Unlocking Language Skills: Would applying the Input, Output, Interaction Theory in ESL

classrooms enhance my students’ language acquisition?

Problems in teaching and learning a new language are constantly dwelled upon English
classrooms and it is no different in mine. In crafting this essay, my insights stem from
instructing a small group of dedicated B2 level students within my personal academy. These
individuals have embarked on their English language journey under my guidance for over a
year now. Coming from a middle-class socioeconomic background, my classroom comprises
two female and three male students, fostering a dynamic and diverse learning environment.
The intimate setting of five students enables me to tailor lessons to their specific needs,
ensuring a personalized and effective learning experience. Our classes, held from Monday to
Thursday, span from 7:30 to 9:00 PM, allowing for focused engagement and interactive
sessions aimed at honing their language skills. In their experience, there are several factors that
prompt frustration while their acquiring a second language. Thus, mastering productive skills
like speaking and writing and receptive ones like listening and acquiring lexical resources
constitutes a major impediment for them due to a lack of exposure to the target language and
obstacles to find adequate practice opportunities outside the classroom. This might well hinder
their progress. A way to improve these three skills must be found. Social constructivism
emphasizes the significance of collaborative learning and engagement through interaction. For
that reason, proposing the Input, Output, Interaction theory in my classroom would indeed
trigger their interest in enhancing these heavily-used skills.

It is said that constructivism aligns perfectly with the IOI theory as both emphasize the
importance of social interaction and meaningful collaborative learning. Ergo, the IOI theory
holds validity for application in my classroom scenario. When examining the breakdown of this
theory, Krashen (Krashen, 2003, as cited in Lessard-Clouston, 2018) “input hypothesis claims
that comprehending messages is the only way language is acquired” (p.14). I am pondering the
implications of applying the input hypothesis inside my classroom since one of my students
considered speaking crucial and as she encountered difficulties while learning English because
of a negative experience with a teacher she would benefit from the concept of this theory.
Renandya (Renandya, 2013, as cited in Lessard-Clouston, 2018) concisely points out that
English students from a second language (ESL) are keen on developing the linguistic system of
English, e.g., phonology, syntax, discourse to aid their interaction 8 (p.13). Hence, my students
will require the utilization of comprehensible input, which is one of the aspects of this theory.
This involves gathering authentic material like podcasts, videos or real-life street surveys
slightly beyond their level of proficiency but within their grasp of English language. For
example, we can opt for a podcast to improve their listening skills. To facilitate this, I can
provide background information about the podcast focusing on a thought-provoking topic such
as the relationship between humans and technology. Subsequently, I would pre-teach key
vocabulary, engage students in active listening and expose them to this input inside the
classroom. Undertaking this process in the classroom would aim to actively promote their
critical thinking and encourage interaction centered around the topic. However, the
shortcomings would be outside the classroom. In fact, they will be exposed to input but it
might not have a profound impact on their learning as it will go unnoticed without considering
it something acquirable as they accurately displayed during the interviews.

Regarding the following aspect of this theory, output contemplates various concepts. As Yet
VanPatten (VanPatten,2003 as cited in Lessard-Clouston, 2018) “output in Second Language
acquisition means language that has a communicative purpose” (p.15). And indeed, it is not far
from the truth, when I foster communication in class, I expect my students to interact with me
or with their peers. They do it evidently, nonetheless, some just produce utterances rather
than longer stretches of speech. A reason for this might be that they do not know how to
express their thoughts as they are cautiously thinking if they are using grammar, vocabulary,
pronunciation correctly. In the end, they are actively or passively producing language. Lessard-
Clouston (Lessard-Clouston, 2018) concludes that output “involves speech or writing that
requires increased depth of processing…” (p.18). so, how can we promote output inside the
classroom? I though over the possibilities, one might be to engage them in survey activities,
this will ultimately oblige them to use language. Using the same topic from input, they can
create a questionnaire centered on technological impact on relationships, then ask these
questions to people on the class or go beyond that, maybe ask questions to teachers or staff.
After collection and analysis of the data acquired, they can present their results in groups and
reflect together on the thoughts of the people surveyed. Collaborative tasking, application of
learning in real-life interactions are in the right place for output. And all this should be
accompanied with interaction, which is according to Lessard and Clouston (Lessard and
Clouston, 2018) “the opportunity for modified input and output through the negotiation of
meaning” (p.19). Taking this into account, what would be the way to help them with
interaction. How can we make them truly negotiate in interaction? I think that we should
integrate this aspect in input or output. To illustrate this, using the same survey task in output,
when my students face language barriers or misunderstanding in the questions or answers to
the survey, prompting them to use negotiation might help them understand that notion. In the
task, they should use expressions to ask for clarification, e.g.: “Could you explain that please”?
Confirm understanding e.g. “Just to make sure, you mean...” or paraphrase to clarify e.g. “Do
you mean that technology has affected your relationship? After the surveys, reflective
discussions must be held and they will think about the moment in which they had to use
negotiation and discuss its effectiveness. Promoting this inside the classroom can make them
aware of the instances of the language as well as the ability to recognize language that might
be unclear or misunderstood.

