Language Teaching Research 5,3 (2001); pp.

189–211

Do learners learn from classroom

interaction and does the teacher have
a role to play?
Toni Dobinson School of Languages and Intercultural
Education, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western
Australia

This article describes a study that sought to investigate possible links

between classroom interaction and the learning of new vocabulary.
Twenty-four learners, all but one from Asian backgrounds, were asked
to report the new words they could recall immediately after their
lessons. They were then tested at two weekly and six weekly intervals
for retention of the new vocabulary items. Following this, transcripts of
the classroom interaction in each lesson were examined closely to see
if connections could be established between teacher–student
interaction, student–student interaction and the recall/retention of new
vocabulary. The study found both positive and negative links between
mentioning new words, repeating new words, focusing upon new words,
turn-taking around new words and the recall and retention of new
vocabulary. It was also found that learners recalled vocabulary items
that the teacher intended to teach and which were made pivotal to the
interaction of the lesson as well as items that arose spontaneously
during the lesson.

I Introduction
The use of interaction in language classrooms in recent years has
become the norm at least as far as language teachers in the
Western world are concerned, with teachers interpreting
interaction as verbal communication between either the teacher
and the students or the students and the students during the lesson.
A ‘communicative’ lesson has become the benchmark for

Address for correspondence: School of Languages and Intercultural Education, Curtin

University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia; e-mail:
dobinsot@spectrum.curtin.edu.au

© Arnold 2001 1362–1688(01)LR090.OA

190 Do learners learn from classroom interaction?

‘successful’ lessons and practitioners often feel uneasy if they have

not found some way of making their lessons ‘interactive’ or
‘communicative’. The question remains, however, ‘Do learners
learn from such classroom interaction?’ and if so ‘What kind of
interaction facilitates learning?’

II Background
Researchers such as Allwright (1984) and Slimani (1987) have
suggested that there are positive links between what they call
‘uptake’ or what learners claim to have learnt from a lesson and
the classroom interaction in that lesson. They have focused in
particular upon the amount of commonality in what is learnt from
any lesson and the amount of idiosyncrasy. They view classroom
interaction, much as this study does, as oral or written
communication between teacher and student or student and
student.
Other researchers like Seliger (1977) and Day (1984) have
investigated the linguistic progress of learners who were either
very involved in the classroom interaction (what they term high
input generators) or very peripheral to the classroom interaction
(what they termed low input generators) only to find quite contrary
results. Seliger found that there was a relationship between
individuals actively participating in classroom interaction and their
subsequent learning of language while Day concluded the
opposite, that in fact participation was not necessary for learning.
Another question linked to investigations of this kind is whether
or not learners in classroom situations learn what the teachers set
out to teach in the lessons. Courses can end up input heavy for the
time available because teachers are convinced that they must
‘teach’ their students all the information there is to know on a
particular subject. In an attempt to investigate links between
teaching and learning Allwright (1984: 16), in his article ‘Why don’t
learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis’,
noted that the best predictor of ‘uptake’ was ‘boringly enough, that
an item should have been explicitly taught, by the teacher’.
However, he went on to say that the links between teaching and
learning were much more complex than this and examined various
hypotheses as explanations for the breakdown between explicit
 Toni Dobinson 191

teaching and learning. The current study sought to continue this

focus and find out if learners came away from lessons armed with
the new vocabulary on the teacher’s agenda or if in fact they
recalled and retained very different vocabulary to that intended by
the teacher.
So, although this study was in line with studies conducted by
Allwright, Slimani, Seliger and Day, it differed in two significant
ways. First, investigations were limited to the subject of vocabulary
learning and, secondly, learners were not asked what they thought
they had learnt from each lesson but rather what they could recall
from each lesson and later on what they had retained. Recall was
taken to mean the act of remembering new vocabulary items
immediately after a lesson and new words were those that the
learner reported as being outside their linguistic repertoire at the
time of the lesson. Learners may have seen the word before and
perhaps even had a vague idea what it meant or how to pronounce
it but they were unable to say they used it or were familiar with
its meaning. Retention was defined as the act of continuing to recall
something after considerable time has elapsed (in this case two
weeks in the first instance and six weeks in the second instance).
The study focused on recall and retention rather than learning
as the researcher felt that students may not feel confident to claim
they had learnt something (as learning is difficult to define) but
would more easily be able to talk about what they could recall or
remember from each lesson. Similarly, the study would have
needed to be more longitudinal than it was if claims about learning
were to be justified and both recall and retention were felt to be
significant milestones on the continuum towards learning.

