Advising Practices in Office-Hour Sessions: An IRF Model, Asymmetry Influence and Conversation Analytic Investigation

Khilola Uralova, Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), Budapest, Hungary. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6448-3537

Uralova, K. (2025). Advising practices in office-hour sessions: An IRF model, asymmetry influence and conversation analytic investigation. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 16(1), 187–212. https://doi.org/10.37237/160110

Download paginated PDF versionDownload

Abstract

A significant amount of research indicates that advising practices are common in institutional talk, and the mode of delivery is important. Despite the increasing attention given to advising practices in academic settings, few researchers have explored the application of the Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model in the context of advising a learner to edit a paper. Additionally, there is limited research on how the IRF model affects advice acceptance and the influence of asymmetry during institutional talk, particularly in online office-hour appointments. This study investigates the use of the IRF model in online office-hour sessions, focusing on advice delivery, advice acceptance, and the role of asymmetry. Using Conversation Analysis (CA), this research examines interactions between a supervisor and supervisee during online office-hour sessions, specifically in collaborative paper editing scenarios. Through a detailed analysis, the study finds that the pure application of the IRF model in online office-hour settings is not entirely successful, as it fails to account for the dynamics of collaborative and interactive advising. The findings propose that while the IRF model in its traditional form may be restrictive, a flexible version of the model could better facilitate effective advising during online office-hour sessions. This study contributes to advising practices by highlighting the limitations of rigid IRF applications and encouraging further exploration of adaptable models for more dynamic, student-centered advising practices across various academic environments.

Keywords: advising, office-hour sessions, IRF model, asymmetry, conversation analysis

Previous research reveals that advising practices are prevalent in institutional talk and their delivery is crucial. Little is known, however, about how advising practices can be analyzed by the application of the initiation, response, and feedback (IRF) model and conversation analysis, particularly by focusing on the advice acceptance in online office-hour sessions between a non-native supervisor and a student. The setting of online office hours, here, is characterized as a place where the interactants are a teacher and a student as in the classroom. Moreover, online office-hour appointments in this study are more personalized than classrooms, and they include as in the classrooms instructional interactions, between a Hungarian professor (supervisor) and a Japanese PhD student in one of the major universities in Hungary. Both the professor and student are working together to publish the paper in co-authorship, and the student is receiving advice on writing skills. “Advice isa suggestion, recommendation, or directive for the recipient to follow—is based on and deals with the recipient’s problem, either indicated or implied” (Vehviläinen, 2009, p. 163). Since the number of international students is increasing at Hungarian universities at an accelerated pace, understanding the advising practices in office-hour sessions that enable these students as outstanding academic writers is vital. Office hour appointments reflect an institution’s commitment to student-faculty interaction and using them is considered a form of help-seeking behavior (Fahey & Boddy, 2024). Thus, the sessions in this investigation are explored as advising practices and describe the collaborative paper-writing task process. Moreover, this study shows how the student receives advice on content-related and general academic writing issues and discusses, by relying on data, how the advice acceptance often displays the influence of asymmetry during online office hours. This paper also discusses how the advice acceptance by the student might be influenced by the asymmetry in interaction during office-hour sessions. Findings show how advice practices follow the IRF model during the institutional talk, and how the advice acceptance is displayed with minimal acknowledgments as well as the fluctuating degree and impact of asymmetry in office-hour sessions related to collaborative paper writing. This study builds on research on advising in an institutional setting and then discusses practical implications for educators.

Background

In interaction, advice-giving is the most problematic matter (Heritage & Sefi, 1992; Hutchby, 1995; Kinnel & Maynard, 1996; Waring, 2005). Thus, there is much research has focused on the dynamics of giving advice. For instance, in academic counseling sessions, counselors frequently avoid providing answers that draw on personal views, instead they provide information to assist students in making their own choices and decisions (He, 1994). Other research shows that counseling is about creating ambiguities by making advice less advice-like, such as phrasing it in the form of a proposal or asking hypothetical questions (Kinnell & Maynard, 1996). To date, there has not been much research on the advisee’s initiation and the receiving of the advice. Among such studies, DeCapua and Dunham’s (1993) important investigation demonstrated that advice-seekers frequently request explanations and elaborations instead of specific advice. Heritage and Sefi (1992) noted in their significant investigation that new mothers were often unwilling to accept advice from health visitors without stating their competence through acknowledgments. Additionally, Pudlinski (2002) points out that in calls to mental health support lines, people show their acceptance with acknowledgments. Acknowledgments and acceptances are often expressed with free-standing ‘OK’ and it closes the sequence in advising practices. It demonstrates advice-recipients’ understanding and alignment (Waring, 2007). In Waring’s (2007) term, such ‘simple advice acceptance’ is common in institutional talk, and I assume it demonstrates asymmetry in advising practices during office-hour sessions. In Heritage’s (1997) seminal work, the asymmetry is viewed as a notable aspect of investigation in institutional talk. According to Hutchby (1995), asymmetrical conversation is a significant aspect of advising in language learning. By agreeing with this opinion, I attempt to delve into asymmetry in the paper to understand the impact of asymmetry – the imbalance between interactants because of authority, dominance, and power – in this case the lack/sufficiency of expertise. Some studies regarding the asymmetry in advising pose similar results by illustrating advice-recipients’ unwillingness to asymmetrical conversation and urge to resist advice instead of accepting it (Koshik, 2002; Waring, 2002). However, proponents of Vygotskian ZPD – ‘Zone of proximal development’ see asymmetry as a positive influence and believe that an individual’s development is highly enhanced with the guidance of more mature and more competent peers. During data analysis and discussion, the positive or negative impacts of the asymmetry will be revealed and discussed briefly in the paper.

