See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/251566363

Glew, P.J. (1998). Verbal interaction and English second language acquisition
in classroom contexts. Issues in Educational Research 8 (2), 83-94. Retrieved
from http://pandora.nla....

Article  in  Issues in Educational Research · January 1998

CITATIONS READS

2 472

1 author:

Paul Glew
Western Sydney University
40 PUBLICATIONS   131 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Academic Literacy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Glew on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IIER 8(2): Glew (1998) - English second language acquisition Page 1 of 9

Issues in Educational Research, 8(2), 1998, 83-94.

Verbal interaction and English second

language acquisition in classroom contexts
Paul J. Glew
University of Western Sydney, Nepean

In the light of second language acquisition research on interaction, this paper discusses the issue of
integrating English second language (ESL) learners into mainstream secondary education. It questions
what ESL students actually learn in the subject classroom and whether or not second language
acquisition is promoted in that context and also explores why subject teachers with ESL learners in
their classes should examine the amount and type of language practice they and their curriculum
provide. The paper attempts to synthesise current insights into what actually takes place not only
between teachers and ESL students but also for them as they interact. Findings illustrate how lesson
content and the behaviour of teachers and students may prohibit or promote opportunities for
interaction and negotiation in the classroom. Interaction that involves the negotiation of meaning and
feedback that entails the negotiation of form may be critical components to successful second language
development. With regard to behaviour, the roles of student ethnicity and gender are raised through a
discussion on the effects of differential patterns of interaction participation in the classroom.

Instruction is beneficial for the second language learner (Long, 1983a). It can "simplify the
learning task, alter the process and sequence of acquisition, speed up the rate of
acquisition" (Larsen-Freeman& Long, 1991, p.304) and improve the level and quality of ultimate
attainment in a second language. Indeed, the empirical evidence that supports instructed second
language acquisition (SLA) provides a rationale for the existence and development of programs
and curriculum to integrate English second language (ESL) students into secondary schools. This
paper explores the roles of instruction and negotiation in the classroom context in the light of
research into the interaction that occurs in classrooms between teachers and second language (L2)
learners.

The role of input, intake and interaction

Second language acquisition relies on comprehensible input being available to the internal
processing mechanisms of the learner (Long, 1983b). The learner's focus must be on meaningful
communication and input that contains language forms which are due to be acquired next
(Krashen, 1981, 1982). Nevertheless, comprehensible input alone is an insufficient condition for
second language acquisition to occur. Input must become intake. Input is data that the second
language learner hears and intake is "that portion of the L2 which is assimilated and fed into the
interlanguage system" (Ellis, 1985, p.159). Exposure to comprehensible input as posited in
Krashsen's Input Hypothesis is therefore not enough (Krashen, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1985).
Comprehensible input (CI) needs to become intake for learners to develop in their second
language (Ellis, 1985; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). Those learners who engage in the regular
use of their second language and receive the greater quantity of input will most likely demonstrate
a greater ability to use their second language (Larsen-Freeman, 1991).

Input is made comprehensible through modifying interactional structures rather than through
simplifying linguistic input (Long, 1983c). The interaction modifications used by native speakers
fall into two broad groups. Firstly, there are conversational strategies to avoid conversational
trouble. Secondly, discourse repair tactics may be used to repair conversation when trouble
happens. A third group combines strategies and tactics to include a slow pace of speech, stress on

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/12285/20100430-0006/www.iier.org.au/iier8/glew.html 25/07/2013
IIER 8(2): Glew (1998) - English second language acquisition Page 2 of 9

key words, and repetition of utterances. Each group contains devices that the native speaker uses
in conversations with the non-native speakers to modify the interactional structure. The process of
such interactional modifications is described by Long (1983) as "the negotiation of
comprehensible input" (p.131). Negotiation that involves the restructuring and modification of
interaction may occur when second language learners and their interlocutors have to work to
achieve comprehensibility by "repeating a message verbatim, adjusting its syntax, changing its
words, or modifying its form and meaning in a host of other ways" (Pica, 1994b, p.494).