III Procedure
First, twenty-four ESL students, all but one from Asian
backgrounds and aged between 16 and 40, were observed and
video-taped in four different general English lessons at the School
of Intercultural Education, Curtin University, Perth, Western
Australia. The lessons were taught by three different teachers
during four one-hour lessons. Learners were of upper intermediate
to advanced level English proficiency and all were studying on a
programme called English Language Intensive Courses for
192 Do learners learn from classroom interaction?

Overseas Students. Students on these pre-tertiary courses mostly

stay for a short while in the university and then return to their
home countries. Some go on to enter mainstream courses in the
university.
Secondly, learners were asked to complete a reflection sheet
asking what vocabulary they could recall from the lesson. It was
worded as follows: Try to write down all the new words you can
remember from the lesson you have just had. New words = words
you have not learnt before. Note the reflection sheet also asked
learners to comment on why they had recalled certain words. These
learner reports about their learning will be dealt with in another
paper.
Thirdly, the teachers of the lessons observed in the studies were
asked to supply lesson plans outlining their objectives for the
lessons. They were also interviewed post lesson with regard to the
content of the lesson.
Fourthly, learners were tested at two weekly and six weekly
intervals for retention of the words they had recalled. This involved
giving the word and its meaning in response to testing prompts.
Learners were given the Yes/No Word Checklist first of all (see
Appendix 1). This test was used as long ago as the 1890s and more
recently validated and adapted by researchers such as Meara and
Jones (1987), Nagy, Herman and Anderson (1985) and Anderson
and Freebody (1981). In this test learners must identify the words
they recalled after the lesson in a list with several distractors. The
learners were also asked to say each of the words they identified.
After six weeks, learners were given the Vocabulary Levels Test
developed by Paul Nation (1982) (see Appendix 2). This test
requires learners to match words to meanings. Twice as many
words as meanings were provided as distractors and again learners
were asked to articulate the words they matched up as well as
identify the written form. Twenty-four learners were tested after
six weeks and 18 of these were also tested after two weeks.
Learners were divided into two groups in order to try to reduce
any possible test effects.
Finally, transcripts of the classroom interaction were made from
the video recordings. Words that were recalled frequently by
learners were traced in the interaction of the lesson and an analysis
of the features of the classroom interaction surrounding those
 Toni Dobinson 193

words was carried out. ‘Frequently recalled’, for the purposes of

the study, referred to those words which were recalled by 30–100
per cent of the learners in each sample. This meant the focus of
the study was on those words that seemed particularly noticeable
for a number of learners in the lesson and, therefore, were more
frequently cited by learners as recalled.

IV Findings
1 What vocabulary was recalled and retained?
Table 1 shows the vocabulary that was recalled from the four
different lessons conducted with four different classes. Learners
a–e were in one lesson which was observed and videoed and
made up Group 2 which was tested for retention of vocabulary
after six weeks. Learners f–l were in another lesson as were
learners m–s and t–x and they made up Group 1, or the group
which was also tested for retention of vocabulary after two weeks.
The fraction of the learners in each group is given at the end of
each row.
The numbers of new words recalled by individual learners varied
across the sample enormously, with some learners recalling as
many as 15 words from a lesson that they believed to be new to
them while others recalled as few as one word. All of the words
recalled by learners were words that had arisen during the lesson
but according to the teachers, they were not all words that the
teacher had necessarily aimed to teach explicitly in the lesson plan.
It can be seen from Table 1 that particular new words were
remembered by many learners in a particular lesson (five out of
five in some cases), while as many again were only remembered
by one or very few learners. In other words, certain words were
recalled frequently while others were not. This study sought to
investigate those words recalled ‘frequently’ by learners
(‘frequently’ meaning those recalled by 30–100 per cent of the
learners). In other words the study only looked at the words butt
down to insane in the table.
All of the new words recalled frequently by learners were on
the teachers’ plans or in the materials provided for the lessons.
Often, activities and exercises had been designed around these
vocabulary items.
194 Do learners learn from classroom interaction?