To sum up, these studies are all fundamentally important and interesting for me. However, no researchers have yet delved into the process of advising a learner who is editing a paper in collaboration with other language learners by applying the IRF model. Thus, I will shed light on the applicability of the IRF model as a potential framework for office-hour advising practices.

IRF Model and Its Applicability in Office Hour Sessions

The influential IRF model was established by Sinclair and Coulthard in 1975 and later, in 1994, Tsui developed this model by affording a comprehensive framework for analyzing interactions in the classroom between a teacher and students. This model consists of a cyclic pattern of pedagogical dialogic interaction, entailing a teacher initiation move, a student response, and teacher feedback. Primarily, the IRF model has been prevalently applied in classroom settings, enhancing the investigation of the interactional dynamics and the process of instruction between teachers and students (Tsui, 1994). The IRF model, sometimes called IRE, stands for the initiation, response, and evaluation. The third move is always named in different ways, for instance, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) referred to it as ‘follow-up,’ while Mehan (1979) referred to it as ‘evaluation,’ and Tsui (1994) referred to it as ‘feedback,’ and since the latest naming has been accepted mostly the author deployed the ‘feedback.’ Also, the function of the third move has been the main reason for the author to appropriate the IRF.

Although, there are some criticisms, for instance, according to Waring (2009), the restricted IRF model is “almost impervious to restricting” (p. 817); the proponents of the application of the IRF model claim that it can lead to various levels of student engagement and participation in the hands of different educators (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991). Also, its application promotes a dialogic rather than monologic approach to teaching by making teachers facilitators and resulting in better learning outcomes (Adger & Hoyle, 2001; Nassaji & Wells, 2000; Newman et al., 1989; Wells, 1999). The IRF model is very important in the classrooms since it constitutes the genre of the classroom discourse (Lemke, 1990), and it can display 70% of all classroom talk (Wells, 1993). Generally, the importance of the IRF model is in its ubiquitous nature in the classrooms, and by applying this model, student misunderstandings can be revealed and then addressed (Lee, 2009), shared understanding can be facilitated, and coherence can be achieved (Nystrand et al., 2003). According to Howe and Abedin (2013), the dominance of the IRF in the classroom is as visible today as it was in Sinclair and Coulthard’s time.  

The application of the IRF model in the office hour setting might be worth investigating where the main interactants are the teacher and student in the classrooms. Beyond the classroom context, only Jaeger (2019) employed the IRF model for the first time to frame the tutoring study. This study explored the IRF moves between a tutor and two selected fourth-grade learners: a Chinese-American English learner who struggled with comprehension and a Mexican-American English learner who struggled with academic vocabulary. The findings demonstrated that the various strategies adapted to each learner’s needs, with particular IRF sequences, proved more effective (Jaeger, 2019). Besides researching specific moves, some studies have focused on the IRF cycle, precisely the IRF chains and sequences (Li, 2014; Molinari et al., 2013). Findings from Li’s investigation presented a ‘teacher-student-teacher-student’ cycle – a different IRF cycle than the traditional tri-fold. Molinari et al. (2013) identified four types of IRF sequences in their investigation. According to Li (2014), studying the IRF cycles may provide valuable insight into interactional patterns in broader classroom contexts. Thus, I have applied the IRF model to online office-hour sessions to study advising practices. Moreover, in university settings, during online office hour sessions, researchers have never utilized the IRF model, and I have done this study due to the above-mentioned and following reasons and to satisfy my curiosity as well.

Office-hour appointments are characterized by being more personalized than classrooms, but, basically, they include instructional interaction specifically in the process of advice-giving practices that might be explained with the IRF model. For this reason, as an experimental approach, based on my data, I have explored and demonstrated its usage in office-hour sessions though the model is criticized for its ‘rigidity’ in classrooms by some researchers, such as Dalton-Puffer (2007). Furthermore, in office-hour consultations, there is always an advisor (professor) and advisee (student) interaction, thus the IRF can be applied in this setting as a test model though it “cannot handle … pupil/pupil interaction in project work, discussion groups, or the playground” like in the classroom settings (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975, p. 6). However, there is no exact interactional structural organization for this certain type of institutional talk, as office-hour meetings are considered one of the types of institutional talk, and thus I believe that it is worth investigating whether the IRF model can be applied in advising talk during office hour sessions. The model’s emphasis on feedback, as presented in Wells’ (1993) work – in the third move of the IRF exchange, when it is used effectively – is in this third step in the co-construction of meaning that the next cycle of learning happens. Hence, the application of the model may help advisors tailor their advice to individual student concerns, ensuring clarity and mutual understanding. Furthermore, such research could reveal insights into how dialogic teaching strategies can enhance one-on-one academic support. Also, the extension of the IRF model may contribute to a broader understanding of its versatility beyond the traditional classroom setting. I found interesting patterns in advice-giving and accepting practices and will discuss the findings that are typical for the setting. It should be mentioned again that the IRF model has been mainly used for classroom interaction analysis. When this robust framework used in the classrooms, it assists in exploring the process of teachers’ initiations, students’ responses, and the next step – feedback and how this cycle creates the process of learning (Jelimun et al., 2023; Nassaji & Wells, 2000; Tsui, 1994). As the applicability of the IRF model in the classrooms has been already justified above and now it is fairly obvious, thus it will not be discussed further. At present, the application of the model is being observed in more individualized and narrower forms of interactions – during online office-hour appointments, where particularly complex advising practices that occur frequently.