A curriculum perspective on interaction

One of the goals of the new foreign language curricula is to provide "the occasions for the student
and teacher to find the discourse needed to negotiate both the expression and comprehension of
meaning" (Lange, 1990, p.79). Therefore, the role of interaction and negotiation in English second
language instruction raises some important questions for teachers of ESL students. Firstly, how do
we implement our curriculum? Do we force our students into the position of having to negotiate
with us about the meaning of the material we present or do we simplify input for them? Secondly,
are we aware of what may influence classroom interaction? Some students may be more willing
than others to engage in interaction with the teacher (Santoro, 1997; Wajnryb & Crichton, 1997).
Finally, could it be that interaction, and in particular interaction involving negotiation, enhances
the second language development of ESL students in secondary subject classes? Swain (1985)
suggests that for second language learners to develop competence in the target language, the
classroom context needs to provide adequate opportunities for target language use. Moreover, for
comprehensible output to be produced, learners have to be pushed in their negotiation of meaning.
Swain (1985) argues that comprehensible output provides "opportunities for contextualized,
meaningful use, to test out hypotheses about the target language, and to move the learner from a
purely semantic analysis of the language to a syntactic analysis of it" (p.252). Consequently,
second language learners may benefit from teaching and learning innovations at the classroom
level that promote the production of comprehensible output through interaction and negotiation.
Schulz (1991) contends: "As for the importance of interaction, we need to examine the amount
and type of practice weÖprovide" (p.23). The implementation of communicative interaction and
negotiation tasks throughout the curriculum could have a significant impact on the language
development of ESL students in content-based classrooms.

Another important aspect of classroom second language learning is the innate ability of the
learner. Second language acquisition is considered to be the result of interaction between the
learner's mental abilities and the linguistic environment (Hatch, Flashner & Hunt, 1986; Hatch,
Peck & Wagner-Gough, 1979; Long, 1996). Even though "interaction may give the learner the
best data to work with, the brain in turn must work out a fitting and relevant model of that
input"(Hatch, 1983, p.186). The second language learner's awareness of the form of input and the
attention the learner can give to that form may be critical to successful language learning (Pica
1994b). Furthermore, the learner's focus on form "must occur in conjunction with ñ but not inte
rrupt ñ communicative interaction" (Doughty & Varela, 1998, p.114). In sum, while interaction
may make an important contribution to the process of second language learning, the learner is still
the vital processor of the form and meaning of the language. Long (1996) proposes "that
environmental contributions to acquisition are mediated by selective attention and the learner's
developing L2 processing capacity, and that these resources are brought together most usefully,
although not exclusively, during negotiation for meaning" (p.414). Moreover, he suggests that
second language development may be facilitated through the provision of negative feedback that
is obtained by the learner during interaction involving negotiation. The following summary of a
study by Schinke-Llano (1983) on interaction opportunities provides a context for the discussion
of the issues of feedback, negotiation and the curriculum used with ESL learners in the classroom
environment.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/12285/20100430-0006/www.iier.org.au/iier8/glew.html 25/07/2013
IIER 8(2): Glew (1998) - English second language acquisition Page 3 of 9

Opportunities for interaction and feedback in the classroom

Schinke-Llano investigated the verbal interactions that occurred between twelve native English
speaking teachers and their students in public school classrooms. In each class, some students
were native speakers of English, other students were non-native speakers that were fluent in
English and a further group of students were non-native speakers with limited English proficiency
(LEP). The teachers observed interacted less often with the Spanish-speaking LEP students than
with the non-LEP students. Overall, the non-LEP students received 64.9% of the instructional
content-based interactions and the LEP students received 39.1%. Schinke-Llano argued that the
cumulative consequences of such differential treatment could hinder the LEP students' second
language development.

From Schinke-Llano's findings, one could speculate that the number of opportunities the LEP
students had to receive negative or corrective feedback from their teachers were also limited.
Lyster (1998) suggests that corrective feedback involving the negotiation of form may help second
language learners to modify their use of nontarget language forms. Furthermore, "corrective
feedback that invites student-generated repair in the form of self- or peer-repair provides
opportunities for learners to proceduralize target language knowledge" (Lyster, 1998, p.53). This
kind of repair could result from a combination of repetition of learner error by the teacher with
other types of feedback. Hence, it is conceivable that ESL learners who receive limited
opportunities to interact and obtain corrective feedback from their teachers or native English-
speaking peers may be restricted in their acquisition of the target language within the content-
based classroom context.