Table 1 The new vocabulary items that were recalled by learners

Learner

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Fraction
of
sample
that
Word recalled it

butt x x x x x 5/5
understudy x x x x x 5/5
foyer x x x x x 5/5
pip x x x x 4/4
ogle x x x x 4/5
cue x x x x 4/5
predator x x x 3/4
pest x x x 3/4
emerge x x x x x x 6/10
dowdy x x x 3/5
trigger x x x 3/5
merely x x x 3/5
conjurer x x x 3/5
hose x x x 3/5
aggressive x x x 3/5
axe x x 2/5
fin x x 2/5
resent x x 2/5
lyrics x x 2/5
monologue x x 2/5
glance x x x 3/10
insane x x x 3/10
platypus x 1/4
plague x 1/4
niche(s) x 1/4
reservation x 1/4
wild x 1/4
domestic x 1/4
species x 1/4
estimate x 1/4
extinct x 1/4
board x 1/4
galahs x 1/4
conservation x 1/4
disastrous x 1/4
possums x 1/4
pouch x 1/4
marsupial x 1/4
pastures x 1/4
inadvertently x 1/4
delicate x 1/4
nonrenewable x 1/4
isolate x 1/4
swerved x 1/5
trivet x 1/5
 Toni Dobinson 195

Table 1 Continued

Learner

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Fraction
of
sample
that
Word recalled it

disguised x 1/5
spectacle x x 2/10
inhale x x 2/10
concentric x x 2/10
inflammable x x 2/10
volcano x x 2/10
observant x x 2/10
stem x x 2/10
observation x x 2/10
disc jockey x 1/5
puppet x 1/5
dialogue x 1/5
scriptwriter x 1/5
travelogue x 1/5
libretto x 1/5
footlight x 1/5
aisle x 1/5
interval x 1/5
rehearsal x 1/5
magical x 1/5
record x 1/5
bench x 1/5
foibles x 1/5
reservation x 1/5
misfortune x 1/10
affix x 1/10
siliconic x 1/10
suffixes x 1/10
prefixes x 1/10
imitative x 1/10
invaluable x 1/10
micro x 1/10
mono x 1/10
exhale x 1/10
inspector x 1/10
spectator x 1/10
hanging
out for x 1/10
repetition x 1/10
immoral x 1/10
microscopic x 1/10
eruption x 1/10
principal x 1/10
spectacles x 1/10
Total 6 10 10 4 4 10 5 15 5 7 10 4 6 3 5 2 5 4 1 3 7 4 10 6
196 Do learners learn from classroom interaction?

Table 2 The retention of new vocabulary over two and six weeks

Learner a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o

% ret. – – – – – 100 50 86 100 67 100 0 50 0 0

2
weeks

% ret. 33 75 84 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 100 – – – 100

6
weeks

Learner p q r s t u v w x

% ret. 100 0 100 0 100 80 100 100 100

2
weeks
% ret. – – 100 0 100 100 100 100 100
6
weeks

In terms of retention of the new words, Table 2 gives the

retention rates for Groups 1 and 2. In Group 1 (f–x) learners j, l,
m, n, p, q were unable to be tested at six weeks owing to attrition.
The mean retention rate was 65 per cent after two weeks and 100
per cent after six weeks. However, with such a small number of
scores and with such extremes of scores the mean really tells us
very little. Perhaps a more useful indication of the amount of
retention can be seen by looking at the mode of the scores. This
was 100 per cent for both testing periods.
The mean rate of retention for Group 2 (a–e) was 78 per cent.
However, with an even smaller sample of learners than Group 1,
it may be more informative to merely observe that the mode of
retention was 100 per cent.
Whether looking at means or modes in a sample of this size it
is really only useful to note that, overall, retention rates were fairly
high, indicating that words were not only being recalled
immediately after lessons but were also being retained for some
weeks afterwards. However, it should also be noted that retention
was not uniformly high. Some learners retained little or no
new vocabulary whatsoever (e.g. learner s), indicating some
idiosyncrasy in the retention of vocabulary on the part of learners.
 Toni Dobinson 197

Furthermore, looking at the results, it seems, not surprisingly,

that Group 1 may have benefited from the intermittent testing
after two weeks as their recall of words was greater at six weeks
than at two weeks.

2 Why were certain words recalled more often than others?

The transcripts of the video recordings of lessons were analysed
closely to see if any trends in events leading to noticing and recall
could be established. As with the study conducted by Slimani
(1987) certain events in the classroom interaction appeared to be
linked either positively or negatively with the recall of vocabulary
items. These events were as follows:
• learners or teachers mentioned the vocabulary item;
• learners or teachers repeated the vocabulary item;
• learners or teachers focused on the vocabulary item;
• learners or teachers were involved in conversation around the
vocabulary item.
The idea of words being focused upon was originally investigated
by Slimani (1987) and she termed it ‘topicalization’. For the
purposes of this study ‘focusing’ was defined as:
• attention explicitly directed to the word;
• elicitations made about the meaning of a word either directly
or indirectly;
• sentences given with the word missing and learners required to
complete them;
• the definition of the word given;
• explicit and implicit requests made for more information about
a word;
• the word used as an answer to an elicitation.
Table 3 shows the amount of teacher mentioning, student
mentioning, teacher repetition and student repetition of the new
words that took place in the classroom and the corresponding
percentage of learners that recalled the new words. Mentioned
words were those words that were verbally articulated by either
the teacher (TM) or the students (SM) during the lesson. Repeated
words were those words that were articulated more than once
198 Do learners learn from classroom interaction?

either by the teacher (TR) or the students (SR).