Conversation Analysis

Conversation Analysis (CA) is an approach often used to analyze the nuanced and detailed patterns of talk-in-interaction in social interaction studies. Initially, CA was developed by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson at the beginning of the 1970s to understand how interactants produce and interpret the social order in real-time communication. CA has “its own assumptions, its own methodology (including its own terminology) and its own way of theorizing” (Schiffrin, 1994, p. 232) to explore the organization of talk-in-interaction in social interaction studies. Thus, it is different from other approaches. Today, CA can be used across various fields such as sociology, anthropology, linguistics, and psychology often in interdisciplinary areas by involving the collection of data through audio or video recordings, which can be gathered either in the presence of a researcher or independently (Azamatovna, 2021).

In this study, adjacency pair and preference – two concepts of CA will be briefly discussed. Adjacency pairs are basic components of conversation, including two different utterances by two interactants, categorized as a first pair part and a second pair part, such as question-answer, greeting-greeting, advice-acceptance/rejection. When a first pair part is produced, a corresponding second pair part becomes conditionally relevant, generation of answer is expected after a question is asked. These pairs don’t always occur one after the other but afford a normative framework that forms the expectations, understandings, and actions of interactants in a conversation. The next concept – preference was explained by Sacks in 1992 in his seminal lectures, and he noted that preferred actions are considered that they are natural and normal, while dispreferred actions are noticeable and require justification. For instance, acceptance of an invitation is preferred, whereas refusal is dispreferred. In tutoring, accepting advice is the preferred, unmarked response, while rejecting advice is the dispreferred, noticeable one.

These two notions were the critical focus of many investigations that were carried out with the CA, but little is known about advising practices focusing on these two concepts while utilizing the IRF model to investigate advice acceptance and understand the asymmetry impact during institutional talk.

Research Questions

To address the highlighted research gap, the research will be directed by the following research questions:

  1. How do the advising practices follow the IRF model?
  2. How does the advisee (student) accept the advice that is delivered in the IRF model?
  3. How does asymmetry impact the advice delivery and advice acceptance?

Data and Methodology

Recordings

Online office hour sessions between a Hungarian professor (Istvan) and a Japanese PhD student (Aya) in one of the major universities in Hungary were collected as data. A total of nine sessions from February 2024 to June 2024 consisted of eleven hours of video recordings. The length of the sessions ranges from fifty-six minutes to one hour and thirty-two minutes. For this study, I watched all recordings repeatedly and transcribed them (See Appendix A) to notice similar patterns in them. The content of the recordings was mainly about their research topic – the effect of brain shapes in dogs on the sense of smell and writing a research paper on this topic and presenting findings. Although these office-hour sessions are in online mode, undoubtedly, the nature of recordings is institutional. Because it is goal-oriented – both participants’ purpose is to improve the quality of the paper since they are collaborating on paper writing. Moreover, as the specific constraints dictate acceptable contributions to the task at hand; they are writing the paper in collaboration. Thus, the interactions have never deviated from institutional talk. Lastly, considering the context of office-hour appointments and the employment of a specific framework and process, every single utterance is interpreted in advising.

Participants

The participants of this investigation are Dr. Istvan and Aya – pseudonyms are used to maintain confidentiality. The informed consent was obtained in written form by sending the information sheet and consent form (See Appendix B) to both participants by email. When the recordings started, both interactants knew each other professionally and they established a better rapport during the recording period. They had started working together for four months but writing the research paper coincided with the starting time of the recordings. The supervisor is a speaker of Hungarian English, and the student is a speaker of Japanese English. The supervisor is undoubtedly familiar with the academic writing norms, and he is a disciplinary expert. The student is lucky to have this ‘triangulated contact zone’ support (see Monty, 2016, for more). Both professor and student are working together to publish the paper in co-authorship. In seven sessions, the supervisor and student discussed the paper and edited and wrote it together in collaboration, and in two sessions, their focus was on discussing the presentation slides. Supervising is an unpaid service at the university and one of the duties of the professors.

The Focus

In this investigation, in office-hour sessions, soliciting advice, delivering it and acceptance by advice-recipient is the central focus. However, I encountered in the data the occurrence of other activities such as openings, closings, and discussion of university life. There were pre-advising activities such as planning the next appointments and setting deadlines for tasks. Additionally, encouragement, thanks, and salutations were repeated at the end of advising sessions as post-advising activities. Interactants approached the sessions in two ways: the student reads sources and writes the paper beforehand and prepares questions, while the supervisor reads it for the first time during the session, either silently or aloud, but mostly aloud. However, the primary focus is how advice is accepted, how this acceptance is co-constructed by two participants, if the sequence organization was followed to the IRF model or not and how asymmetry influences an overall advising session.

Data Analysis

Patterns of Advice Accepting

In these office-hour sessions, the advising focus was on two different aspects. First, the relevance and clarity of writing – general writing rules- from now on they are called non-discipline-specific aspects. Next, specific expertise-related matters are regarded as specific content-related matters. In advising episodes, both aspects were common and integrated. The distinction between general and specific issues can be negotiable and unclear. The following list presents three advice-accepting practices categorized by the two mentioned aspects of academic writing.

