A Case Study Of TCSL Teachers Apply Interactional Modification Devices In IRF Exchange

Teacher talk modification refers to the behaviors when facing with second language learners teachers will modify their speaking in form and function to promote communication. We believe modified teacher talk is the main source of comprehensible input in second language classroom. So our research will focus on teacher talk modification, especially on interactional modification.We chose four teachers as our objects to compare the difference they applied interactional modification devices in two dimensions (novice and proficient, first stage of primary and second stage of primary). The result shows that there are consistent significant differences when using the following interactional modification devices between novice and proficient teachers, other repeat (proficient use more), para language when there is no communication obstacle (proficient use more), clarification request (novice use more), direct correction (novice use more), code switching when there is no communication obstacle (novice use more). And there are consistent insignificant differences when using the following interactional modification devices between novice and proficient teachers, confirmation check, relinquishing topic, paraphrase when there is communication obstacle, prompts when there is communication obstacle, code switching when there is communication obstacle.The result shows that there are consistent significant differences when using the following interactional modification devices between first stage of primary and second stage of primary teachers (i.e. class A and class B), amount of teacher talk (class B use more), here-and-now topic (class B use more), other repeat (class B use more), para language when there is no communication obstacle (class B use more), code switching when there is communication obstacle (class A use more), code switching when there is no communication obstacle (class A use more). And there are consistent insignificant differences when using the following interactional modification devices between class A and class B, clarification request, relinquishing topic, direct correction, paraphrase when there is communication obstacle.Besides, we surveyed the students’ ideas about the effectiveness of different modification devices that teachers applied. Students of class A and class B both think highly of paraphrase when there is communication obstacle, paralanguage when there is communication obstacle and prompts when there is communication obstacle. In addition, learners of class A regard self-repeat when there is no communication obstacle and code switching when there is communication obstacle as very effective, while learners of class B think comprehensible check and paraphrase when there is no communication obstacle are effective. Both students of class A and class B agree the following interactional modification devices as the most five ineffective devices, self-repeat when there is communication obstacle, other repeat and relinquishing topic. Besides that, students of class A consider that clarification request and indirect correction are the most five ineffective devices. Students of class B consider that prompts when there is no communication obstacle and code switching when there is no communication obstacle are the most five ineffective devices.