Practical inquiry into teaching praxis and classroom interaction

The findings from Schinke-Llano's (1983) investigation suggest that either the teachers or the
curriculum, or possibly both, lacked the ability to facilitate the learning needs of the Spanish-
speaking LEP students in the classes. Viewing this from a curriculum perspective Schwab (1969)
may contend: "The problems posed by the current drives towards ethnicity in education find
curriculum specialistsÖmassively oblivious and unprepared" (p.5). The treatment of the LEP
students in Schinke-Llano's study was possibly a reflection of the teachers' attempts to implement
a curriculum that was designed predominantly for native English speakers. If that was the case
then could it be that the content of the texts used in the classes were culturally biased in favour of
the native English speakers? Apple (1992) argues that "textbooks are really a form of cultural
politics. They involve the very nature of the connections between culture and differential
power" (p.7). Without evidence, these points are conjectures. However to educators, they warrant
our consideration. Tyler (1949) posited a curriculum rationale in which learning experiences were
built onto through "continuity, sequencing, and integration" (p.84). Therefore, one could assume
that if the LEP students in Schinke-Llano's study did not receive adequate instruction to grasp the
lesson content then not only was their language progress hindered but their educational progress
was also.

Despite the overall findings of Schinke-Llano's study, it is important to note that a few teachers
did not display a differential treatment of students in relation to their instructional interactions
with them. This raises the question of what and how those teachers taught from the curriculum.
Were they in some way modifying the curriculum or their classrooms or their teaching practices to
accommodate the needs of the LEP student? A way is needed to modify teaching practices and
"theory in the course of its application, in the light of discrepancies" (Schwab, 1969, p.12).
Practical inquiry questions about the type of interactions teachers have with students of different
nationalities and how different kinds of interactions influence learning could provide more ways
of matching what is taught and how it is taught with the learning needs of more students. Ewert
(1991) asserts the themes that underlie communicative action are emancipation and enlightenment.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/12285/20100430-0006/www.iier.org.au/iier8/glew.html 25/07/2013
IIER 8(2): Glew (1998) - English second language acquisition Page 4 of 9

Raising an awareness of the cultural dynamics of classroom interaction and communication may
be necessary if teaching practice is to be freed from both cultural and traditional pedagogical
constraints which may limit students' learning. For a more egalitarian distribution of interaction to
occur, teachers with ESL students in their classroom may need to begin observing the verbal
interaction patterns of their students and themselves. They may discover not only their own
patterns of discourse but also ways to modify and manage patterns of interaction in their
classroom (Sato, 1990).

One way in which teachers may modify and manage interaction in their classroom is through their
use of feedback. Successful second language learning not only requires opportunities for students
to receive comprehensible input and produce comprehensible output but also for them to obtain
ample feedback. In addressing the issue of feedback through error treatment, Lyster and Ranta
(1997) suggest that "producing comprehensible output entails the provision of useful and
consistent feedback from teachers and peers" (p.41). The provision of corrective feedback during
interactions that occur in content-based lessons can highlight relevant language forms and make
them more salient for the second language learner. Moreover, the use of feedback in error
treatment can provide opportunities for learner uptake involving the repair of errors and an
awareness of utterances needing repair.

Feedback and negotiation in interaction

The feedback-uptake sequence that contains negotiation of second language form may be a vital
type of interaction for learners in the classroom context. Lyster and Ranta (1997) posit that "the
negotiation of form involves corrective feedback that employs either elicitation, metalinguistic
feedback, clarification requests, or teacher repetition of error, followed by uptake in the form of
peer- or self-repair, or student utterances still in need of repair that allow for additional
feedback" (p.58). The negotiation of form is the didactic function of negotiation as it involves
corrective feedback to the second language learner. The other function of negotiation is
conversational as it entails the negotiation of meaning (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Pica (1994b)
contends that the "twofold potential of negotiation - to assist L2 comprehension and draw attention
to L2 form - affords it a Ö powerful role in L2 learning" (p.508).

