
times more than their teacher. They initiated
the interview and increased the total number
of words in their general opening statements,
as well as to express details and elaborations,
to share feelings or anecdotes, and to con-
clude the conversation. Postassessment data
conrm that the focus on IRF conversational
structure in general, and genre-based analy-
sis in particular, allowed students to better
understand conversational roles and expect-
ations: Their analysis of, and comments on,
their peers conversations (metalinguistic
analysis) allowed them to better understand
the extent to which conversations may be
perceived as successful.
Overall, the genre-based approach to
IRF-based conversations taught students
to learn and practice a framework that
would allow them to engage with their peers
and, during study abroad, with their host
families, with the goal of maximizing op-
portunities for extended and meaningful
communication. This approach provided
students with direct experience making spe-
cically structured changes in their use of
language based on that framework during
the second move of each conversational
exchange. Furthermore, the use of genre-
based analysis taught listeners how to iden-
tify predictable and appropriate opportuni-
ties to extend the conversation by asking
follow-up questions and redirecting the
conversation. In other words, because the
approach prioritizes meaning and recog-
nizes that negotiation is an important part
of conversational management, students be-
came adept at skillfully managing conversa-
tional moves and clarifying the speakers
speech. Overall, the genre-based approach
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 48, NO. 2
forced students to consciously analyze con-
versational structure, reect on their role
during an oral interaction, and become
more adept at extending the interaction.
In addition, the use of genre-based
analysis and specic instruction in quadrat-
ic conversational structure served to frame
discourse into what Tannen (1984) referred
to as a superordinate message about how
communication is intended (p. 23) as well
as engage students in conversational turn
taking and help them develop metalinguis-
tic awareness of how conversations operate.
Furthermore, the approach empowered stu-
dents to elaborate using personal knowl-
edge and experiences, and thus to add
their personal voice (Malinowski, 1967;
Tannen, 1994) and develop personal and
stylistic conversational strategies. In so do-
ing, students were able to bid for emotional
solidarity and vocalize aspects of the social
self that might otherwise remain undis-
closed (Svennevig, 1999), thus venturing
into deeper interpersonal relations that tar-
get what Maynard and Zimmerman (1984)
referred to as common territories of self
(p. 314). The genre-based instructional ap-
proach also provided instructors with an
educational tool that may be used to guide
curriculum development and instructional
activities.
Future Research
Although this study illustrates that QS is
benecial to prepare students for homestay
situations, the study is not a tightly con-
trolled experiment that empirically mea-
sured students gains in English
prociency. Future research could utilize
standard assessment procedures, such as
the ACTFLs Oral Prociency Interview
(OPI), computerized OPI, or Assessment
of Performance Toward Prociency in Lan-
guages. In addition, prior to taking the
course described here, participants in this
study had a basic knowledge of English
vocabulary and grammar, a modest level
of interpersonal conversational ability, and
a strong personal interest in improving their
181
spoken skills prior to spending a year in a
homestay context abroad. Thus, future re-
search could investigate the effectiveness of
the four-step conversational management
approach with other groups of language
learners and across a range of instructional
contexts. It should also be recognized that
the four-step conversational structure is not
universally applicable; thus, future research
could focus on helping students to under-
stand in which contexts and daily situations
within and beyond the homestay setting
short, transactional language may in fact
be more appropriate. Finally, future re-
search might investigate the impact of the
teacher-student relationship and the free-
dom to experiment with language without
fear of the overt and sometimes frequent
correction that characterizes many English
classes in Japan on students willingness to
use language more creatively and
expansively.
Conclusion
This research investigated the effectiveness
of a direct and teachable classroom ap-
proach to alleviating the concurrent prob-
lems associated with students lack of
conversational ability and minimal inter-
personal involvement with their hosts dur-
ing a homestay. Data reported above
demonstrated the effectiveness of a genre-
based approach to conversation manage-
ment that focused on the analysis of IRF-
based conversations as well as direct in-
struction in a four-part approach to extend-
ing the second move. This article has
demonstrated that a move away from tradi-
tional approaches that primarily emphasize
grammar and vocabulary in favor of the
genre-based approach outlined here offers
what is potentially a more advantageous
instructional approach to helping students
to understand that conversation involves
more than using simple phrases and that
conversation implicitly serves to build soli-
darity and interpersonal relationships. It is
hoped that the genre-based approach will
thus more successfully prepare students for
182
meaningful and engaging communication
across a range of contexts, including the
homestay experience.
References
Abbaszadeh, Z. (2013). Genre-based ap-
proach and second language syllabus design.
Procedia, 84, 18791884.
Aspinall, R. W. (2013). International education
policy in Japan in an age of globalisation and
risk. Leiden, the Netherlands: Global Oriental.
Augustien, H. I. R. (2006). Genre-based ap-
proach and the 2004 English curriculum. Re-
trieved November, 18, 2014, from https://
aguswuryanto.les.wordpress.com/2008/09/
helena-paper2.doc
Bhatia, V. (1991). A genre-based approach to
ESP materials. World Englishes, 10, 153166.
Bosher, S., & Smalkoski, K. (2002). From
needs analysis to curriculum development:
Designing a course in health-care communi-
cation for immigrant students in the USA.
English for Specic Purposes, 21, 5979.