It can be seen from Table 3 that 92 per cent of all the vocabulary
items recalled had been mentioned by either the teacher, the
students or the audio tape during the lesson. All words recalled by
75–100 per cent of learners had been mentioned during the lesson,

Table 3 The number of mentions and repetitions on words frequently recalled

(by more than 30% of the learners)

Words Class Word Fraction Mentions Repetitions

recalled of sample per word per word
by 75–100% that
of learners recalled it

TM SM TR SR

A butt 5/5 1 0 2 0
cue 4/5 1 0 2 2
ogle 4/5 1 0 4 1
B pip 4/4 0 1 0 2
pest 3/4 1 0 7 0
predator 3/4 1 0 2 0
C – – – – – –
D understudy 5/5 1 0 4 0
foyer 5/5 0 1 2 1
6 2 23 6
Total 8 29
Average 1 3.62

Words Class Word Fraction Mentions Repetitions

recalled of sample per word per word
by 50–74% that
of learners recalled it

TM SM TR SR

A dowdy 3/5 1 0 5 2
trigger 3/5 1 0 4 1
merely 3/5 1 0 0 0
aggressive 3/5 1 0 5 0
hose 3/5 1 0 6 1
B axe 2/4 0 1 0 0
fin 2/4 0 0 0 0
C emerge(d) 6/10 0 1 6 0
D conjurer 3/5 1 0 5 1
6 2 31 5
Total 8 36
Average 0.89 4
 Toni Dobinson 199

Table 3 Continued

Words Class Word Fraction Mentions Repetitions

recalled of sample per word per word
by 30–49% that
of learners recalled it

TM SM TR SR

A resent 2/5 1 0 1 0
C insane 3/10 0 1 2 1
glance 3/10 1 0 0 0
D lyrics 2/5 1 0 1 0
monologue 2/5 0 0 0 0
3 1 4 1
Total 4 5
Average 0.8 1

eight out of the nine (or 89 per cent) of the words recalled by
50–74 per cent of the learners had been mentioned, and four out
of the five (or 80 per cent) of the words recalled by 30–49 per cent
of the learners had been mentioned. Of those words not mentioned
(fin and monologue) the former appeared in a reading text
provided by the teacher to the students and the latter appeared in
an exercise where students had to guess the meaning of the word
in the text given several alternatives. Feedback on this exercise was
overlooked by the teacher and so the word was never mentioned.
Table 3 also shows that 75 per cent of all the vocabulary items
recalled by learners had been repeated. Interestingly though, there
appeared to be an optimal amount of repetition that facilitated
recall. Once this amount was surpassed, repeated words seemed to
be rendered less recallable. There were 29 repetitions in total on
words recalled by 75–100 per cent of the learners (an average of
3.62 repetitions per word), 36 repetitions on words recalled by
50–74 per cent (an average of four repetitions per word) and five
repetitions on words recalled by 30–49 per cent of the learners (an
average of one repetition per word). In other words, the words that
received the most repetition were not necessarily recalled the most
often. For example, the words butt and pip were recalled by 100
per cent of the learners in the sample and yet they were only
repeated twice throughout the lesson. Overall, then, despite quite
a large degree of commonality amongst the words (i.e. those words
that were repeated were quite often recalled), there was also a
200 Do learners learn from classroom interaction?

