Comparing IRE And Wait Time In The Classroom

1107 Words3 Pages

Both IRE/F and WAIT can be used seamlessly throughout the classroom discussion times if you understand when to use one and also to extend the learning with the other. I see IRE/F as the most common way to communicate with students, as seen in Transcript 3, Mr. Weber initiates a response from a student, he may dip into analysis, but evaluates and continues with the circle of IRE/F. In the article by Lawerence and Crespo (2016) they state, “…we noticed how this pedagogical routine could discourage or restrict student involvement in … conversations” (5). This is a relevant point because the IRE/F circle is continuos and although can “be repurposed to strengthen social bonds among teachers and students, and to welcome students into the argumentation …show more content…

WAIT and wait time springboards classroom discussion forward as it builds upon IRE/F. As Lawerence and Crespo (2016) mention, “WAIT is consistent with the spirit of ‘wait time,’ during which teachers suspend their own talk to allow students to formulate their thoughts and feelings (e.g., Cazden, 2011, pp.94-95). Through such openness, teachers honor and affirm students’ contributions. Our heuristic amplifies this gesture by making practical suggestions for what teachers might silently think as inner speech during wait time, or publicly say and do as overt feedback on students’ responses” (8). Because if the routine of IRE/F, wait time is a strategy that forces educators to take the time to mentally and verbally step back. It takes great restraint on the teachers’ part to do this, and I have even had to count to three in my mind before taking answers. I have now told students to keep their hands down until they have thought about their answer. I do this to facilitate think time for them and wait time for me. I see this as a win-win in the classroom, as it facilitates better responses, and generates thoughtful …show more content…

Weber introducing trench warfare in lines 1-3 and relating it to going out on the football field and battle it out with Mr. Abbot’s class in lines 5-7 to engage his students as explained by Sherry (2016), “Weber’s question proposed a reframing of the classroom interaction as one in which students could ‘talk about something we all know.’ But it also cued to students that their talk would refer simultaneously to an actual past event that had happened to other people and to a hypothetical present scenario in which students, themselves, would be animated as figures” (179). As Mr. Weber poses his questions, we see more authentic questions from his students than Mr. Weber himself. Mr. Weber could have taken the entire classroom discussion to another level if he would have taken one more step back using the WAIT method. Lawerence and Crespo (2016), “envision that WAIT may be used by students - independent of IRE/F and without teachers’ immediate participation- to guide their responses to their classmates…”(9). I say this because he does let the students ask questions, yet he doesn’t analyze their questions and offer to include more ‘food for thought’, he has students repeat their thinking, but then does not praise their thinking; only responding with “Alright” (line 49). The students are not replying to each other, they are replying to please the teacher. Weber only generically praises the students at the end by saying in line 145 “ we had such

Open Document