Bradford-Watts, K. (2003). What is genre and
why is it useful for language teachers? JALT
Journal. Retrieved January 7, 2015, from
http://www.publications.org/tlt/articles/2003/
05/index
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the
spoken language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Bruner, J. (1978). The role of dialogue in
language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R. Jar-
vella, & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), The childs
conception of language (pp. 241256). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers reinter-
pretation of a task-based innovation in prima-
ry schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 639662.
Coupland, J., Coupland, N., & Robinson, J.
(1992). How are you? Negotiating phatic
communion. Language in Society, 21, 207230.
Cowling, J. D. (2007). Needs analysis: Plan-
ning a syllabus for a series of intensive work-
place courses at a leading Japanese company.
English for Specic Purposes, 26, 426442.
Derewianka, B. (2003). Trends and issues in
genre-based approaches. RELC Journal, 34,
133154.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1987). Genre analysis and
ESP. ELR Journal, 1, 19.
SUMMER 2015
Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998).
Developments in English for specic purposes: A
multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Furmanovsky, M. (2007). Making sense of the
ryugakusei experience: Japanese students reec-
tions of classroom and homestay-based intercul-
tural experiences in a short term Australian
university language centre program. Retrieved
August 17, 2014, from http://repo.lib.ryu-
koku.ac.jp/jspui/bitstream/10519/2943/1/
KJ00004863412.pdf
Gorsuch, G. J. (1998). Yakudoku EFL instruc-
tion in two Japanese high school classrooms:
An exploratory study. JALT, 20, 633.
Gourlay, L. (2005). OK, whos got number one?
Permeable triadic dialogue, covert participation
and the co-construction of checking episodes.
Language Teaching Research, 9, 403422.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Too-
mey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S.
(1996). The inuence of cultural individual-
ism-collectivism, self-construals, and individ-
ual values on communication styles across
cultures. Human Communication Research,
22, 510543.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988).
Culture and interpersonal communication.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (1998). An
evaluation of a genre-based approach to the
teaching of EAP/ESP writing. TESOL Journal,
32, 147156.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer respon-
sibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B.
Kaplan, Writing across languages: Analysis of
L2 written text (pp. 141152). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Itakura, H. (2001). Describing conversational domi-
nance. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 18591880.
Lee, Y.-A. (2007). Third turn position in
teacher talk: Contingency and the work of
teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 180206.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics.
London: Longman.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language,
learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and
task-based language teaching in East Asian
classrooms. Language Learning, 40, 243249.
Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (2013). Intercul-
tural competence (7th ed.). Upper Saddle Riv-
er, NJ: Pearson.
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 48, NO. 2
Malinowski, B. (1967). The problem of mean-
ing in primitive languages [Supplement]. In
C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards, The meaning of
meaning (pp. 146152). London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Martin, A. (2004). The katakana effect and
teaching English in Japan. English Today, 77,
5055.
Martin, J. (1999). Mentoring semogenesis:
Genre-based literacy pedagogy. In F. Chris-
tie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of con-
sciousness (pp. 123155). London:
Continuum. Retrieved November 17, 2014,
from http://www.isa.org/Systemics/Print/
MartinPapers/BC-1999-Mentoring%20semo-
genesis%20genre-based%20literacy%20ped-
agog.pdf
Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H.
(1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social or-
ganisation of relationships. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 47, 301316.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sci-
ence, and Technology. (2012). English educa-
tion reform plan corresponding to globalization.
Retrieved September 1, 2014, from http://
www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/__icsFiles/
aeldle/2014/01/23/1343591_1.pdf
Nadasdy, P. B. (2010). A classroom based re-
search project incorporating English for special
purposes (ESP) methodology preparing Japa-
nese students for homestay in Australia. Bulletin
of Niigata University of International and Infor-
mation Studies. Retrieved August 16, 2014, from
http://ci.nii.ac.jp/els/110007594984.pdf?
idART0009412830&typepdf&langen&-
hostcinii&order_no&ppv_type0&lang_-
sw&no1408182282&cp
Neulip, J. W. (2003). Intercultural communi-
cation. New York: Houghton Mifin.
Nishino, T., & Watanabe, M. (2008). Com-
munication-oriented policies versus class-
room realities in Japan. TESOL Quarterly,
42, 133138.
Nunan, D. (1993). Introducing discourse anal-
ysis. New York: Penguin.
183
Painter, C. (2001). Understanding genre and
register: Implications for language teaching.
In A. Burns & C. Cofn (Eds.), Analysing
English in a global context (pp. 167180). Lon-
don: Routledge.
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language
learning classroom. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Pryde, M. (2014). Conversational patterns of
homestay hosts and study abroad students.
Foreign Language Annals, doi:10.1111/
an.12100
Ritchie, G. (2003). Presentation-practice-
production and task-based learning in the
light of second language learning theories.
English Teacher: An International Journal, 6,
112124.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). To-
wards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Svennevig, J. (1999). Getting acquainted in
conversation: A study of initial interactions. Am-
sterdam: John Benjamins.
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Ana-
lyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Thoms, J. J. (2012). Classroom discourse in
foreign language classrooms. A review of the
literature. Foreign Language Annals, 45, 827.
van Lier, L. (2001). Constraints and resources
in classroom talk: Issues of equality and sym-
metry. In C. N. Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.),
English language teaching in its social context
(pp. 90107). London: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The de-
velopment of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Submitted September 14, 2014
Accepted February 15, 2015
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.