11[1]._classroom_interaction_and_second_language_acquisition.doc

topic 11. classroom interaction and second language acquisition1. interaction in the classroom interaction in the classroom refers to verbal interactions in educational settings.2. methods of researching learning in the second language classroom1) tradition: psychometric typical issues: language gain from different methods, materials, treatment methods : experimental method - pre- and post-test with experimental and control groups2) tradition: interaction analysis typical issues: extent to which learner behevior is a function of teacher-determined interaction methods: coding classroom interactions in terms of various observation systems and schedules 3) tradition: discourse analysis typical issues: analysis of classroom discourse in linguistic terms methods: study classroom transcripts and assign utterances to pre-determined categories 4) tradition: ethnographic typical issues: obtaining insights into the classroom as a cultural system methods: naturalistic uncontrolled observation and description 3. aspects of classroom interaction1) the nature of second language classroom interactionsyllabus input method classroom interaction practice opportunity atmosphere receptivitysyllabus: what to teachmethod: how to teachatmosphere: the kind of relationships the teacher wants to encourageinput: the target language materials from which the learners learn their target languagepractice opportunity: opportunities for the learners to practice using their target languagereceptivity: interaction creates in the learner a state of receptivity, defined as an active openness, a willingness to encounter the language and the culture2) structure and general characteristics sinclair and coulthard developed a hierarchical model by identifying the following ranks in the structure of a lesson:(1) lesson: has only a weakly defined structure, consisting of an unordered series of transactions(2) transaction: consists of a prelimimary, one or more medial, and a terminal exchanges. (3) exchange: consists of a number of moves, e.g. boundary exchanges, signaled by framing and focusing moves. the element of structure that is most clearly defined, however, is that of teaching exchange, which typically has three phases, involving an initiating move, a responding move, and a follow-up move. for example:t: ask anan what his name is? (initiating)s: whats your name? (responding)t: good. (follow-up)(4) move: each move is realized by means of various kind of acts, the smallest unit in the discourse system. for example, the follow-up move can be performed by means of an accept (e.g. yes), an evaluate (e.g. good) or a comment (e.g. thats interesting.(5) actthis system, when applied to accounting for language lessons, fits remarkably well. only small changes are necessary. for example, students in the l2 classroom often produce an additional response after the follow-up move in irf exchanges:t: what do you do every morning?s: i clean my teeth.t: you clean your teeth every morning. s: i clean my teeth every morning.the exchange structure is, therefore, irf(r)3) types of language useother researchers have sought to describe classroom interaction by identifying the different types of language use or interaction found in l2 classrooms.allwright (1980) provides what he calls a macro-analysis of language teaching and learning by identifying three basic elements:1. samples: instances of the target language, in isolation or in use.2. guidance: instances of communication concerning the nature of the target language.3. management activities: aimed at ensuring the profitable occurrence of (1) and (2)these elements are not mutually exclusive, as instances of guidance and management activities automatically provide samplesother accounts of types of classroom use distinguish between interaction where the focus is the code itself and interaction which centres on genuine meaning exchange. mctear (1975), for instance, identifies four types of language use based on this general distinction:1. mechanical: no exchange of meaning is involved2. meaningful: meaning is contextualized but there is still no information conveyed3. pseudo-communicative: new information is conveyed but in a manner that is unlikely in naturalistic discourse4. real communication: spontaneous speech resulting from the exchange of opinions, jokes, classroom management, etc.mechanical and meaningful language use involve a focus on the code, while real communication by definition entails genuine information exchange; pseudo-communicative lies somewhere in between.in van liers (1982, 1988) framework, there are four basic types of classroom interaction, according to whether the teacher controls the topic (what is talked about) and the activity (the way the topic is talked about):type 1: occurs when the teacher controls neither topic nor activity, as in the small talk sometimes found at the beginning of a lesson or in private talk between studentstype 2: the teacher controls the topic but not the activity. it occurs when the teacher makes an announcement, gives instructions or delivers a lecture.type 3: involves teacher control of both topic and activity, as when the teacher elicits responses in a language drill.type 4: the teacher controls the activity but not the topic, as in small-group work where the procedural rules are specified but the students are free to choose what to talk about.4) turn-takingresearch which has specifically examined turn-taking in the l2 classroom has drawn extensively on ethnomethodological studies of naturally occurring conversations. these identified a number of rules that underlie speaker selection and change: only one speaker speaks at a time; a speaker can select the next speaker by nominating or by performing the first part of an adjacency pair (for example, asking a question that requires an answer); a speaker can alternatively allow the next speaker to self-select; and there is usually competition to take the next turn. classroom researchers frequently highlight the differences between turn-taking in natural and classroom settings. mchoul (1978), for instance, has shown that classroom discourse is often organized so that there is a strict allocation of turns in order to cope with potential transition and distribution problems and that who speaks to whom at what time is firmly controlled. as a result there is less turn-by-turn negotiation and competition, and individual student initiatives are discouraged.turn-taking in language classrooms does not differ from that in general subject classrooms. 