All of the aspects of the theory might increase my students’ awareness of using a second
language. However, there are limitations to the application of this theory. As a matter of fact,
when I interviewed my students, they claimed to have trouble with listening, particularly,
understanding native speakers or dealing with specific writing tasks. The restrictive access to
exchanges outside the classroom with native speakers makes the output and the interaction of
a second language disappointingly little. It is generally said that the only way to learn a second
language appropriately is if it is taught by a native speaker or if you talk to them in terms of
practice which to be honest it is not necessarily true. Lowen (Lowen 2015, as cited in Lessard-
Clouston,2018), summarizes “There are multiple individual studies, as well as meta-analyses
that have found interaction in the classroom to be beneficial for L2 development” (p.19). So,
to get this straight, only by establishing a way to create an environment in which students feel
completely immersed, the benefits of acquiring a language will be shown. Therefore, exposure
to second language must be ensured outside the classroom. Despite all this, at no point are
students told how to make use of the unlimited resources our digitalized world has to offer.
They have a passive role in the immersion of learning a second language. Little do students
know how to expose themselves when the access is limited. For instance, my students are just
exposed to the things they already undertake and this is not intended to belittle the work they
do, however, the way it is used to improve their skills might be limited. Nevertheless, there are
many other ways to expose them exponentially, virtual immersion is one of them. It could be
done through online language exchange platforms such as Hellotalk or Tandem, where they can
connect with virtually with native speakers. Multimedia and Technology might also be a good
option for them to engage, making sure we always provide comprehension tasks related to the
content. Inside the classroom, organizations of cultural events and celebrations of the target
language are intended to expose them as well, this could include music, cultural food
presentations.

Applying this theory both inside and outside my classroom poses a tremendous challenge for
me as a teacher and my students. Without a doubt, many teachers would agree with me that
the planification of our lessons would drastically change when applying theories of learning
that involves more interaction, input and output. However, in my case this would not enact a
battle in the planning of my lessons. My role as a teacher of this level should be to provide
them with individualized approaches, practice opportunities, and supportive environments to
overcome challenges and fostering English proficiency. Creating spaces where they get as much
exposure as possible, guaranteeing their learning and above all testifying their results is
something that should not be consigned to oblivion. Luckily, all my students would have the
experience of being part of applicable theories that somehow would have a profound impact
on their learning and therefore not literally, coerce production and amelioration from them.

References:

Krashen, S. (2003). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. In M. Lessard-

Clouston (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition Applied to English Teaching. (pp.11-23). TESOL
Press.

Lessard-Clouston, M. (2018). Second Language Acquisition Applied to English Teaching. (pp.11-

23). TESOL Press.

Lowen, S. (2015). The benefits of interaction in language learning. In M. Lessard-Clouston (Ed.),

Second Language Acquisition Applied to English Teaching. (pp.11-23). TESOL Press.

Renandya, W. A. (2013). Developing L2 students' linguistic system in English. In M. Lessard-

Clouston (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition Applied to English Teaching. (pp.11-23). TESOL
Press.

VanPatten, B. (2003). Second language acquisition: Input, output, and interaction. In M.

Lessard-Clouston (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition Applied to English Teaching. (pp.11-23).
TESOL Press.

Access to scripted interviews, analysis and comment:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SKQXmdNizBR9n3bhBJ0OMdqZqDq3cZLv?
usp=drive_link