large amount of idiosyncrasy in the results in that words that were

not repeated at all were still recalled by some learners.
If words were focused upon in the lesson, either by the teacher,
the students or the audio tape there appeared to be a link with
recall. Some words were repeated while being focused upon. The
researcher made a decision to treat these as words focused upon
and they were excluded from the repetition category.
Similarly, there appeared to be links between the number of
conversational turns taken around new words and recall of those
words. Table 4 shows the amount of focusing and turn-taking that
took place on new words and the corresponding percentage of
learners who recalled those words.
Almost all of the new words recalled by 30–100 per cent of
learners had been focused upon during the lesson. However, as
with the repetition of words, focusing on new vocabulary items
seemed to be only positively linked with recall when there was an
optimal amount. More than this amount meant that new words
were not recalled as often by the learners. For example, words
recalled by 75–100 per cent of learners had been focused upon 102
times (an average of 12.75 focuses per word). Those recalled by
50–74 per cent of learners had been focused upon 155 times (an
average of 17.22 focuses per word) and those recalled by 30–49 per
cent of learners had been focused upon 65 times (an average of 13
focuses per word).
Again there were also instances highlighting the idiosyncratic
nature of vocabulary learning for each learner. For example, the
word monologue was not focused on at all and yet was recalled by
40 per cent of the learners from that lesson and again the word
resent, only recalled by 40 per cent of the learners in that lesson,
was focused upon 46 times.
Of those words focused upon and recalled by 75–100 per cent
of learners, 37 per cent of the focus was initiated by the learners.
Of those focused upon and recalled by 50–74 per cent of the
learners, 36 per cent of focus was learner initiated and finally of
the words focused upon and recalled by 30–49 per cent of learners,
51 per cent of the focus was learner initiated. Whether or not focus
is teacher initiated or learner initiated seemed to make little
difference to recall of new vocabulary in this study, unlike the study
conducted by Slimani. If anything these results point to learner
 Toni Dobinson 201

Table 4 The number of focuses and turns taken on words frequently recalled
(by more than 30% of learners)

Words Class Word Fraction Focuses Turn-taking

recalled by of sample per word per word
75–100% that
of learners recalled it
T S T S TT ST
F F R R
F F

A butt 5/5 3 3 4 0 3 3
cue 5/5 6 8 6 7 5 25
ogle 4/5 9 7 3 0 10 8
B pip 4/4 6 4 0 0 5 8
pest 4/4 2 1 4 0 7 2
predator 3/4 2 2 1 0 4 3
C – – – – – – – –
D understudy 5/5 7 2 7 0 9 2
foyer 5/5 1 4 3 0 6 5
36 31 28 7 49 56
Total 102 105
Average 12.75 13.12
(37% SF 63% TF)

Words Class Word Fraction Focuses Turn-taking

recalled by of sample per word per word
50–74% that
of learners recalled it
T S T S TT ST
F F R R
F F

A dowdy 3/5 8 4 3 0 12 7
trigger 3/5 7 2 3 1 7 7
merely 3/5 2 4 1 0 3 4
aggressive 3/5 9 10 4 0 10 11
hose 3/5 14 8 6 2 18 12
B axe 2/4 1 4 0 0 1 4
fin 2/4 0 3 0 0 0 3
C emerge(d) 6/10 16 8 7 0 15 10
D conjurer 3/5 9 10 9 0 13 11
66 53 33 3 79 69
Total 155 148
Average 17.22 16.44
(36% SF 64% TF)
202 Do learners learn from classroom interaction?

Table 4 Continued

Words Class Word Fraction Focuses Turn-taking

recalled by of per word per word
30–49% sample
of learners that
recalled it
T S T S TT ST
F F R R
F F

A resent 2/5 15 26 4 1 13 31
C insane 3/10 1 1 2 1 3
glance 3/10 1 1 2 0 3 1
D lyrics 2/5 1 2 7 0 5 2
monologue 2/5 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 30 15 2 21 37
Total 65 58
Average 13 11.6
(51% SF 49% TF)

initiation of focus as being slightly less effective in aiding recall

than teacher-initiated focus, which is contrary to her findings.
In terms of turn-taking there were two issues. The first was
whether or not the recalled vocabulary items had been at the
centre of learner conversation or not and if this turn-taking around
the word had aided recall. The second was the necessity for
learners to be involved in the turn-taking around the new words
in order to recall them. Table 4 shows the amount of turn-taking
on new words in the lesson overall and thus addresses the first
issue.
We can see that there was a similar trend with turn-taking to
that seen with other features of classroom interaction. Words
recalled by 75–100 per cent of learners were the subject of 105
turns altogether (an average of 13.12 turns per word). Words
recalled by 50–74 per cent of the learners were the subject of 148
turns altogether (an average of 16.44 turns per word) and those
recalled by 30–49 per cent of learners were the subject of 58 turns
altogether (an average of 11.6 turns per word). It seems that too
much turn-taking again may be linked negatively with recall of new
words.
As before, results showed a large degree of idiosyncrasy in
 Toni Dobinson 203

vocabulary learning as well as commonality. The word resent was

the subject of 44 turns altogether and yet only 30–49 per cent of
learners recalled it. The word butt, on the other hand, was the
subject of only six turns and yet 75–100 per cent of learners
recalled it.
Table 5 addresses the second issue, and looks at the amount of
overt participation or turns taken in the discourse by individual
learners and the resulting number of new words that were recalled
from the lesson.
If we look at the average number of turns taken by learners who
recalled large numbers of words (10 and above) we can see that
the average was 1.1 speaking turns for each word. Learners who

