Abstract

The purpose of this study is to establish an argument regarding whether there is a true isomorphism between the formats and the meanings of classroom discourse. The meaning of classroom discourse signifies whether it is dialogic or authoritative (traditional vs. co-constructive). The format of the classroom discourse implies the basic unit of analyses of any conversational episode as either in the form of triadic dialogue; Initiate-Response-Evaluate (IRE), or other open-ended chains of IRE-based exchanges. As a general tendency, researchers concluded that the meanings and the formats of classroom discourse should have presumably matched each other. However, a critical examination of related studies, the expected isomorphism or matching may be radically altered and invisible when taking teacher discursive moves for co-construction of knowledge into consideration. Moreover, the concepts as “Learning Demand” and “Productive Disciplinary Engagement” were considered to advocate the argument that teacher discursive moves could be attached with more importance compared to any staged formats of IRE-based exchanges. It was also concluded that particular discursive usage purposes of teacher discursive moves may modify the expected matching between the formats and the meanings of classroom discourse.

Key words: Classroom discourse, triadic dialogue, teacher discursive moves, critical review