Participation in interaction involving negotiation may facilitate second language development as it

can draw the language learner's attention not only to second language form but also to meaning.
Second language learners engage in the conversational function of negotiation to assist
comprehension, establish mutual understanding, and overcome communication difficulties. "When
learners interact with native speakers or other learners, they often experience considerable
difficulty in communicating. This leads to substantial efforts by the conversational partners to
secure mutual understanding. This is often called the negotiation of meaning" (Ellis, 1985, p.301).
This type of negotiated interaction may involve the clarification, confirmation, modification and
repetition of utterances which the second language learner does not understand (Berducci, 1993;
Pica, 1994a; Pica, 1994b; Pica, Young, & Doughty, 1987). "The result of the negotiation of
meaning is that particular types of input and interaction result. In particular, it has been
hypothesised that negotiation makes input comprehensible" (Ellis, 1985, p.142). Moreover, when
a learner is required to make their output comprehensible, as is often the case in negotiation, this
may assist second language acquisition (Pica, Holliday, Lewis, and Morgenthaler, 1989).
Musumeci (1996) contents that negotiation in the content-based classroom is an important
component in the second language learning experience. As the work of negotiation can lead to
comprehensible input and output, it is arguable that exposure to English input in the content-based
class without comprehension of meaning through negotiated interaction is insufficient for second
language learning. In his most recent Interaction Hypothesis, Long (1996) suggests that
"negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent
interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities,

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/12285/20100430-0006/www.iier.org.au/iier8/glew.html 25/07/2013
IIER 8(2): Glew (1998) - English second language acquisition Page 5 of 9

particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways" (pp. 451-452). Given that
interaction may provide opportunities for second language learners to engage in negotiation, the
remaining discussion focuses on the issues of how much interaction occurs in classroom contexts
and who engages in the interaction.

Interaction in a communicative classroom

Through a study on the amount of interaction opportunities available to ESL learners in three
classrooms, Berducci (1993) expected to find that more than half of the classroom interaction time
"would be spent using the participation structures in which negotiated interaction could take
place" (p.13). The findings revealed 86% of the time in one class and 80% of the time in another
was spent in participation structures in which negotiated interaction could occur. A conversation-
only class spent only 3% of the time in activities in which negotiated interaction could occur.
Even though there was interaction in each class, hardly any of it consisted of meaning being
negotiated and only an insignificant amount of negotiated interaction occurred between the
students themselves. Moreover, the results indicated that it was primarily the teachers who
negotiated with the students.

Although the teachers observed in Berducci's study acknowledged the need to replace more
traditional teaching methods with a curriculum based on a practical communicative approach,
which capitalised on interaction activity to promote language learning, this was rarely translated
into the class lessons. The findings were very revealing in this regard, especially as one would
anticipate that if teachers claim to use a Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach there
would be considerable evidence of this in classroom interactions. This raises a number of
interesting questions. Firstly, if negotiated interaction is crucial for second language acquisition
then why was there so little time spent giving students the opportunity to engage in negotiation
with the teacher and other students? Secondly, when negotiated interaction occurred, who received
the opportunities to engage in it? Thirdly, are Berducci's findings an indication of the interactional
nature of other classes? Furthermore, it poses the challenge for teachers of ESL students to find
out more about the types of interaction that occur in their classrooms, and to also reflect on
teaching practice and curriculum implementation which have the potential to facilitate second
language development in the classroom context (Foster, 1998).

The impact of teaching approach, task type and gender

Berducci's findings highlight the fact that even though the teachers could use negotiation in their
interactions with the students, they were either not aware of how, or were simply not able, to
implement student-student activities to promote negotiation. Until the late 1960s when there was
an increased demand for people to gainer greater oral competence in a second language, teachers
practised a traditional grammatically structured syllabus (Richards & Rodgers, 1986). The
syllabus often reflected the philosophy of the perennial analytic paradigm posited by Tyler (1949).
In contrast to this, the CLT approach which has expanded since the mid-1970s reflects Schwab's
(1969, 1971, 1973) practical inquiry paradigm in that it draws on a more practically focused
eclectic method. Schwab (1969) contends that arts should "bring a theory to its application"(p.12).
It may be that the teachers in Berducci's study did not apply the CLT approach to its full potential
in their classes due to a lack of either theory or moreover a theory of application. Using an
interpretation of Schwab's notions one could argue that communication involving negotiated
interaction rarely transpired between the students due to an inadequate theory of how to apply the
CLT approach in the classroom.

