Input and interaction Introduction Input Modifications ● Form-Based Input Modifications ● Meaning-Based Input Modifications ● Form- and Meaning-Based Input Modifications Modifications
Interational Activities ● Interaction as a Textual Activity ● Interaction as an Interpersonal Activity Activity ● Interaction as an Ideational Activity
Introduction
Several studies have been conducted to investigate role and relevance of instruction in L2 classroom Studies by: -Dulay & Burt (1974); Larsen-Freeman (1976) -Felix (1981) -Long (1983) -Donato & Adair-Hauck(1992), Adair-Hauck(1992), Doughty (1991), Spada (1987),… -Doughty (2003), Norris & Ortega (2000)
Dulay & Burt (1974); Larsen-Freeman (1976) The acquisition/accuracy order for various grammatical morphemes is more or less the same as learner‘s L1 background, age, and learning environment Felix (1981)
The possibility of manipulating and controlling the student behavior in the classroom is in fact quite limited
Raising doubts about the effect of classroom instruction
Long (1983) He reviewed 11 previous studies and concluded that ―Instruction is good for you‖, ―regardless of your proficiency level, of the wider linguistic environment in which you receive it, and of the type of test you are going to perform on‖
Instruction has positive effects on language classroom
Donato & Adair-Hauck(1992), Doughty (1991), Spada (1987),…
They have not only sought to retify some of the conceptual and methodological flows in the early attempts but have also started focusing on specific teaching strategies on learningspecified language items
WEAKNESS AND STRENGTH -These studies focused narrowly on grammatical instruction in the L2 classroom -They showed that instructional intervention at the proper time would be helpful for promoting desired learning outcomes in the L2 classroom
INPUT
Processing
INATKE
OUTPUT
Input Modifications
Form-Based Input Modifications
Meaning-Based Input Modifications
Form- and Meaning-Based Input Modifications
Form-Based Input Modification In product-oriented view: It treats grammar as a product that can be analyzed, codifed, and presented. This means the leaner was expected to observe the grammatical input, examine it, analyze it, imitate it, practice it, internalize it and use it.
It not only distorted the nature of target language exposed to the learner but also decreased the learner‘s potential to develop appropriate language knowledge/ability extremist
In process-oriented view It treats grammar as a network of systems to be interacted with rather than an objectified body of structures to be mastered. It focused on understanding, general principles and operational experience Recently, Larsen-Freeman (2003) introduced the term ―grammaring‖ to refer to long-overlooked qualities of grammar such as that ―it is a dynamic process in which forms have meanings and uses in a rational, discursive, flexible, interconnected and open system‖ Grammaring is seen as the learner‘s knowledge/ability to use grammatical structures accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately (Larsen-Freeman, 2003)
Meaning-Based Input Modifications Newmark (1963/1970) argued that ―systematic attention to the grammatical form of utterances is neither a necessary condition nor a sufficient one for successful language learning‖ and that ―teaching particular utterances in contexts which provide meaning and usability to learners is both sufficient …and necessary‖ …and he also suggested that ―we should liberate language teaching from grammatical theory, and should teach the natural use of language‖
Prabhu (1987) stated that ‗the development of competence in a second language requires not systematization of language input or maximization of planned practice, but rather the creation of conditions in an effort to cope with communication (p.1) Exclusively meaning-oriented input modifications do not lead to desired levels of grammatical accuracy
Form- and Meaning-Based Input Modifications Some of the carefully designed classroom-oriented experiments conducted in the late 80s and early 90s (Doughty, 1991; Lightbrown & Spada, 1990; Spada, 1987; Van Patten & Cadierno, 1993) authenticated that focusing on form and meaning is more beneficial on either one of them. In a study, Lightbrown & Spada (1990) concluded that ―accuracy, fluency, and overall communicative skills are probably best developed through instruction that is primarily meaning-based but in which guidance is provided through timely form-focused activities and correction in context‖
Long (1991,1996) proposed what is called ―focus on forms‖ (FonF) and he stated that the learner‘s attention to linguistic features will be drawn explicitly if and only if it is necessitated by communicative demand. The input modification required for FonF places emphasis om designing pedagogic tasks based on the features of language needs of a particular group of learners. A task like this, as Doughty (2003) pointed out, helps learners integrate forms and meaning, create their metalinguistic awareness, and increase their noticing capacity all of which promote successful intake processing and ultimately language development.
Interactional Activities The term interaction or negotiation or negotiated interaction generally refers to conversational exchanges that arise when participants try to accommodate potential or actual problems of understanding, using strategies such as comprehension checks or clarification checks.
● Interaction as a Textual Activity ● Interaction as an Interpersonal Activity ● Interaction as an Ideational Activity
Interaction as a Textual Activity It refers to the linguistic realizations that create coherent written or spoken texts that fit a particular interactional event, enabling L2 learners and their interlocutors to understand the message as intended. Specifically, it focuses on syntactic and semantic conversational signals, and its outcome is measured primarily in terms of linguistic knowledge/ability.
Studies on interaction as a textual activity have clearly demonstrated that interactional modifications help learners become aware of formmeaning relationships.
Interactional modifications help learners focus on the meaningful use of particular linguistic features, and practice the productive use of those features. They help learners stretch their limited linguistic repertoire, thereby resulting in opportunities for further L2 development
Studies that approach interaction primarily as a textual activity can offer only a limited perspective on the role of interaction in L2 development, for they treat interactional modifications as no more than conversational adjustments.
Interaction as an Interpersonal Activity It refers to the participants‘ potential to establish and maintain social relationships and have interpersonal encounters, and its outcome is measured in terms of personal rapport created in the classroom Interaction as an interpersonal activity deals with interpersonal communication, therefore, has the potential to create a conducive atmosphere in which the other two interactional activities—textual and ideational—can flourish
In fact, at the pedagogic core of interaction as an interpersonal activity are opportunities for increased learner–learner interaction and greater topic control on the part of the learner
Interaction as an Ideational Activity It refers to an expression of one‘s self -identity based on one‘s experience of the real or imaginary world in and outside the classroom. Specifically, it focuses on ideas and emotions the participants bring with them, and its outcome is measured primarily in terms of pragmatic knowledge/ability
Language is not simply a network of interconnected linguistic systems; rather, it is a web of interlinked sociopolitical and historical factors that shape one‘s identity and voice
It is, therefore, no longer sufficient if interactional modifications provide the learners only with the opportunity to fix communication breakdowns or to foster personal relationships in class. They must also providethem with some of the tools necessary for identity formation and socialtransformation.
Critical pedagogists call for an ―empowering education‖ that relates ―personal growth to public life by developing strong skills, academic knowledge, habits of inquiry, and critical curiosity about society, power, inequality, and change‖ (Shor, 1992)
language education must be ―viewed as a form of learning that not only instructs students into ways of ‗naming‘ the world but also introduces them to particular social relations‖ (Giroux & Simon, 1988)
The three types of interaction may be said to produce three types of discourse: 1) interaction as a textual activity produces instructional discourse resulting in better conversational understanding; 2) interaction as an interpersonal activity produces informational discourse resulting in superior social communication; and 3) interaction as an ideational activity produces ideological discourse resulting in greater sociopolitical consciousness. From a language-acquisitional point of view, they make it easier for learners of various levels to notice potential language input, and recognize syntactic– semantic relationships embedded in the input, thereby maximizing their learning potential