  1. Accepting advice on general writing rules
  2. Correcting grammar mistakes and advice on word choice (Excerpts 1, 2, 3)
  3. Make information more visual (Excerpt 4)
  4. Finding and findings – collaborative editing (Excerpt 5)
  5. Accepting advice on specific-content related matters
  6. Do not include everything you know (Excerpt 6)
  7. Selecting specific terms (Excerpt 7)
  8. Compare other animal studies to show the reason (Excerpt 8)

I studied the two categories of practices that accept advice. The central focus is on illustrating how each category of practice functions as a form of advice acceptance, as well as understanding the structural organization and sequence of advice exchanges and the analysis of how advice is given and accepted. The conclusion highlights that various types of advice provide different advisee experiences and encounter various levels of acceptance, influenced by the factor of the supervisor’s expertise, particularly in online office-hour sessions.

Accepting Advice on General Writing Rules

In terms of general academic writing advice, normally all the suggestions are accepted immediately. However, since both speakers are not native speakers, they had doubts, particularly the professor had doubts about his own advice by admitting his lack of knowledge on several points. In some cases, particularly in the latest sessions Aya (advice-seeker) could share her opinions in terms of general writing rules and content-specific matters, and these exchanges ended with mutual understanding and collaborative writing. For example, Excerpt 1.

Excerpt 1

Istvan—the supervisor—is reading the electronic version of the paper on the screen. Aya had written the first draft of the paper on the brain shapes of dogs and their smelling ability before the office-hour session and sent it to the supervisor. However, he is reading it out loud for the first time during this session to check it. He corrects the word choice of the student and his correction-advice (lines 1, 2, and 3) and it is accepted by Aya (line 4). The words in italics mean that the professor is reading the paper.

  1. I: The result in higher functional connectivity in more
  2. elongated brain (.) erm elongated brain dogs mm
  3. it is strange in dogs more elongated brains              (advice)
  4. A: OK                                                                       (acceptance)

Here, advice is accepted immediately by the advisee with minimal acknowledgment – ‘OK.’ The phrase ‘more elongated brain dogs’ is edited with the supervisor’s advice as ‘in dogs more elongated brain,’ since the latter phrase is grammatically more accurate. As aforementioned, the free-standing token ‘OK’ implies acknowledgment and simple advice acceptance by the supervisee. The ‘OK’ is an unmarked preferred response and unnoticeable according to CA in this excerpt. Here the immediate ‘OK’ also signals the inherent asymmetry between the professor and student. In terms of matching the interactional cycle of the IRF model, I would say the conversation completely followed the traditional trifold IRF model.

Excerpt 2

The supervisor—Dr. Istvan—is continuing reading the first draft of the paper written by Aya out loud to check it.

  1. I: instead of may reflect (.) should (.) instead of should I would say may
  2. may not be specific [olfunction]                                             (advice)
  3. A:                            [Hmm] (nodding heads repeatedly)        (acceptance)
  4. I: but reflect general functional declines associated with aging
  5. I: Super

Here, there is an interesting point when the supervisor was reading the paper he read with a more appropriate modal verb ‘may’ instead of the written word ‘should.’ It might signal that the supervisor has the correct phrase in his mind and reads the written words on the paper as it should be not as it was written by Aya. In this excerpt, it is obvious again that the student demonstrated complete agreement and accepted advice immediately by nodding her head several times. Moreover, here the ‘hmm’ is used as an alternative to the ‘OK’, it does not refer to the continuing token as pointed out by Guthrie (1997). Non-verbal cue- nodding head also implies that this ‘hmm’ is a complete acknowledgment and advice acceptance. The ‘hmm’ is again an unmarked preferred response and it is unnoticeable. Moreover, it represents the asymmetrical institutional talk in this excerpt. The last word in this excerpt can grab the attention with its absolute feedback nature or as the teacher talks, so here the conversation completely demonstrated the traditional IRF cycle again.

Excerpt 3

The reading process of the paper is still continuing, but this time the second draft of the paper.

  1. I: On the one hand (.) I think it should be
  2. on the one hand or is it on one hand
  3. I think it is on the one [hand]                                                 (advice)
  4. A:                                [on the one hand]
  5.  I: Erm (.) I always write on the one hand maybe it [is on one]
  6. A:                                                                              [OK]       (acceptance)

Here is again a similar pattern with the above-mentioned piece of advice, when the supervisor was reading the paper, he read with the correct version of the phrase ‘on the one hand’ though Aya had written ‘on one hand.’ This interesting situation was repeated several times during sessions. Also, the advisee repeated the phrase while advice was being delivered as if she attempted to comprehend it better. Here, this excerpt reminds Hellerman’s (2003) work that claims if there is a repetition in the third move of the IRF cycle, then it is a cue for a positive assessment. However, in that excerpt, the positive assessment and effort to better comprehension is done by the advisee (student), and this excerpt is an example of the multiple IRF cycle or as Li’s (2014) ‘teacher-student-teacher-student’ chain rather than traditional IRF. (Henceforth, the phrase ‘the multiple IRF cycle’ is used.) Also, the supervisor voiced his doubt, as seen from the excerpt on his own knowledge of the English language, and it might have emerged that he is not a native speaker. Here, this excerpt does not display a stark epistemic asymmetry but rather reflects an open and flexible mentor-mentee dynamic, especially by the supervisor.

Excerpt 4

In the following session, the supervisor gives feedback on the presentation slides during the process of checking, and advises using more specific complex visuals. The student employed only a simple line graph in two different colors on the presentation slide to demonstrate the strength of connections between dogs’ brains and their olfaction system.