According to Musumeci (1996), teaching approach, lesson content and the classroom behaviour of
teachers and students can prohibit or promote opportunities for negotiation. Pica et al. (1989)
assert that "through the study of negotiation, what is emerging is an understanding and

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/12285/20100430-0006/www.iier.org.au/iier8/glew.html 25/07/2013
IIER 8(2): Glew (1998) - English second language acquisition Page 6 of 9

appreciation of what both learners and interlocutors contribute to the SLA process" (p.84).
Interaction involving negotiation may be the essential data to consider in further investigations of
the ways in which an interlocutor and second language learner work together in the classroom to
produce both comprehensible input and output. A study on how information-gap tasks can provide
opportunities for non-native English speaker (NNES) to modify their output to make it more
comprehensible illustrates the importance of continued investigation. Although Pica et al. (1989)
had not intended to study the relationship between gender and the production of comprehensible
output, the results of their study on information-gap discussion tasks revealed that non-native
English speaking Japanese males displayed greater control in discussion with native English
speakers than Japanese females. The males introduced new, relevant topics and brought past
learning experiences into the discussion. This meant they were able to maintain more control of
the discourse, which resulted in the native English speakers having to signal their need for
clarification. In contrast, the non-native English speaking females always kept closely to the given
discussion topics. This resulted in an absence of negotiation. These findings corroborate those of
Gass and Varonis (1986), who found that "menÖdominate in conversations with women in ways
that provided opportunities for producing comprehensible output" (pp.349-350). Women,
however, were found to initiate more negotiation of meaning than men in dyads that involved both
female and male second language learners. Overall, the research suggests that gender, task type
and even ethnicity may influence a second language learner's opportunities to participate in
interaction and produce certain types of comprehensible output.

Ethnicity and verbal interaction in the classroom

With regard to the ethnicity of English second language learners, a study on ethnic styles in
classroom discourse provided exploratory results on the relationship between ethnicity and the
distrib ution of verbal interaction in the classroom. Sato's (1990) investigation indicated a
relationship between ethnicity and the number of speaking turns taken by ESL students. The Asian
students in her study took considerably fewer speaking turns with their teachers than the non-
Asian students. Moreover, the Asian learners self-selected less often than the non-Asian learners
and were also called upon less often by their teachers. It is of interest to note that the Asian
American and Caucasian American teachers behaved no differently towards the students. The
Asian American teacher called less often on the Asian students than the non-Asian students
despite any ethnic ties she may have had with them.

There may be several reasons for Sato's findings. Firstly, the Asian students may be restricted in
their turn-taking behaviours because they adhere to an interpretation of the student-teacher
relationship which pre-allocates speaking rights in the classroom to the teacher. Secondly, such
student-teacher perceptions may create a spiral effect in the classroom, whereby the teacher calls
on the Asian students less than the non-Asian student because she perceives unwillingness among
the Asian students to talk (Sato, 1990). Nevertheless, the outcome of these two phenomena is that
the ESL students who are unwilling to initiate discussion and rely on the teacher to allocate
speaking opportunities end up completely losing those interaction opportunities. Indeed, "the role
of interethnic differences...and interaction with native speakers remains an issue of fundamental
importance" (Sato, 1990, p.117). Further investigation is called for to not only go beyond the
Asian-non-Asian dichotomy and identify potential differences among those within the ethnic
groups represented in classes but also identify in detail the types of verbal interaction in which
ESL students and their teachers participate in the classroom (Glew, 1995).

Conclusion
Gaining a further teaching and curriculum perspective on what happens in the context of real
secondary subject classrooms for ESL students and their teachers is necessary. Exploration into
these classroom contexts could give not only a greater insight into the types of interaction that

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/12285/20100430-0006/www.iier.org.au/iier8/glew.html 25/07/2013
IIER 8(2): Glew (1998) - English second language acquisition Page 7 of 9

transpire between the subject teacher and the ESL student but also a better understanding of what
occurs for them through their interaction. It is essential that further consideration be given to ways
in which mainstream secondary school subject curriculum and teachers provide ESL students with
opportunities to engage in verbal interaction that has the potential to promote second language
development. Within the context of the classrooms in the present discussion, it is evident that
opportunities for instructional interaction and negotiation may be determined not only by the types
of interaction that teachers and students elect to engage in but also by lesson content, gender and
ethnicity. The issue of gender influence on interaction and the Asian-non-Asian dichotomy may be
extended to not only describe differences between Asian and non-Asian ESL learners but also
identify interaction participation differences that may exist between males and females in different
ethnic groups within the same class. Continued investigation of these areas in the content-based
classroom may provide more insight that could empower teachers to identify the teaching
methods, lesson content and learning environments with the greatest potential to promote the
second language development of ESL students in secondary school contexts.

References
Apple, M. W. (1992). The text and cultural politics. Educational Researcher, 21(7), 4-11.

