Session 10: Teaching: Input &

Interaction

Nguyen dinh Thu (PhD)

October 1st, 2023

1
 INPUT
 Input is used to refer to the language
that is addressed to the L2 learner either
by a native speaker or by another
L2 learner.
 Interaction is the conversation constructed
by the learner and his partners.
 Therefore, input is the result of
interaction.
 language
Native
L2 learner speaker
 Three views on input in
language acquisition:

behaviourist

nativist

interactionist
 Behaviourist

A language
producing
machine
 Behaviourist

- imitate
- practice
- produce
 The environment is the crucial determining factor.
 Learners learn language in the form of stimuli and
feedback

Stimuli and
feedback occur
in the
environment
- Look at friends’ models  imitate  practice 
produce
- Suitable stimuli is important  good models
- Feedback is used to reinforce or correct students

to change their behaviors

 Nativist

A grand
initiator
 Nativist view emphasizes learner-internal
factors.
 This is learner’s mental abilities.
 Interactionist

Learners’ ability
+
Environment
 The interactionist view sees language
development as the result both of input
factors and of learners’ innate
mechanisms.
 Environment
Behaviourist (OUTSIDE)

Learners’ mental ability

Nativist
(INSIDE)

Environment +
Interactionist Learners’ innate ability
(OUT + INSIDE)
Input and Interaction

 Teaching amounts to
 Modifying language input
 Creating opportunities for interaction
(Kumaravadivelu, 2006:57)

 Input modifications
 Form-based
 Meaning-based
 Form + meaning-based

14
Input modifications
 Form-based
 Product-oriented
 Select some features; limit the input
 Give learners practice opportunities and corrective
feedback
 Example: Audiolingual method
 Process-oriented
 Expose learner to complex input
 Use consciousness raising/input enhancement (to draw
learners’ attention to features)
 Typographical enhancement
 Rule-giving (grammaring)
 Both
 assume learner can put together the whole from the pieces
 Focus on linguistic rather than pragmatic knowledge

15
Input modifications
 Meaning-based
 Language can be acquired only by understanding
messages
 Championed by Krashen
 Example: Immersion programs

BUT
 Both grammatical and pragmatic knowledge are elusive

 Teacher can control the input available in the classroom,

but not what the learners do with it.

16
Input modifications

 Form and meaning-based modifications

 Focus on form in meaningful contexts
 “an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code
features” (Long, 1991)

 Summary of input discussion

 Learners benefit from being guided to recognize useful
language input
 The full functional range of language should be
available: both form and meaning modifications

17
Interactional modifications
 Research-based assumption: Negotiation spurs
SLA

 Three types of interaction

 Textual
 what we usually focus on -- usual understanding --
communicating messages in one-to-one conversations
 Interpersonal
 The classroom community -- including opportunities to
nominate topics
 Ideational
 Ideally, a classroom discourse that recognizes learners
identities, empowers them to construct identity
18
Interaction as a textual
activity
 Why does modified interaction work?
 Promotes awareness of form/meaning
relationships
 Requires output (effortful!)

19
Example from Vietnamese EFL Classroom

20
Foreigner talk

• NNS: How have increasing food costs

changed your eating habits?
• NS: Oh, rising costs… we’ve cut back on
the more expensive things. Gone to
cheaper foods.
• NNS: Pardon me?
• NS: We’ve gone to cheaper foods.

21
Foreigner talk

• A: Yesterday my country change, ah, President.

• NS: Oh yeah? Now, is the new one a good one?
• A: Um?
• NS: Is a good President? Do you like him? No?

• NS: Does she speak English?

• C: No.
• NS: Nothing?
• C: No.
• NS: She doesn’t talk? Always quiet? No talk?

22
Interaction as an Interpersonal
Activity

 Relationships in the classroom

 Classroom as a mini-society
 Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory emphasizes co-
construction, the collaborative nature of meaning-making
 Giving learners topic control

23
Interaction and Negotiation of
Meaning
Signals of comprehension difficulty
+ Confirmation checks
+ Clarification requests
+ Comprehension checks

In classroom communication, interaction as

an textual activity, interaction as an
interpersonal activity, and interaction as
an ideational activity

24
Confirmation checks

+ Moves by which one speaker seeks confirmation of

the other’s preceding utterance through repetition,
with rising intonation, of what was perceived to be
all or part of the preceding
utterance.

 NS: Did you get high marks? Good grades?

 NNS: High marks?
 NS: Good grades A’s and B’s.

25
Clarification requests

+ Moves by which one speaker seeks assistance in

understanding the other speaker’s preceding utterance
through questions, … statements such as “I don’t
understand ” or imperatives such as “Please repeat ”

 NS: So you came here by yourself or did you come

here with friends?
 NNS: No no I … what? What you say?
 NS: Did you come to the States with friends or did you
come alone?

26
Comprehension checks

+ Moves by which one speaker attempts to determine

whether the other speaker has
understood a preceding message.

 NS: Okay, he’s dancing with the woman doctor.

 NNS: Excuse me?
 NS: The the young man doctor is dancing with the
woman doctor, right?

27
Interaction as an Ideational
Activity
 Being able to speak one’s mind, to establish one’s
self-identity in the world
 Making relationships between language and power
explicit

 Empowering education: link between

personal growth to public life by
developing strong skills, academic
knowledge, habits of inquiry, and critical
curiosity about society, power, inequality,
and change (Shor, 1992:15)
28
 Investment

 Power and inequality hidden in L2 education

 Investment: when learners interact, they are

constantly organizing and reorganizing a
sense of who they are and how they relate to
the social world  identity (Norton, 2000:10)

29
 Content specifications
 Psycholinguistic syllabus
 How can we incorporate what we know from SLA research in the
development of the syllabus?

 Learnability/teachability (Pienemann)
 Learners learn what they are ready to learn; we should
teach what they are ready for

 However, it doesn’t work so well because…

 Not all linguistic elements fit into this framework

 Learners do not necessarily learn what they are taught,

even if ready
 How do we know who is ready to learn what?

30
Criteria for sequencing

 Frequency, range, availability (Mackey, 1965)

 Complexity, regularity, productivity (Kelly, 1969)

 Criteria for grouping (what to teach with what)?

31
 Syllabus classification
 Synthetic
 Presents small units of grammar, lexis, functions
 Presents them one by one
 The learner puts the bits of language together (does the
synthesizing) to get a sense of the whole

 Analytic
 Presents large chunks
 No specific language focus: stories, games, problems to solve
 Learner breaks down material texts into constituent elements

32
What view(s) of language and
teaching are evident in the
methodology
 Language as text?
 Systems
 Discourse

 Ideology
What is the role of …?
 Input

 Interaction

 Output

What type of syllabus would fit?

 Synthetic

 Analytic

21/21

33
 Learning in the Second Language
Classroom
+ Classroom as social context
+ Classroom interaction and SLA
- Interaction facilitates SLA
- Interaction increases opportunities for practice
+ Interaction promote reflection
SCT and language learning
- The social nature of language
- Learning and ZPD
- Learning and Scaffolding ./.

..34
Some Ellis Observations

 Direct grammar instruction has limited impact

on oral language production.
 Test-like performance can be different from
spontaneous oral language production.
 Groupwork can be helpful – quality of
groupwork is very important.

35
Questions

and

Answers!
36