5) the difference between classroom and naturalistic discoursethe discourse that results from trying to learn a language is different fromthat which results from trying to communicate. edmondson (1985) draws on labovs idea of the observers paradox, to suggest that there is also the teachers paradox, which states:we seek in the classroom to teach people how to talk when they are not being taughtthus, there is a tension between discourse that is appropriate to pedagogic goals and discourse that is appropriate to pedagogic settings. however, because the classroom affords opportunities to communicate as well as to learn, there are co-existing discourse worlds. kramsch (1985) suggests that the nature of classroom discourse will depend on the roles the participants adopt, the nature of the learning tasks, and the kind of knowledge that is targeted. instructional discourse arises when the teacher and the students act out institutional roles, the tasks are concerned with the transmission and reception of information and are controlled by the teacher, and there is a focus on knowledge as a product and on accuracy. natural discourse is characterized by more fluid roles established through interaction, tasks that encourage equal participation in the negotiation of meaning, and a focus on the interactional process itself and on fluency. one way in which the two worlds can be brought together is through communicating about learning itself. however, although the potential exists for natural discourse to occur in the classroom, studies show that it seldom does. pica and long (1986 ) found that there was very little negotiation of meaning in elementary esl classrooms in philadelphia in comparison to native speaker-non-native speaker conversation outside the classroom, as evident in significantly fewer conversationaladjustments by the teachers. politzer, ramirez, and lewis (1981 ) report that 90 percent of all student moves were responses, testifying to the limited nature of opportunities to participate that learners are afforded in classrooms. these and other studies testify to the restricted nature of pedagogic discourse, although other studies, such as enright (1984) show that there can beconsiderable variation between classrooms.the teachers control over the discourse is the main reason for the prevalence of pedagogic discourse. some researchers have argued that in the classroom setting discourse rights are invested in the teacher. it is the teacher who has the right to participate in all exchanges, to initiate exchanges, to decide on the length of exchanges, to close exchanges, to include and exclude other participants, etc. when teachers elect to act as informants or knowers, they are likely to make full use of their rights, and as a consequence the learners are placed in a dependent position. as a result there is a preponderance of teacher acts over student acts (typically in a 2:1 ratio), because teachers open and close each exchange. in the opinon of some, pedagogic discourse constitutes a falsification of behavior and a distortion (riley 1977), but other researchers see it as inevitable and even desirable (for example, edmondson 1985). to date, there are more arguments than evidence, although formal instruction does appear to result in faster learning and higher levels of ultimate achievement.6) teacher talkthe bulk of l2 classroom research has focused on specific aspects of interaction which we will now consider, beginning with teacher talk. chaudron provides a comprehensive survey of studies of teacher talk. his main conclusions are summarized in the section below.amount of talk: in general, the research confirms the finding for l1 classrooms-namely, that the teacher takes up about two-thirds of the total talking time.functional distribution: there is considerable evidence of variability among teachers and programs, but the general picture is again one of teacher dominance in that teachers are likely to explain, question and command and learners to respond.rate of speech: teachers, like native speakers in general, slow down their rate of speech when talking to learners in comparison to other native speakers and also do so to a greater extent with less proficient learners. however, there is considerable variability among teachers.pauses: teachers are likely to make use of longer pauses when talking to learners than to other native speakers.phonology, intonation, articulation, stress: there have been few studies which have attempted to quantify these aspects of teacher talk, but teachers appear to speak more loudly and to make their speech more distinct when addressing l2 learners.modifications in vocabulary: several studies provided evidence of a low type-token ratio and teachers also vary in accordance with the learners proficiency levels, but wesche and ready (1985) found no significant vocabulary modification in university lectures to l2 learners.modifications in syntax: there is a trend towards shorter utterances with less proficient learners, but some studies which use words per utterance as a measure report no modifications. the degree of subordination tends to be lower, but again results have been mixed. teachers use fewer marked structures such as past tense. more declaratives and statements than questions are used in comparison to natural discourse. ungrammatical teacher talk is rare.modification in discourse: there is some evidence that teachers use more self-repetitions with l2 learners, in particuar when they are of low proficiency levels. 