Berducci, D. (1993). Inside the SLA classroom: verbal interaction in three SL classes. Language
Learning Journal, 8, 12-16.

Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams
(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.114-138). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ewert, G. D. (1991). Habermas and education: A comprehensive overview of the influence of

Habermas in educational literature. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 345-378.

Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19

(1), 1-23.

Gass, S.M. & Varonis, E.M. (1986). Sex differences in nonnative speaker ñ nonnative speaker
interactions. In R.R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 327-351). MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Glew, P.J. (1995). An investigation of ESL classroom verbal interaction: Ethnicity, gender, and
classroom contexts. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Queensland.

Hatch, E.M. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.

Hatch, E., Flashner, V., & Hunt, L. (1986). The experience model and language teaching. In R.
Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp.5-22). MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Hatch, E., Peck, S., & Wagner-Gough, J. (1979). A look at process in child second language
acquisition. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics. New York: Academic
Press.

Krashen, S. (1980). The input hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Current issues in bilingual education
(pp.168-180). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/12285/20100430-0006/www.iier.org.au/iier8/glew.html 25/07/2013
IIER 8(2): Glew (1998) - English second language acquisition Page 8 of 9

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.

Lange, D. L. (1990). Sketching the crisis and exploring different perspectives in foreign language
curriculum. In D.W. Birckbichler (Ed.), New perspectives and new directions in foreign language
education (pp.78-109). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research: Staking out the territory.
TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 315-339.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M.H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. London: Longman.

Long, M.H. (1983a). Does second language instruction make a difference?: A review of research.
TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-365.

Long, M.H. (1983b). Native speaker/ non-native speaker conversation in the second language
classroom. In M. Clarke, & J. Handscombe, (Eds.), On TESOL' 82: Pacific perspectives on
language learning and teaching. Washington, DC: TESOL.

Long, M.H. (1983c). Native speaker/ non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of
comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.

Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In
W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.413-468). San
Diego: Academic Press.

Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in second
language acquisition, 19, 37-66.

Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at

cross-purposes?. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 286 ñ 325.

Pica, T. (1994a). Questions from the language classroom: Research perspectives. TESOL
Quarterly, 28(1), 49-79.

Pica, T. (1994b) Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning
conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527.

Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an
outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), 63-
87.

Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL
Quarterly, 21(4), 737-758.

Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/12285/20100430-0006/www.iier.org.au/iier8/glew.html 25/07/2013
 IIER 8(2): Glew (1998) - English second language acquisition Page 9 of 9

Santoro, N. (1997). Why won't they talk: The difficulties of engaging victims of trauma in
classroom interaction. TESOL in Context, 7(2), 14-18.

Sato, C.J. (1990). Ethnic styles in classroom discourse. In R.C. Scarcella., E.S. Anderson & S.D.
Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language: Series on issues in
second language research (pp.107-119). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Schinkle-Llano, L.A. (1983). Foreigner talk in content classrooms. In H.M. Seliger & M.H. Long
(Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp.146-164). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.

Schulz, R.A. (1991). Second language acquisition theories and teaching practice: How do they
fit?. The modern language journal, 75(1), 17-25.

Schwab, J.J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 78, 1-23.

Schwab, J.J. (1971). The practical : Arts of eclectic. School Review, 79, 493-542.

Schwab, J.J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into the curriculum. School Review, 81, 501-522.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and

comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
language acquisition (pp.235-256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.

Wajnryb, R., & Crichton, J. (1997). To ask or not to ask: Questions of face in the language
learning classroom. EA Journal, 15(1), 7-27.

Please cite as: Glew, P.J. (1998). Verbal interaction and English second language
acquisition in classroom contexts. Issues in Educational Research, 8(2), 83-94.
http://education.curtin.edu.au/iier/iier8/glew.html

[ IIER Vol 8, 1998 ] [ IIER Home ]

© 1998 Issues in Educational Research
Last revision: 31 July 2001. URL: http://education.curtin.edu.au/iier/iier8/glew.html
HTML: Clare McBeath, Curtin University [c.mcbeath@curtin.edu.au] and Roger Atkinson
[rjatkinson@bigpond.com]
accesses made to this page since 31 July 2001. During the period 15 June 1999 to 30 July 2001 the
previous URL for this page, http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/gen/iier/iier8/glew.html, recorded 2015 accesses.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/12285/20100430-0006/www.iier.org.au/iier8/glew.html
View publication stats
25/07/2013