Input and interaction

Introduction

Input Modifications

● Form-Based Input Modifications

● Meaning-Based Input Modifications

● Form- and Meaning-Based Input Modifications

Interational Activities

● Interaction as a Textual Activity

● Interaction as an Interpersonal 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), 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 learning-

specified 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

INATKE INPUT Processing 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 form-

meaning 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

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.

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

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