Main Article Content


Portrayal of the different types of the Feedback Move (F-Move) in University classrooms


Dr Golebamang Galegane

University of Botswana

Centre for Academic Development

Communication and Study Sills





The Feedback Move (F-Move) is an important aspect of classroom interaction. The objective of this study is to find out how the different types of the F-Move contribute to the development of classroom talk. The Mixed Method Approach, consisting of Classroom and Systematic Observations were used to find out the different types of the F-Move which were used at University. These were administered to a convenience sample of seven Communication and Study Skills classes. The figures from the quantitative results indicate that various types of the F-Move were used by the lecturers during the classroom interaction.   On the other hand, the outcome from the qualitative results illustrate that there was lecturer dominance of the F-Move during the teaching and learning process. This was shown by the high percentages of the “Accept” and “Comment” types of the foregoing move. The conclusion drawn from this study is that the lecturers take a considerable amount of time summing up the lesson by way of building more on what was said as a form of feedback (lecturer dominance).



Feedback Move, Dialogic Teaching and Learning, Mixed Methods approach, Quality Classroom Interaction.

Article Details

How to Cite
Galegane, G. (2019). Portrayal of the different types of the Feedback Move (F-Move) in University classrooms. Journal of ELT Research: The Academic Journal of Studies in English Language Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 85-99.


    Ackers, J., & Hardman, F. (2001). Classroom Interaction in Kenyan Primary Schools. Compare, 31 (2), 245-261.
    Arthur, J. (1996). Code-switching and collusion: Classroom interaction in Botswana primary schools. Linguistics and Education, 8 (1), 17-33.
    Beddows, E. (2008). The Methodological Issues Associated With Internet-Based Research. International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society, 6 (2), 124-139.
    Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Nurturing creativity in the micro-moments of the classroom. In K. H. Kim., J. C. Kaufman., J. Baer & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creatively Gifted Students are not like Other Gifted Students: Research, Theory, and Practice, (pp.3–16).
    Burnett, P. C., & Mandel, V. (2010). Praise and Feedback in the Primary Classroom: Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 10, 145-154.
    Casteel, C. A. (1998). Teacher–Student Interactions and Race in Integrated Classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 92 (2), 115-120.
    Chafi, M. E., & Elkhouzai, E. (2016). The Use of Feedback in Classroom Interaction in Moroccan Primary School. European Scientific Journal, 12 (4), 281-301.
    Chin, C. (2006). Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, (11), 1315–1346.
    Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: The importance of the F-move. ELT Journal, 56 (2), 117-127.
    Elo, S., & Kynga¨s, H. (2007). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing.
    Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding Classroom Interaction: Students' and Professors' Contributions to Students' Silence. The Journal of Higher Education, 66 (1), 82-96.
    Galegane, G. (2015). A study of student-lecturer interaction in communication and study skills classes at the University of Botswana. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of Botswana.
    Goos, M. (2005). A sociocultural analysis of the development of pre-service and beginning teachers’ pedagogical identities as users of technology. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 35-39.
    Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student lecturer interaction and language learning. Annual review of Applied Linguistics. 22, 186-203.
    Hardman, J. (2016). Opening-up classroom discourse to promote and enhance active and collaborative and cognitively-engaged student-learning experiences. In C. Goria., O. Speicher., & S. Stollhans (Eds). Innovative Language Teaching and Learning at University: Enhancing Participation and Collaboration (pp. 5-16). Dublin: Research Publishing Net.
    Heale, R., & Forbes, D. (2013). Understanding triangulation in research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 16 (4).
    Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in IRF exchange: teacher repetition feedback moves. Language in Society, 32 (1), 79-104.
    Kaya, S. (2014). Dynamic variables of Science classroom discourse in relation to teachers instructional beliefs, Teacher Education, 39 (6).
    Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. The Modern Language Journal, 7 (iv), 418-420.
    Li, H. (2013). Student Initiatives and Missed Learning Opportunities in an IRF Sequence: A Single Case Analysis. L2 Journal, 5 (2), 68-92.
    Naruemon, D. (2013). Thai pre-service teachers’ beliefs about the learner-centred approach and their classroom practices. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Newcastle University.
    Piaget, J. (2008). Developmental psychology: Incorporating Piaget's and Vygotsky's theories in classrooms. Journal of cross-disciplinary perspectives in education, 1 (1), 59 – 67.
    Pontefract, C. & Hardman, F. (2005). The discourse of classroom interaction in Kenyan primary schools. Comparative Education, 41 (1), 87-106.
    Prophet, R. B. & Rowell, P. M. (1993). Coping and control: science teaching strategies in Botswana. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 6, (3), 197-209.
    Rajab, T. (2013). Developing whole-class interactive teaching: meeting the training needs of Syrian EFL secondary school teachers. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of York.
    Regoniel, P. A. (2015). Conceptual Framework: A step by step guide on how to make one. In SimplyEducate.Me. Retrieved on 2 March 2019 from
    Sedgwick, P. (2013). Convenience Sampling. Article in BMJ (online)• Retrieved on 01/03/19 from
    Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
    Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The Teacher as Partner: Exploring Participant Structures, Symmetry, and Identity Work in Scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22 (4), 393-429.
    Tabulawa, R. (1998). Teachers’ perspectives on classroom practice in Botswana: Implications for pedagogical change. International Journal of Qualitative Studies, 11 (2), 249-268.
    Tappan, M. B. (1998). Moral education in the zone of proximal development. Journal of Moral Education, 27 (2), 141-160.
    Toth, P. D. (2011). Social and Cognitive Factors in Making Teacher-Led Classroom Discourse Relevant for Second Language Development. The Modern Language Journal, 95 (i), 1-25.
    University of Botswana. (2006). Communication and Study Skills Unit Handbook. Gaborone: Centre for Academic Development.
    Voerman, L., Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Simons, R. J. (2012). Types and frequencies of feedback interventions in classroom interaction in secondary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1-9.
    Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using Explicit Positive Assessment in the Language Classroom: IRF, Feedback, and Learning Opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92, (4), 577-594.
    Xie, X. (2009). Why are students quiet? Looking at the Chinese context and beyond. ELT
    Journal, 64 (1), 10-20.