  1.    I: Would it make sense either color code
  2.    erm thickness code the line between the(.)
  3.    between the notes
  4.    to visualize how strong
  5.    the connection is
  6.    because then I think it could
  7.    basically have on one image
  8.    how this strength(.) strong
  9.    how strong connection is
  10.    clearly there in the previous figure
  11.    but there you don’t see it
  12.    so I mean you can do
  13.    that as well                                                       (advice)
  14.   A: : OK the reason why I didn’t create            (acceptance)
  15.   3d models in different software is
  16. (9:00) It is very complicated (laughter)        

…………..

17. (12:12) A: I can create, but it is about my skill (laughter and nodding head repeatedly)

Here, Aya displayed mild resistance to accepting advice at 9:00 min by explaining the reason why she did not visualize her data. Later during unfolding the interaction at 12:12 min, she accepted advice by laughing and nodding gestures by admitting her lack of skills. This can be characterized as ‘self-deprecating’ (Leyland, 2018) since the advisee states her inability to accomplish the task. I assumed that the advice was initiated by the supervisor because of the hypothetical audience, and he attempted to voice their thoughts (see Park, 2018, for more). The slight resistance might display the subtle epistemic asymmetry here in the excerpt not pronounced one, and it can be a result of the ongoing advising talks between the supervisor and supervisee for more than three months. In the initial online office-hour sessions, I did not encounter such a shift in the mentor-mentee dynamic. In terms of matching the interactional cycle of the IRF model, the conversation again followed the multiple IRF cycle.

Excerpt 5

Here, the supervisor is reading the results and findings section of the paper from the screen for the first time, which the student had shared with him in advance.

  1. I: Finding present findings
  2. it is better like that                                                                             (advice)
  3. present findings [that]                        
  4. A:                      [I am] always wondering why when we can use     (resistance)
  5. findings and finding
  6. because these results this is about only
  7. age results
  8. so that’s why I wrote singular not plural [and]
  9. I:                                                              [erm]
  10. A: I am always wondering (smiling)
  11. I: I always use it plural but ok
  12. we can do it in a singular
  13. you are right actually here.

In the last example of advice receiving excerpt, a reader might be surprised to encounter a different pattern in advice acceptance – a resistance and explanation by the advisee for her choice. As it can be seen, this mild resistance does not threaten the supervisor’s face. The student used a very detailed explanation and smile on her face. In the end, the supervisor agreed with her idea and acknowledged it. Here, the excerpt displays the more equal asymmetry between the supervisor and supervisee. The excerpt is the perfect example of the multiple interactional cycle of the IRF.

To sum up, from these excerpts, it is obvious that giving useful advice on general academic writing norms, particularly by focusing on specific linguistic issues, including content, grammar (see Taylor, 2007, for more), and lexical choice (see Nakamaru, 2010, for more), can feed into students’ writing, and the acceptance of such advice is critical for their overall academic performance. The advising practices on general writing rules did not always follow the traditional trifold IRF, excerpts from the data set could reveal that the interactional IRF cycle was unpredictable and followed different multiple IRF cycles. When the piece of advice followed the traditional IRF cycle, the student accepted it immediately with tokens ‘OK’ (Excerpt 1) and ‘Hmm’ (Excerpt 2). Moreover, when advice was provided in the multiple IRF cycle, it was filled with elucidations as well as mild resistance (Excerpts 3, 4, 5). In terms of asymmetry impact, it should be pointed out that the advisee (the student) mainly accepted the advice that was delivered by her supervisor with immediate acknowledgment, and in later sessions, we encountered mild resistance from the advisee. However, all advising talks ended with the verbal confirmation of mutual understanding and a common final decision.

Accepting Advice on Specific-Content-Related Matters

Excerpt 6

This excerpt concerns checking PowerPoint presentation slides. The supervisor is responsible for evaluating the presentation made by the student and is seeing it for the first time. Here, the supervisor makes comments on the content of the presentation, precisely the linear diagram that depicts the pre-processing of dogs’ olfaction ability.

  1. I: You can visualize from this slide
  2. it is not clear they are different pre-processing
  3. steps and you could visualize
  4. little bit more that
  5. there are actually fifteen different
  6. pre-processing steps that you did
  7. and then as a result you got something that is pre-processing file
  8. so you could visualize somehow
  9. >first we did this and that<
  10. so I mean give it a try
  11. you don’t need to say everything that
  12. you know about something (laughter)                                  (advice)
  13. because you have interesting staff to say
  14. A: ^ Exactly (laughter)                                                          (acceptance)

In this excerpt, one of the most common tokens, ‘exactly,’ is used by the advice-recipient with a paralinguistic feature – high pitch and laughter. Moreover, this segment can display the supervisor’s thoughts about the potential reader and how they interpret the study. Since “the reader has been widely accepted as an important component of academic writing for decades” (Leyland, 2021, p. 2), it is understandable advice to present only relevant information and findings to the readers. Here the conversation completely illustrated the traditional IRF cycle again. Regarding the display of asymmetry in this excerpt, it could be postulated that it is context-dependent and rather equal.