Table 5 Participation in the classroom interaction and the number of new

words recalled

Learner No. of words recalled No. of turns taken in Average per word
the classroom
discourse

H 15 6
B 10 10
C 10 29 1.1
W 10 8
K 10 16
F 10 5

J 7 19
U 7 0
X 6 0
A 6 58
M 6 11 1.7
D 5 8
G 5 1
I 5 3
O 5 0
Q 5 8

E 4 19
L 4 0
R 4 11
V 4 14 2.3
N 3 1
T 3 0
P 2 21
S 1 1
204 Do learners learn from classroom interaction?

recalled average amounts of words (five and above) took on

average 1.7 speaking turns around those words and learners who
recalled small numbers of words (four or less) took 2.3 turns on
average around each word. Thus, when looking at averages, it
appears that individuals who participated the least in terms of
overt turn-taking in the discourse recalled the most new words and
conversely individuals who participated the most recalled the
fewest new words.
However, averages can easily mask trends (especially in this case
where there are a few outlying scores), so in order to check this
result we can look at learner w, for example, who recalled 10 words
from the lesson but only overtly participated in the classroom
interaction eight times (an average of 0.8 turns per word). Then
again learner p recalled only two words but overtly participated in
the classroom interaction 21 times (an average of 10.5 turns per
word). And again learner h took only six turns in the classroom
interaction and yet managed to recall 15 vocabulary items (an
average of 0.4 turns per word) while learner a took 58 turns in the
classroom interaction (an average of 9.6 turns per word) but only
recalled six new words. All of these examples support the notion
that learners’ turn-taking around new words does not necessarily
enhance recall of those words.
Overall, it was difficult to find a positive link between learners
who secured a lot of turns in the discourse and the amount of
vocabulary they recalled. It is true that some learners who did take
turns in the interaction recalled high numbers of words (learner b
for example) but some learners who did not overtly participate at
all in the classroom interaction (i.e. they took 0 turns) still managed
to recall substantial amounts of new vocabulary (learners x, u, o, l
and t). The idiosyncratic nature of the learning of new vocabulary
is thus once again portrayed by these figures.

V Discussion
1 Does classroom interaction facilitate vocabulary learning?
Overall, this study found that the vocabulary items that were
‘attended to’ as Schmidt (1990) might say, in the interaction of the
lesson were recalled and retained frequently by learners. ‘Attended
to’, in this case, meant mentioned, repeated, focused upon and had
 Toni Dobinson 205

speaking turns taken around them. This is in line with what Slimani
(1987) found in her study using Uptake Recall Charts and Uptake
Identification Probes. She says ‘Almost all of what learners claimed
to have learned had, in one way or another, been focused upon
during instruction’ (Slimani, 1989: 226). However, also in line with
the studies conducted by Slimani (1991), this study found that some
new words which received little or no attention at all in the
classroom interaction still became salient for some individuals
pointing again to the individual and idiosyncratic nature of
learning vocabulary.
Findings in this study also differed from those of Slimani with
regard to the importance of the initiator of the focus on the word.
Slimani (1991: 211) found that ‘learners benefited much more from
their peer’s rare instance of topicalization’ than from the teacher’s
topicalization. This study did not find this to be so in terms of
vocabulary recall. Greater learner initiation of focus did not lead
to greater recall of new vocabulary.
Similarly, the current study found that more than a certain
amount of interaction (in terms of attention to new words) may
well be counter-productive. After a certain optimal amount of
mentioning, repeating, focusing upon and turn-taking around each
vocabulary item was surpassed there appeared to be a negative
link with recall. This is line with the findings of Politzer (1970: 31)
who claimed that teaching techniques can stop being useful if used
beyond the ‘optimal’ range of frequency. The point is taken up by
Slimani again when she says: ‘it is possible that if the teacher’s
excessive topicalization can have a negative effect, the learners’
continual interaction and attempts at holding the floor might also
generate similar consequences’ (Slimani, 1989: 230).
In terms of overt participation in the interaction of the lesson,
it was not necessary for some learners in this study to participate
in the interaction at all in order for them to be successful in
recalling new vocabulary from the lesson. It seemed that learners
could benefit from the interaction in the lesson without necessarily
being involved in it. Covert participation in the classroom
interaction appeared as effective (and sometimes more effective)
than overt participation in classroom interaction in aiding the recall
of new vocabulary from lessons (this is not the first study to raise
such issues: Schumann and Schumann 1977, Allwright 1980 and
206 Do learners learn from classroom interaction?

