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 learners 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 learners 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 learners 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 learners 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 activitiestextual and ideationalcan flourish

In fact, at the pedagogic core of interaction as an interpersonal activity

are opportunities for increased learnerlearner interaction and greater
topic control on the part of the learner

Interaction as an Ideational Activity

It refers to an expression of ones self-identity based on ones 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 ones 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