Excerpt 7

The following segment displays an interesting case – the use of non-English interjection or token ‘Iyy.’ This case caused challenges to the researcher during transcription due to her unfamiliarity with the Japanese language and culture. Briefly, these exchanges represent the achievement of simple advice acceptance at the end of the interaction, including the resistance, and close it with the stressed ‘OK’ and non-verbal cue – a smile on the advice recipient’s face. Moreover, it is one of the latest sessions of this advising talk, so the author might come across resistance in the form of deferral as well in the advising talk. Since the advisee might have felt confident enough to challenge the advice provided by the supervisor. This might reflect the developmental stage of the relationship between the advisee and supervisor.  The excerpt followed the multiple IRF cycle of the non-traditional ‘teacher-student-teacher-student’ chain.

  1. I: Cephalic index thing you can call it
  2. brain shape                                                                         (advice)
  3. A: Iyy is it possible to say brain shape (.)                         (resistance)
  4. because it is more like scalp shape
  5. I: yes [of course scalp shape you can call it]
  6. A:      [yeah I understand that scalp shape will
  7. definitely related to brain shape] (smiling)
  8. I: it is correlated very much
  9. scalp shape directly translated
  10. into brain shape
  11. A: =exactly
  12. I: I think it is fine to say that
  13. it is completely fine
  14. everyone uses [like this] (smiling)
  15. A:                    [laughter]
  16. I: cephalic index refer to – (0.2) [sort of brain]
  17. A:                                                [brain]
  18. I: right?
  19. A: (0.4) (rising eyebrows)
  20. I:  [I think]
  21. A: [Sorry] maybe I have to search for it                                        (deferral)
  22. I: =you can check doesn’t matter
  23. it is good to call it brain shape                                                      
  24. A: OK (smile)                                                                                 (acceptance)

Excerpt 8

Here, Aya’s response consists of two different tokens, ‘exactly and ‘definitely,’ which can grab the attention quickly. The latch – immediate reply with two stressed tokens may display more the eagerness of the advisee to finish this part of advising practice than accepting the advice or acknowledging it willingly. It might be assumed that the asymmetry has a negative force in this advising practice since the majority part of the sessions involves complete dominance of the professor. Moreover, the professor’s care can be again the readers’ comprehension needs (see Storch, 2005, for more) since readability is the main focus of this long piece of advice in this session. Additionally, direct advice-giving practices are not permitted and are against the philosophy of many organizations (Leyland, 2018), and the long piece of advice by the supervisor might be the result. The given advice followed the traditional IRF model. Space may preclude a full transcription of this advising practice. Thus, some turns are presented in this segment.

  1. I: these are like logical supports
  2. so if you start with
  3. basically says dogs show superior connectivity
  4. comparing many other species 
  5. mm utilization of olfaction in diverse context
  6. actually it is a consequence
  7. as a (.) as dogs show                            (advice)
  8. superior olfaction abilities                  
  9. A: =exactly definitely                          (acceptance)     

To sum up, advising on specific-content-related matters demonstrates that the advising practices between student and professor do not always the employ traditional IRF model in online office-hour sessions. Rather the advising process, precisely the voluntary absolute acceptance, might prefer the deployment of the multiple interactional IRF cycle in the conversations. In excerpts 6 and 8, the traditional IRF model is applied, and the provided advice is delivered in the traditional IRF cycles. However, the verbal confirmation of the acceptance in these segments cannot guarantee the final action. Excerpt 7 follows multiple series of IRF cycles, and the final acceptance after deferral is confirmed verbally by the student. Nevertheless, this acceptance may not afford the action of heeding advice.  

Discussion and Conclusion

The excerpts above are all parts of the advising talk in online office-hour sessions, particularly paper writing consultations. Generally, advising talk is structured in the traditional tri-fold IRF model—I would describe it as the fixed IRF model—when the advisor poses a question and follows the Socratic approach (see Vehvilainen, 2003, for more) during the online office-hour sessions. However, the data did not show this to be the case. Therefore, I cannot claim that the entire process followed the traditional fixed IRF model. However, data shows the involvement of multiple IRF cycles—not the fixed IRF—in the advising talk during online office-hour sessions. When the supervisor asked questions about the student’s overall progress, it was an Initiation and the student’s Response (sharing her thoughts), and then, the Feedback move became evaluation and initiation involving multiple IRF cycles. Thus, the third move of the IRF played the main role in the practice of advice-giving since it included evaluation, feedback, further guidance, and initiation. The data shows this magical third move was mainly used by the supervisor to perform multiple actions – assessing, editing, asking questions regarding the paper, and writing it up in collaboration. Thus, all excerpts demonstrate acceptance, immediate acceptance mostly and only once a resistance, which changed into deferral by the advisee, and at the end of the advice, to acceptance. Generally, excerpts imply the smooth acceptance of advice when the advising follows in these multiple IRF cycles. Because this process, in the end, provides a piece of relevant advice. Resistance occurred when the advice was mismatched with Aya’s understanding (Excerpt 7), using revisiting students’ goals and providing justifications can re-engage hesitant students. In sum, the advising talk does not follow the traditional fixed IRF model but involves multiple IRF cycles, and this type of advice-giving practice demonstrates the high rate of verbal confirmation of immediate acceptance by the advisee.

In terms of asymmetry and its impact on the advice delivery and advice acceptance, several dimensions should be taken into account. The data shows how an imbalance in knowledge, authority, or experience between the supervisor and the supervisee can both facilitate and hinder the advising, and its management depends on both people. In all eight excerpts, asymmetry impacts the way feedback, an important component of the IRF model, is delivered and accepted. The supervisor tried to provide constructive feedback and affirm the advisee’s efforts. Thus, advice was not too authoritative and, at the same time, not overtly lenient. Moreover, the supervisor’s expertise in offering actionable suggestions while validating the advisee’s contributions fostered a sense of collaboration despite the asymmetry in office-hour sessions.