Slimani 1989 also found evidence to support this notion).

One explanation for the apparent effectiveness of covert
participation might be that almost all the learners were from Asian
backgrounds. Many of such learners are reputed to have a non-
interactive or ‘passive’ approach to learning (Ballard and Clanchy,
1991; Biggs, 1990; Chalmers and Volet, 1997; Littlewood, 2000).
They have earned this reputation because they have been observed
not to initiate and participate overtly in the interaction of a lesson.
It would seem then that what Allwright (1980) has called ‘spectator
interaction’ or Schumann and Schumann (1977) ‘eavesdropping’
can be particularly effective for learners of this kind when it comes
to learning new vocabulary. Breen (1985) has further suggested
that individual achievements in lessons can often be communally
moulded, with the classroom group creating opportunities for
learning. This would seem to be the case for the learners focused
upon in this current study.
To go back to the original question then ‘Do learners learn from
classroom interaction?’ it would seem that the answer is ‘yes’ when
considering the learning of vocabulary. Optimal amounts of
mentioning, repeating, focusing upon and taking conversational
turns around vocabulary items in the course of the classroom
interaction can facilitate recall. However, the learning of
vocabulary may take place without any of the above events taking
place and just as this study highlighted the commonality of learning
opportunities in the classroom it also illustrated the idiosyncratic
nature of the learning experience. Similarly, learners do not
necessarily have to perform in the interaction in order to benefit
from it. Participation can be limited to covert participation or
‘intra-action’ and still be of benefit.

2 Does the teacher have a role to play in vocabulary learning?

This study found (as did Ellis 1995) that most vocabulary recalled
by learners had appeared somewhere in the lesson. Approximately
half of the words recalled were recalled by several learners. A lot
of these words received considerable attention during the lesson
and in many cases the teacher intended to ‘teach’ the words (they
were outlined in lesson objectives and part of the aims of teaching
materials). All of the words recalled by 30–100 per cent of learners
 Toni Dobinson 207

were identified beforehand by teachers as words that they hoped

would be acquired by their learners and activities were set up
which reflected this aim. It would seem then that in line with
Allwright’s findings (1984), learners do learn at least some of what
teachers teach and the teacher does have a role to play in the
learning of new vocabulary.
These findings, however, have to be set against the fact that over
half of the total number of new words recalled were recalled by
only one or very few learners. Of the 152 words recalled overall,
75 (49 per cent) were recalled frequently by the learners and 77
(51 per cent) were recalled by only one or few learners,
highlighting what Slimani has termed the ‘idiosyncratic’ nature of
uptake or in this case recall.
Some recalled words did not appear in the interaction of the
lesson but were recalled from materials or other sources. It seems
that learning opportunities can present themselves to students at
any time and, as Allwright (1984) suggests, each lesson is a different
lesson for each learner. Slimani (1991: 214) corroborates this idea
in her study when she says: ‘learners showed considerable
individual reaction’ to language items ‘despite the centrality of the
teaching style’.
It would be fair to conclude then that although learners can and
do learn what teachers teach they also learn simply by exposure
to language in lessons and the learning opportunities presented in
such situations.

VI Conclusions
Overall the study allows me to argue that:
• classroom interaction can have a role to play in the learning of
vocabulary. In particular, words that are mentioned, repeated,
focused upon, or at the centre of interaction by the teacher or
the students are recalled and retained. However, there may be
an optimal amount of such attention that can be paid to new
words after which learners appear to cease to recall and retain
them so effectively.
• vocabulary learning can be enhanced by the presence of
interaction but it is largely idiosyncratic in nature.
• some learners do not need to be involved in the classroom
208 Do learners learn from classroom interaction?

interaction in order to benefit from it in terms of vocabulary

learning. The presence of interaction in the lesson may be all
that is needed for some learners to notice and recall new
vocabulary. In other words, vocabulary can be learnt via covert
participation as well as overt participation in classroom
interaction.
• certain vocabulary items arising in lessons may be recalled
frequently by learners and this may conform to what the teacher
is trying to teach. However, it is just as likely that many different
vocabulary items will be recalled by learners from the same
lesson. This indicates that the teacher has a role to play in
helping learners to learn vocabulary but that vocabulary
learning opportunities may present themselves at any time to
the learner throughout the lesson. These vocabulary items may
be retained as well as those ‘taught’ by the teacher.
The current study only looked at a small cross-section of learners
from one particular educational institution and predominantly one
regional background. Future research should conduct similar
studies on larger cohorts of learners and in particular try to
ascertain whether all students can benefit from classroom
interaction or whether or not this benefit is confined to learners
from certain cultural backgrounds, educational backgrounds, age
groups and environments.