7) learner participation given that learners are often restricted to a responding role, it is not surprising to find that their opportunities for participating productively in the l2 classroom are constrained. if, as has been hypothesized, opportunities for using l2 resources are important for acquisition, then it would seem that learning may be inhibited in the classroom. the assumption that participation is important for learning also underlies several of the studies of motivation. we will consider participation here both from the point of view of both (1) quantity and (2) quality.quantity of participationthere is no clear evidence that the extent to which learners participate productively in the classroom affects their rate of development. a number of correlational studies will be summarized below that have examined the relationship between amount of learner classroom participation and l2 achievement / proficiency. seliger, 1977: measures of participation: amount of verbal interaction, any student speech act counted as interaction; initiations and responses scored separatelymeasures of learning: cloze test, structure test, aural comprehension testresults: total interaction scores correlated significantly with structures and aural comprehension tests, proportion of initiations correlated significantly with aural comprehension test.naiman et al. 1978:measures of participation: various measures of classroom behavior (e.g. student hand-raising, student complete /partial responses, student correct / incorrect responsesmeasures of learning: comprehension test; imitation testresults: hand-raising, complete responses, correct responses and number of responses over 10 significantly related to both criterion measures. negative correlations for incorrect / partially correct responses found.strong 1983 / 1984measures of participation: responses to utterances produced by othersmeasures of learning: various measures of linguistic correctness, vocabulary and pronunciation based on classroom speechresults: childrens responsiveness correlated significantly with proficiency measuresday 1984 measures of participation: responses to teacher general solicits; self initiated turnsmeasures of learning: oral proficiency assessment of grammatical, pragmatic, and sociolinguistic competence, cloze testresults: no significant relationships between measures of participation and criterion measures reportedely 1986measures of participation: number of self-initiated utterances in spanish, i.e. volunteering a question or a responsemeasures of learning: oral fluency in a story reproduction task; oral correctness (based on error count); written correctnessresults: weak relationship between participation and oral correctness found for first quarter students; no other significant relationship found.the results are mixed. whereas studies by seliger (1977), naiman et al. (1978), and strong (1983; 1984) reported positive correlations between various measures of learner participation and proficiency, day (1984) (in a careful replication of seligers study) and ely (1986) found no such relationships. allwright (1980) also found that the learner who participated the most in the lesson he analysed was not among those who showed the greatest advances. as chaudron (1988) and ellis (1988) have pointed out, correlational studies of learner participation are not easy to interpret, as there is no way of telling whether a participation causes learning or proficiency causes participation explanation is correct when a significant relationship is discovered. studies investigating the effects of quantity of participation directed to specific grammatical structures are considered, there are grounds for believing that practice does not make perfect, suggesting that the preferred interpretation ought to be that proficiency causes participation. that is, the more proficient the learners are, the more they get to participate.quality of learner participationwhile the amount of participation may not be a key factor in l2 language acquisition, a stronger case can be made for the importance of high-quality participation. swains (1985) comprehensible output hypothesis claims that acquisition is promoted when there are opportunities for pushed output, not just any kind of output.one of the factors that seems to determine the quality of learner participation in classroom settings is the degree of control the learners exercise over the discourse. cathcart (1986) studied the different kinds of communicative acts performed by eight spanish-speaking children in a variety of school settings (recess, seatwork, free play, esl instruction, playhouse, interview and story telling). she found that situations where the learner had control of the talk were characterized by a wide variety of communicative acts and syntactic structures, whereas the situations where the teacher had control seemed to produce single-word utterances, short phrases, and formulaic chunks. other researchers have also found marked differences in the quality of learners participation depending on the kind of activity they are involved in. house (1986), for instance, compared the performance of advanced german learners of l2 english in a role play situation, where they had considerable freedom, and a teacher-led discussion. she found that the learners confined themselves to an interactional core in the discussion, failing t