The last excerpt of this paper clearly indicates the involvement of multiple IRF cycles in the interaction between the advisor (supervisor) and advice-recipient (PhD student).

Excerpt 9

  1. I:  I mean these two sentences strictly speaking
  2.        are not necessary
  3.        because you already did a good job
  4.        in the first (.) erm (.) sentence
  5.         saying the this is the case
  6.         I mean what I would(.) do (.)
  7.         ok so (.) first of all (.)
  8.          it is ok to leave like this (.) erm (.)
  9.          but I (.) I think
  10.          it is nice if you don’t make discussion
  11.          to review like because this is not a review
  12.         your discussion is like (.) erm (.)
  13.         making your case making your argument
  14.         not about reviewing all similar studies from earlier
  15.         so (.) erm (.) I would
  16.         I would prefer to (.) to detail
  17.         only these things from previous papers
  18.         which are specifically important for making argument
  19.         and (.) [erm]                                                                     (advice)
  20.        A: =       [How do you refer?]
  21.        I: =Mm?

The above transcription illustrates very clearly that the advice-giving practices do not follow the traditional fixed IRF model – teacher initiation, student response, and teacher feedback. In this segment, the advice-recipient could interrupt with her overlapping question soliciting further personal explanation. Due to the unexpectedness of the question, the supervisor was surprised and replied with the token ‘Mm?’ The sequence exchanges continued further, and the very advising practice lasted for more than 15 min with the supervisor’s utterance. Therefore, it might be too early to claim that the application of the traditional fixed IRF model in office-hour settings is not without difficulties.
The linear structure of the traditional fixed IRF model may not fully capture the complexity of office-hour interactions, particularly in long-lasting sessions, but rather the multiple IRF cycles. Although the traditional fixed IRF model is supported by the suggested strategy in many institutional settings, particularly at universities, ‘not giving direct advice’ but instead using questions in a Socratic way (see Vehvilainen, 2003, for more), in real life, the data shows the reverse situation. Thus, the applicability and efficacy of the traditional fixed IRF model in advising during institutional talks certainly require further studies. Moreover, in longitudinal studies, the nature of more personal and often informal office-hour consultations might be a matter of necessity for a more analytical approach to involve the dynamics of the interactions. Since the traditional fixed IRF model structured piece of advice delivery demonstrates a high level of asymmetry, it might be the reason for the ‘simple advice acceptance’ instances with free-standing tokens, such as ‘OK,’ ‘Hmm,’ and ‘Exactly.’  Moreover, the clear-cut asymmetry may change its degree in longitudinal studies and can be one of the factors for the requirement of the combination of other approaches.

Finally, the study adds to the small but vital body of research – promoting advising practices in educational settings and may contribute better understanding of online office-hour sessions between teachers and students, particularly effective professional practices and challenges that can be encountered in the advising process.

Notes on the Contributor

Khilola Uralova is a doctoral student in the Doctoral School of Linguistics at Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), Budapest, Hungary. Her research interests include Applied linguistics, TESOL, Translation, Discourse studies, IC, CA, CBI, and ESP. After completing the advanced internship programme at Aston University, Birmingham, her interest in conversation analysis has grown significantly. Currently, she is doing conversation analytic investigations. Khilola Uralova can be reached at khilola.uralova01@gmail.com

References

Adger, C., & Hoyle, S. (2001). Authorship in professional training talk. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, St. Louis, MO, 25 Feb. 2001.

Azamatovna, K. U. (2021). Outlining interactional competence: Conceptualisation, teaching, and testing with conversation analysis and concept-based approach. Mextesol Journal, 45(2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.61871/mj.v45n2-20

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.20

DeCapua, A., & Dunham, J. (1993). Strategies in the discourse of advice. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 519–531. http://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90014-G

Fahey, B., & Boddy, S. (2024). Using office hour appointment data to illustrate a decline in student-faculty interaction during and after COVID-19. AJP Advances in Physiology Education, 48(3), 465–473. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00036.2024

Guthrie, A. (1997). On the systematic deployment of okay and mmhmm in academic advising sessions. Pragmatics, 7(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.7.3.06gut

He, A. W. (1994). Withholding academic advice: Institutional context and discourse practice. Discourse Processes, 18(3), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544897

Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society, 32(1), 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404503321049

Heritage, J., & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first-time mothers. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 359–417). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (1997). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing data. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 161–182).  Sage.

Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 325–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024

Hutchby, I. (1995). Aspects of recipient design in expert advice‐giving on call‐in radio. Discourse Processes, 19(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544915

Jaeger, E. L. (2019). Initiation, response, follow-up and beyond: Analyzing dialogue around difficulty in a tutorial setting. Dialogic Pedagogy a Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2019.195

Jelimun, M. O., Ekalia, Y. J., Susanto, I., & Neldis, S. (2023). Turn-taking analysis on students’ debate: Conversation analysis. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education, Humanities, Health and Agriculture, European Alliance for Innovation. http://doi.org/10.4108/eai.21-10-2022.2329644

Kinnell, A., & Maynard, D. (1996). The delivery and receipt of safer sex advice in pre-test counseling sessions for HIV and AIDS. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24(4), 405–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124196024004002

Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(3), 277–310. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex.