VII References
Allwright, R. 1980: Turns, topics and tasks: patterns of participation in
language teaching and learning. In Larsen-Freeman, D., editor,
Discourse analysis in second language research. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
–––– 1984: Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach? ‘The
Interaction Hypothesis’. In Singleton, D. and Little, D., editors,
Language learning in formal and informal contexts. Dublin:
IRRAAL.
Anderson, R.C. and Freebody, P. 1981: Vocabulary knowledge. In Guthrie,
J.T., editor, Comprehension and teaching: research reviews. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Ballard, B. and Clanchy, J. 1991: Teaching students from overseas: a brief
guide for lecturers and supervisors. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Biggs, J.B. 1990, July: Asian students’ approaches to learning: implications
 Toni Dobinson 209

for teaching overseas students. Keynote discussion paper, 8th

Australasian Tertiary Learning Skills and Language Conference,
Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
Breen, M.P. 1985: The social context for language learning: a neglected
situation? SSLA 7: 135–58.
Chalmers, D. and Volet, S. 1997: Common misconceptions about students
from South-East Asia studying in Australia. Higher Education
Research and Development 16(1): 87–98.
Day, R. 1984: Student participation in the ESL classroom or some
imperfections in practice. Language Learning 34(3): 63–98.
Ellis, R. 1995: Investigation of uptake in the language classroom. Paper
presented at The American Association of Applied Linguistics, Long
Beach, USA.
Littlewood, W. 2000: Do Asian students really want to listen and obey?
ELT Journal 54(1): 31–35.
Meara, P. and Jones, G. 1987: Tests of vocabulary size in English as a
foreign language. Polyglot 8(1): 1–40.
Nagy, W.E., Herman, P.A. and Anderson, R.C. 1985: Learning words from
context. Reading Research Quarterly 20: 222–53.
Nation, I.S.P. 1982: Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: a review of
research. RELC Journal 13(1): 14–33.
Politzer, R.L. 1970: Some reflections on ‘good’ and ‘bad’ language
teaching behaviours. Language Learning 20: 31–43.
Schmidt, R. 1990: The role of consciousness in second language learning.
Applied Linguistics 11: 129–58.
Schumann, F.M. and Schumann, J.H. 1977: Diary of a language learner:
an introspective study of second language learning. In Brown, H.,
Yorio, C. and Crymes, R., editors, On TESOL ’77: teaching and
learning English as a second language. Trends in research and
practice. Washington, DC: TESOL 1977.
Seliger, H. 1977: Does practice make perfect? A study of interaction
patterns and L2 competence. Language Learning 27(2): 263–75.
Slimani, A. 1987: The teaching/learning relationship: learning opportunities
and learning outcomes. An Algerian case study. Doctoral
Dissertation, Lancaster University.
–––– 1989: The role of topicalisation in classroom language learning.
System 17(2): 223–34.
–––– 1991: Evaluation of classroom interaction. In Alderson, J.C. and
Beretton, A., editors, Evaluating language education. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
210 Do learners learn from classroom interaction?

Appendix 1
VOCABULARY RESEARCH PROJECT
RETENTION TEST 1

Name:

Please tick (√) the words you know and cross (X) the words you do
not know.

1. antipupitate X
2. ambiguous √
3. menial X
4. mantel X
5. axe √
6. presoct X
7. vigilante X
8. extinct √
9. embark X
10. neglitice X
11. crouch X
12. board ??
13. meagre X
14. disintegrate X
15. edifite X
16. dweller X
 Toni Dobinson 211

Appendix 2
VOCABULARY RESEARCH PROJECT
RETENTION TEST 2

Name:

Try to match the words below on the left with their meanings on the
right. You will not be able to match all of them.

1. hammer
2. platonic (a) government or department groups
3. axe (e) (b) describes animals or birds that have
disappeared from the world
4. gasp (c) an Australian bird – pink and grey
5. pip (d) (d) the seed of a fruit like an orange
6. board (a) (e) a tool for cutting wood
7. garish
8. extinct (b)
9. concoction
10. galahs (c)