Leyland, C. (2018). Resistance as a resource for achieving consensus: Adjusting advice following competency-based resistance in L2 writing tutorials at a British university. Classroom Discourse, 9(3), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1480966     

Leyland, C. (2021). The interactional construction of the academic reader in writing tutorials for international students: An advice-giving resource. Linguistics and Education, 61, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100900

Li, J. (2014). A comparative analysis of teacher talk between advanced and fundamental English major courses. Sino-US English teaching, 11(5), 326–328.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press.

Molinari, L., Mameli, C., & Gnisci, A. (2013). A sequential analysis of classroom discourse in Italian primary schools: The many faces of the IRF pattern. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02071.x

Monty, R. (2016). The writing center as cultural and interdisciplinary contact zone. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54094-2

Nakamaru, S. (2010). Lexical issues in writing center tutorials with international and US-educated multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(2), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.01.001

Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of “triadic dialogue”? An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21, 376–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.376

Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge University Press.

Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Student engagement: When recitation becomes conversation. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 257–276). McCutchan.

Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–198. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3502_3

Park, I. (2018). Reported thought as (hypothetical) assessment. Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.003

Pudlinski, C. (2002). Accepting and rejecting advice as competent peers: Caller dilemmas on a warm line. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 481–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040040501

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Blackwell.

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Blackwell.

Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002

Taylor, V. (2007). The balance or rhetoric and linguistics: A study of second language writing center tutorials [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Purdue University.

Tsui, A. B. M. (1994). English conversation. Oxford University Press.

Vehviläinen, S. (2003). Avoiding providing solutions: Orienting to the ideal of     students’ self-directedness in counselling interaction. Discourse Studies, 5(3), 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030053005

Vehviläinen, S. (2009). Student-initiated advice in academic supervision. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(2), 163–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864560

Waring, H. Z. (2002). Displaying substantive recipiency in seminar discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(4), 453–479. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3504_3

Waring, H. Z. (2005). Peer tutoring in a graduate writing centre: Identity, expertise, and advice resisting. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amh041

Waring, H. Z. (2007). Complex advice acceptance as a resource for managing asymmetries. Text & Talk, 27(1), 107–137. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.005

Waring, H. (2009). Moving out of IRF (initiation-response-feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59(4), 796–824. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00526.x

Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(05)80001-4 

  Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605895

Appendix A. Transcription (Modified Version)

 (.)   untimed perceptible pause within a turn  
UnderlineStress  
CAPS             very emphatic stress
^high pitch on word  
.sentence-final falling intonation  
Italicsreading the text  
?yes/no question rising intonation  
–a glottal stop, or abrupt cutting off of sound  
:lengthened vowel sound (extra colons indicate greater lengthening)  
= latch  
[ ]overlapped talk  
> <increased speed  

Appendix B. Information Sheet and Consent Form

Information Sheet & Consent form

You are invited to take part in a research study entitled Advice in Student counseling context/office-hour appointments. This is an initial exploratory project to understand advice practices, with the aim of analysing interaction between advisors (professors) and students.  Please read this document carefully before agreeing to take part in the study. If you have any questions please contact Khilola Uralova by email (khilola.uralova01@gmail.com).

The study:

This project is an initial exploration of advice practices student counseling/office hour sessions. The researcher in this project analyses video-recordings of real-life communication to understand the ways people give advice and accept it. The researcher simply sets up recording equipment and leave the room during the session. Teachers and students proceed with their usual activities and can ignore the recording equipment. These recordings will be transcribed and short stretches of talk during activities will be examined. This study is not designed to criticize anything (e.g.  professional performance language skills). Rather, the researcher is looking to identify advice-giving practices for carrying out day-to-day tasks at the University. We hope to start making recordings from April 2024 for around ten weeks. Your participation is entirely voluntary and you may withdraw from the study at any time without any explanation required. If you wish to withdraw, please inform Khilola Uralova by email.

Your participation:

Consequently, you are being asked to consent to the student counseling/office hour sessions being video-recorded for research purposes. We plan to record around 20 hours of data in total. Before the activity begins, the researcher will set up some recording devices in the room. She will then leave and you can simply go about your business as usual. Once research has been completed, the researcher will debrief you on the main findings via email or in Zoom meeting.

The recordings:

All material gathered during the study will be treated as highly confidential. This means that in subsequent use of the material your name will be removed where used and if relevant your comments will be adjusted so they cannot be attributed to you. We will not be storing any personal data such as names, age, or personal/religious backgrounds. In each transcript, we will change the names of all participants and will change any information that may help participants to be identified.

Participant Consent Form

Material gathered during this research will be treated as confidential and securely stored. In subsequent publications or use of the transcripts of these recordings your name will be removed where used and your comments made unattributable. By signing this consent form you agree to the activity you participate in during activities at the University being videotaped and to the transcripts of these recordings being used for research purposes (in accordance with the conditions outlined above).

Please answer each statement concerning the collection and use of the research data:

I have been given an information sheet (Yes / No)

I have been given the opportunity to ask questions about the study (Yes / No)

I have had my questions answered satisfactorily (Yes / No)

I understand that I can withdraw from participating in the recordings without any explanation (Yes / No)

I agree to anonymized transcripts of the recordings (in accordance with conditions outlined above) being shown to researchers (e.g. at conferences) (Yes / No)

I, the respondent, agree to these conditions:

Name:                                                 Email or Telephone Number:

Signature:                                           Date:                                                   

I, the researcher, agree to these conditions:

Name: Khilola Uralova, ELTE

Signature:                                            Date: